1 / 40

Innovating Information Literacy Instruction: Listening to the Voices of Below-Proficient Students

Innovating Information Literacy Instruction: Listening to the Voices of Below-Proficient Students. Don Latham & Melissa Gross School of Library & Information Studies. Overview. Background Attaining Information Literacy Project Theoretical interests Research problem & design

Download Presentation

Innovating Information Literacy Instruction: Listening to the Voices of Below-Proficient Students

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Innovating Information Literacy Instruction: Listening to the Voices of Below-Proficient Students Don Latham & Melissa Gross School of Library & Information Studies

  2. Overview • Background • Attaining Information Literacy Project • Theoretical interests • Research problem & design • Conceptions of below-proficient students • Students’ preferences for instruction • Instructional intervention

  3. Background • Information literacy (IL) is considered an important skill set: • Information Power (AASL/AECT, 1998) & Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (AASL, 2007) • IL Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL, 2000) • IL appears in the standards of many college accrediting agencies (Foster, 2007; Saunders, 2007) • Yet research indicates that students often come to college with below-proficient IL skill levels (Foster, 2006; Gross 2005; Gross & Latham, 2007; Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2005).

  4. Background (cont.) • Community colleges face particular challenges: • Because of open admissions policies, community college students come from a wide range of backgrounds in terms of academic preparation. • Approximately 50% are the first in their families to attend college (Boswell & Wilson, 2004). • Over 40% enroll in remedial education courses (Boswell & Wilson, 2004). • Most community colleges experience low rates of retention and transfer (Jacobson, 2005).

  5. Attaining Information Literacy Project • Three-year National Leadership Research Grant, funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) • Focuses on first-year students at two Florida community colleges • Goals: • To identify the characteristics of students with below-proficient IL skills • To develop an effective intervention (i.e., instruction) for those students

  6. Theoretical Interests • Dunning-Kruger Effect (Kruger &Dunning, 1999) • Miscalibration between self-views and ability in subjects who test as incompetent in a domain • Replication of these studies in the domain of IL demonstrates same miscalibration (Gross & Latham, 2007) • Imposed query model (Gross, 1995) • Relational view of information literacy (Bruce, 1997)

  7. Research Problem • Is the miscalibration between self-views and ability demonstrated among below proficient students the result of a lack of metacognitive skills as Kruger and Dunning (1999) suggest? OR • Is the perceived miscalibration a result of differing views of what information literacy is?

  8. Why Do We Care? • Individuals who think they have skills that they really don’t • Are unlikely to seek help or remediation for these skills • Are unlikely to recognize this skill set in others (librarians) • Are handicapped in their ability to find, evaluate, and use information effectively • Understanding below-proficient individuals will • Allow for the development of efficacious programs, services, and educational interventions • Inform research, theory, and educational policy

  9. Research Design • 387 students were recruited to take the Information Literacy Test (ILT), a computer-based, multiple-choice test developed at James Madison University (JMU, n.d.). • 57 students with below-proficient IL skills participated in semi-structured interviews about their information-seeking experiences and their perceptions of IL. • 64 students with below-proficient IL skills participated in six focus groups about their information-seeking experiences, their perceptions of IL, and their preferences for learning new skills and knowledge. • Criteria for the intervention were developed. • The intervention was piloted. • It will be delivered in early spring 2011 at the two community colleges. There will be experimental and control groups at both sites.

  10. Demographics • First-year community college students • Most were 18-20 years old • Wide variety of majors represented • Diverse group in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender

  11. Students’ Conceptions of Information, Information Seeking, & Information Literacy Results from interviews

  12. Student Perceptions of Information

  13. Finding Information Conception • Think of information as a product, not a process. • Believe there is not much to know regarding how to find, evaluate, and use information. • Claim that people learn how to find information on their own (mainly self-taught). • Display a lot of confidence in their information-seeking skills. • Believe that evaluation of ability should be at the individual level; information is subjective, not objective. • There is no differentiation between imposed and self-generated information seeking in this category.

  14. Finding Information Conception (cont.) • Can not identify an information skill they wished to learn or improve. • Cite instructors (rather than librarians) as being helpful in learning academic databases. • Are uncertain about their library skills, but don’t think these are skills they need. • Those who had library time in K-12 report this took place in elementary school and this time was spent on Accelerated Reader, not library skills.

  15. Information Technology Conception • Technology is seen as the primary way to engage with information. • Internet is a primary source for both self-generated and imposed situations. • Information seeking begins with a search engine, unless academic resources or library use are required by the instructor. • Students prefer visual materials.

  16. Information Technology ConceptionImposed vs. Self-Generated Imposed, constrained Self-Generated, open Information seeking is self-directed Need or curiosity driven Variety of source types possible Fewer sources consulted Fewer time constraints Information use less “product” oriented • Information seeking is structured by assignment • Limitation of topic • Types of resources • Number of resources • Due dates • Information use product oriented

  17. Information People Conception • People are seen as a primary way to engage with information • People as information sources can serve as • informants, • agents, or • trainers • People are seen as important information sources for both imposed and self-generated information seeking

  18. Information People Conception (cont.) • Below proficient students mainly use people as informants. • Below proficient students are less interested in being the “ one who knows.” • Below proficient students spend less time online and with computers than we expected.

