Design collaborative/individual learning experiences based on learning principles and theories.
Because of their varied skill sets and understanding of how information and knowledge are organized and accessed, librarians in virtually all institutional settings may be invited at some time to develop and present instructional content to their various users. Instruction can run the gamut from talks given to K-8 children by school librarians, “Information Literacy” and “Digital Literacy” workshops for researchers in academic libraries, and clinically embedded information professionals found in certain special library contexts like medical organizations. Even archivists may find themselves educating their users about traditional and digital preservation methods and techniques to help them preserve their own photographs, media, documents, etc. Information Literacy / Digital Literacy programs benefit from drawing on the fields of instructional design, theory, and practice. The Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education has been very influential in the field, empowering “librarians who enjoy instruction but have not been formally trained as instructors, as a pedagogical tool for instruction creation” (Fite and Jackson, 2019). Universities tend to offer the most flexible and sophisticated formats for information and digital literacy instruction in core topics like research concepts and methods, critical thinking and active learning. This training is often delivered as integrated classroom instruction, in synchronous group or individual workshops at the library and online, and sometimes even for (usually one) credit. Regardless of format, many of these instructional programs are based on a blend of learning theories, discussed below. Because my focus while pursuing a MLIS degree has been on literacy instruction in special and academic libraries, my discussion of this competency will be biased towards those library types.
Information Literacy is defined by the ACRL as “the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (American Library Association, 2015). Koltay, in an article on Information Literacy in public, academic and special libraries, expands on this definition to include “critical thinking, meta‐cognitive and procedural knowledge used to locate information in specific domains, fields and contexts” (2011). These descriptions, which in a very general way align with others I have encountered during my MLIS studies, speak more to cultivating a mindset and cluster of principals to guide and improve one’s research and analysis skills. At a fundamental level Information Literacy is about enhancing one’s “relationship” to information (discovering it, evaluating it, transforming it, etc.), more than just becoming fluent with a collection of tools and set of concrete applications of knowledge. Ward elaborates on this point, arguing that information literacy at its best is more than just “[introducing] students to research skills that enable them to find information effectively in a variety of formats … it also [helps them] analyze, organize, and apply information in their academic, professional, and personal lives” (2006).
There are a host of learning theories which offer guidance to librarians in terms of helping them understand their students, in creating pedagogical material that joins key threshold concepts with more pragmatic details, and even in suggesting ways to best use and demonstrate related technologies and tools. As Johnson notes, “the application of a particular learning theory dictates the structure of the course and reinforces the role of librarian as educator” (2008). Gaining an understanding of the general abilities and learning habits of students may shed light on the relationship between their cognitive skills and information literacy. In other words, unsurprisingly, problematic learning characteristics will impair the development of information literacy. On the upside, cognitive ability should be gauged and described as an evolutionary process rather than a fixed quantity. Many students are more visual learners than their instructors are. Johnson suggests that a change in format to reflect this preference could be impactful: “often, a change in presentation (changing from a lecture format, or “verbal transfer,” to a hands-on approach, such as providing students with workstations in the computer lab in the library) helps create student interest and increase information retention” (2008). It’s also important to try to recognize different individual learning styles of students as they too will have a strong effect on the success of various pedagogical approaches.
BF Skinner proposed a theory of behaviorist learning that sought to understand and utilize links between environmental variables (stimuli) and responses in order to manipulate the learner’s behavior. One implication was that rewarding and reinforcing a particular behavior increased the chances it would recur. Skinner believed his research showed that in a teaching / learning context, behavioral change could be achieved with positive or negative reinforcement or “removal of reinforcement” (Johnson, 2008). Behaviorist educational psychology looks for changes in behavior – especially the acquisition of new abilities and knowledge – and tries to establish whether a specific stimulus is responsible for this change. Proving causality often results in deep insights which can be used to improve future pedagogical methods. In order to examine their similarities and differences, Johnson separately applies behavioralist and constructivist analysis (which I will not address) of an undergraduate level course that is based on the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards (rescinded in 2016) called Research Strategies. The course is meant to instill the comprehensive concepts and skills needed to effectively conduct scholarly research. Driscoll (2000) asserts that behavioralist concepts can be used to evaluate Research Strategies course if the concern is with external outcomes rather than students’ motivations. She proposes a five step program to analyze the course:
- Set behavioral goals. “What behavior is to be changed and what is the change?”
- Second, determine appropriate reinforcers, e.g.- credit and grade for completing class
- Third, select procedures for changing behavior; the students are to select a research topic, gather information, present the research, and properly cite their sources.
- Fourth, implement procedures and record results
- Fifth, evaluate progress and revise as necessary.
Johnson summarizes the results of this approach: “by practicing positive reinforcement and reinforcement removal, the librarian as educator has both presented and removed stimuli contingent upon the response of the student” (Johnson, 2008). There are other incremental steps involved in acquiring competence, and the behaviorist approach to assimilating new behaviors is informed by three main concepts: shaping, chaining, and fading. The process begins with shaping simple skills, followed by chaining various learned behaviors into more complex behaviors. The final step describes the removal of reinforcers by the instructor, affirming that the student is able to use these learned behaviors on his own and apply them to other situations (Johnson, 2008).