  19. Information Quality Conception • Information quality is considered important, but not a big concern. • Information is seen as “good enough.” • The need for information quality varies with the information need.

  20. Information Quality ConceptionImposed vs. Self-Generated Imposed, constrained Self-Generated, open Free to decide whether to worry about information quality or not Information accepted at face value Opinion and experience are valued, not just facts • Quality of information considered • Based on teacher expectations • Need to earn best possible grade • Academic resources are already vetted

  21. Summary of Characteristics • IL is not viewed as an objective set of skills. • Technology and people are the primary ways students engage with information. • Students know information quality is an issue, but are not greatly concerned about the consequences of “bad” information. • Imposed and self-generated contexts are seen as presenting different conditions for finding, evaluating, and using information. • Students are confident about their information skills.

  22. Students’ Preferences for Instruction Results from focus groups

  23. Perceptions of Effective Instruction • Teaching techniques • Opportunity to practice new skills (29.2%) • Demonstration (16.9%) • Real-life examples (13.8%) • Visual aids (13.8%) • Handouts (9.2%) • Interaction (13.8%) • Opportunity to ask questions (6.2%) • Group work (6.2%)

  24. Perceptions of Effective Instruction (cont.) • Instructor personality • Sense of humor (7.7%) • Enthusiasm for the material (6.2%) • Caring attitude (3.1%) • Respect for student opinion (3.1%) • Willingness to help (3.1%)

  25. Preferences for Ways of Learning New Material • Small class (40.0%) • Personal tutorial (12.9%) • Combination of small class & personal tutorial (23.1%) • Online instruction (9.2%)

  26. Perceptions of What Would Motivate Students To Attend IL Instruction • If they needed the skills (15.4%) • If it was required (4.6%) • If it offered rewards • Food (7.7%) • College credit (7.7%) • If the class offered personal benefit (4.6%)

  27. Perceptions of Motivation To Attend (cont.) • If instructor had a good reputation (10.8%) • If the class was known as a fun class (6.2%) • If the class was relatively short (6.2%) • If it was held at different times (4.6%) • If it held in different locations (4.6%)

  28. Summary of Preferences • Students like small classes, group work, and opportunities to practice. • How can librarians design learning experiences that employ these various strategies? • They don’t like lecture or online instruction. • Have librarians, perhaps, made incorrect assumptions about students’ affinity for technology? • They need some sort of motivation to attend IL instruction. • How can librarians work with faculty and administrators to provide the incentives students need?

  29. Instructional Intervention Listening to the voices of below-proficient students

  30. Using an Evidence-Based Approach • Objective measure of information literacy skills—using the ILT; we know we’ve identified below-proficient students. • Based on data gathered from interviews and focus groups with below-proficient students. • Reality based • Most librarians are given the “one-shot” workshop with which to work. • Can’t do everything in one hour. • Every situation is a bit different; need for flexibility.

  31. Focusing on Students’ Perceptions & Conceptions • Students greatly over-estimate their IL skill levels. • They don’t see IL as a discrete set of skills. • They are more product than process focused. • They prefer the Internet & people as sources.

  32. Questioning Assumptions about “Millennials” &Their Abilities • Students have an expectation that they (and people of their generation) are good at this. • Students’ ILT scores suggest that many of them lack IL proficiency. • Students do prefer Internet sources, but many report spending less time online than we might think (especially students in rural areas). • They find databases challenging. • They express a distaste for online instruction.

  33. Developing Instruction That Is Student Centered Students prefer: • Face-to-face instruction • Demonstration • Opportunity for hands-on practice • Opportunity to learn from/with other students • Feedback • Support materials (such as handouts)

  34. Challenges in IL Instruction • Motivation • Students think they already have these skills. • They may not see the wider application of these skills to their lives. • They may see these skills as related only to a particular assignment in a particular class (imposed). • Time • Typically, librarians have only one hour. • You can’t cover everything in a single session—yet you may not get another chance!

  35. Goals for Instruction in AIL Project • Change students’ conception of skills required to find, evaluate, and use information. • Change their conception of personal ability to find, evaluate, and use information. • Teach one skill that they can readily use that will improve both self-generated and imposed task outcomes.

  36. Key Features of Instructional Intervention • Focused on self-generated information seeking, rather than imposed. • Students work in pairs (in a computer lab, two students per computer). • Focused on a limited set of skills/activities: • Analyzing the topic • Searching for information • Evaluating information

  37. Key Features (cont.) • Opportunity for students to share results—with one another and the instructor—and to get feedback. • Handout & online supporting materials available. • Opportunity for students to self-assess before and after instruction.

  38. Looking Ahead • Instructional intervention will be delivered in the spring. • Evaluation will occur after that. • Future project (?) • Develop additional instructional modules. • Train the trainers across the state (college & high school librarians). • Follow-up training with site visits and interviews.

  39. Acknowledgements We would like to thank: • IMLS for providing funding for the project. • Our two community college partners, and especially the librarians who are working with us on the project. • Our graduate research assistants: William Woodley, Debi Carruth, and Meredith Mills.

  40. Thank You • Questions? Comments? • Contact us: Don Latham Melissa Gross dlatham@fsu.edumgross@fsu.edu • AIL Project website: http://www.attaininfolit.org

More Related