In rudimentary terms constructivism claims that learners construct their own knowledge as part of a constant effort to make sense of their experiences (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996). One of the primary impetuses for constructivism was opposition to a strain of behaviorism which supports a more traditional view of a learner as an empty vessel waiting to be filled up by explicit instruction from the teacher. Constructivists would uphold metacognitive “higher-order thinking” in the learning process as an imperative for improving recall and “cognitive transfer” of knowledge across domains and practices. Constructivist theorists commonly emphasize the importance of learning within peer and community groups. They advocate for learning that is enhanced by complex and challenging learning environments, social negotiation and shared responsibility (Johnson, 2008). Constructivists also emphasize the ways in which culture and context fundamentally influence learning. Koltay for example claims that “literacy is embedded in cultural situations. This requires that we take communities that produce, read, interpret texts and reach consensus about interpretation into consideration” (2011).
Cognitivism contends that learning progresses by building on prior learning, a process the entails connecting new information “blocks” to previous ones, thereby fostering better memory retention and future transfer of concepts to other blocks or domains. According to many cognitivist theorists, metacognition – defined in part by an ability to work with multiple representations of content – motivates and enables students to retain information more effectively, which in turn aids the instigation of a new learning cycle. The learner and the “black box” of their mind is viewed as a type of information processor. Knowledge can be seen as “schema” or symbol level construct of mind, and learning is seen as a change in this schema. One branch of cognitivism, a theory of multimedia learning, proposes a “multimedia principle” in which “people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone” (Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning). In practice, the learning theories that underpin information and digital literacy programs are frequently combined and assimilated into ad hoc pedagogies.
Koltay (2011) makes a strong case for adding a new category of library-based instruction to the lexicon, which he argues has succeeded Information Literacy: “Digital Literacy.” Quoting Martin (2006), Koltay offers this definition of Digital Literacy:
“[…] the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyze and synthesize digital resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions and communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process […]”
An awareness of the social dimensions of information online and in library contexts, including fluency in social media platforms and tools, is critical to an Information Literacy which is complex and broad enough to be contemporaneous with our social and technological moment. Platforms and tools – in many cases of the Web 2.0 type, which “supplements predominantly system‐oriented approaches with more user‐centered ones” (2011) – can be configured and taught to patrons via Digital Literacy programs which ultimately aim to facilitate changes in social relationships, workflows, knowledge creation and sharing, and other activities in pursuit of various desired outcomes. I think it’s worth quoting the ACRL Framework again at the end of this essay as I believe it’s relevance will be sustained through Digital Literacy and whatever comes next: “The Framework offered here is called a framework intentionally because it is based on a cluster of interconnected core concepts, with flexible options for implementation, rather than on a set of standards or learning outcomes, or any prescriptive enumeration of skills” (2015).
References
American Library Association. (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. In Guidelines, Standards, and Frameworks. Retrieved April 10 2021 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Booth, C. (2011). Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning: Instructional Literacy for Library Educators. American Library Association Editions.
Cognitive Theory Of Multimedia Learning (n.d.) In Learning Theories. Retrieved April 17 2021 from http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitive-theory-of-multimedia-learning-mayer.html
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Duffy, T. M. and Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, Edited by: Jonassen, D. H. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Fite, L. & Jackson, E.M. (2018). ACRL Framework: Integrations for Special Libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 58:8. DOI:10.1080/01930826.2018.1516951
Johnson, W. (2008). The Application of Learning Theory to Information Literacy. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14:4. DOI:10.1080/10691310802128435
Koltay, T. (2011). Information literacy for amateurs and professionals. Library Review, 60(3).
Ward, D. (2006). Revisioning information literacy for lifelong learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32: 396–402.
Evidence for Competency K
Evidence 1
During a course in Special Librarianship I attended an online workshop hosted by the ACRL on “Hidden Architectures in Information Literacy.” This led me to attempt a deeper dive into the question of Information Literacy in a Special Librarians context. I was able to find a handful of scholarly articles on this particular topic, among them Liz Fite & Esther Marie Jackson’s 2019 article “ACRL Framework: Integrations for Special Libraries,” which provides a literature review, case studies and reflection on information literacy in the special library context. Tara Murray wrote an interesting article in 2017 titled “An Unlikely Collaboration: How Academic and Special Libraries Can Help Each Other Survive” which addresses the phenomenon of special librarians looking towards academic librarians, with their extensive background in Information Literacy, as allies and trusted sources of practitioner knowledge. Fite and Jackson note the relevance of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for special librarians insofar as it justifies Information Literacy activities that “otherwise seem scattered or unjustifiable to administration.”
Josh-Simpson-INFO-231-Professional-Event-summaryEvidence 2
An in-depth essay I wrote on “research informationists” for a course on Issues in Academic Libraries (INFO 230) included a brief discussion of the ways in which some embedded librarians provide real time Information Literacy instruction in the “field.” The term informationist originated in medical organizations in the 1970s, a confluence of the clinical medical librarian and library liaison roles. The informationist position was meant to provide doctors and other clinicians with the most relevant evidence from the literature to ensure the best diagnosis and treatment of patients in real time. Informationists are now found in a variety of other organizations, usually of the business, scientific and analytical variety but also in public and school libraries among others. In addition to conducting in-depth literature searching, summarizing and reporting for colleagues, informationists are also frequently called on to provide information literacy training. In their more recent incarnations, informationists (now called “research informationists”) play key roles in e-Science, providing tightly integrated guidance, knowledge and functions which enable many aspects of rapidly advancing research methods and technologies. As far as instruction goes, research informationists often coach researchers in how to create a metadata blueprint and apply best practices to being applying it even before their projects have begun generating data, a crucial responsibility in the current state of digital curation in e-Science.
INFO-230-Josh-Simpson-White-Paper-3-