Starting as we mean to go on: Technology-rich Inquiry Based Learning in the first undergraduate year

Starting as we mean to go on: Technology-rich Inquiry Based Learning in

the first undergraduate year

Philippa Levy &

Sheila Webber

Information School

University of Sheffield

November 2010

Opening

• We will focus on perspective of academics, as

reflected in research articles about IBL

– Librarians as educators do not feature much in these!

• Also examples from Sheffield University

• Not necessarily new types of technology, but

thinking of their use in an IBL context (e.g. valuing

the output of students‟ learning)

What is IBL?

• A cluster of related pedagogies in which student

inquiry or research drives the experience of learning

and building knowledge

‘inquiry n: the action of seeking, especially (now always) for

truth, knowledge or information concerning something;

search, research, investigation, examination’ (COD)

• investigate questions & problems that often are

open-ended

• apply the principles and practices of scholarship or

research in their academic or professional area

• explore a knowledge-base actively, critically and

creatively

• participate in building new meaning and knowledge

Designed around students engaging in

a process of inquiry: they …

• encourages peer-to-peer collaboration, and partnership

(students and staff)

• provides support for inquiry in the form of activities,

assessments, resources, facilitation, environments

• provides guidance on relevant inquiry methods, including

how to frame good questions

• provides support for development of information literacy,

critical thinking, self-reflection and other capabilities

• creates opportunities for students to share the results of

their inquiries with peers and others

IBL …

students/tutors establish question,

problem, theme

students draw on their existing knowledge and, with support, decide on

the direction and methods of their inquiry

students explore evidence, interrogate

texts, conduct experiments etc, interacting with

information via a range of sources

students reflect, discuss, critique, analyse,

conceptualise, synthesise, create, receive feedback

students communicate

and share results of

their inquiry

7

Modes of IBL

Inquiry for Learning

– „Identifying‟: Students explore a knowledge-base

actively in response to questions, problems, scenarios

or lines of inquiry framed by teachers (“what is the

existing answer/response to this question?”)

– „Pursuing‟: Students explore a knowledge-base

actively by pursuing their own questions, problems,

scenarios or lines of inquiry (“what is the existing

answer/response to my question?”)

8

Inquiry for Knowledge Building

– „Producing‟: Students explore open questions, problems,

scenarios or lines of inquiry, framed by teachers or others

such as an external „client‟, in interaction with a knowledge-

base (“how can I answer this open question?”)

– „Authoring‟: Students explore their own open questions,

problems, scenarios or lines of inquiry, in interaction with a

knowledge-base (“how can I answer my open question?”)

9

The student experience – themes from

the literature

• From the wider literature (see Healey and Jenkins 2009):

– improved subject learning and grades

– improved retention at university

– intellectual and personal development (epistemological

change, increases in confidence)

– more independent thinking and working

– changed conceptions of learning and teaching

– better collegial relationships

10

The student experience – themes from

the literature

• From CILASS (Levy & Petrulis 2012)

– approaches that allow students to formulate their own questions and lines of inquiry can be especially powerful

– IBL with a knowledge-building orientation may powerfully support development of academic/professional identity, personal epistemology, self-belief

11

Some key challenges

• Information anxiety and skills

• Inquiry-framing

• Direction-setting

• Peer collaboration

• Lack of self-belief (or converse!)

• Limiting beliefs about knowledge and learning

13

Inquiring students

and Web 2.0

• Owning and directing their experience

• Participating, collaborating, social networking

• Producing and co-creating -generating, repurposing and sharing content

• Accessing multiple sources

• Using a wide variety of tools and environments

• Creating personal learning networks and environments

Source: www.deitel.com

14

Planning IBL

StudentsLearning outcomesInquiry themeInquiry processTasksAssessmentsInformationSpacesTechnologiesTutoringPeer-to-peerDissemination

From: The Sheffield Companion to IBL

Selected IBL elements: Level 1

BSc Information Management

Sheila Webber, 2010

Problem: Is the “Google

gen” really info illiterate?

(Group work/Presentation)

Learning about interviewing, data

analysis & research ethicsSemester 1

Data collection and

analysis: interview on

critical incident

E-portfolio on IL

Identify research question,

carry out mini research

project, group work

Bibliography on IM topic Report on IM

Support /

supervision/

guests

Semester 2

Steps in

research

process

exercise

Poster

session &

report

E-portfolio

NB does not cover all elements in teaching, learning & assessment!

W

e

e

k

1

W

e

e

k

1

2

Cox et al

(2008)

Webber

(2010)

Use of key technologies

• WebCT: repository for knowledge base,

interim store for knowledge creation,

crude research tool (discussion board),

crude tool for research project

management

• Second Life: site for pursuing new

questions, stimulus to question their own

conceptions, object of research, starting

to be repository for knowledge base

• Web: site(s) of exisiting knowledge; tools

for collecting data (e.g. surveymonkey)

• Facebook: (likely) informal tool for project management, host for survey instruments, object of research

• Mobile phones & IM

“Initially we simply handed out phone numbers and communicated via text messaging, with some use of instant messaging conversations…” (student blog 2008, talking about working on their assessed mini-research project)

Sheila Webber, 2010

Short lecture and

handout about

interviewingPractice interviews

in triads (interviewer,

interviewee, observer)

Practice interviews

in triads in SL

Research

interviews

in SL

WebCT

module

Revised

interview

schedule

Lecture, exercises,

readings on

information behaviour,

data collection, ethics

Individual feedback

/communication: email,

F2F, SL .

FAQs etc

Student‟s

Assignment

Assignment

briefing

Email, IM etc used to

communicate with interviewees

Handouts

Discussions

Presentations

Sheila Webber, 2010

Individual mindmapGroup mindmap,

presented and

discussed in class

CopycamPhotographed & uploaded to WebCT

Copycam

WebCT aka

“MOLE”

20

Technology-rich IBL – what does the

literature say?

Identifying existing knowledge base• Digital libraries

• Webquests

• Web 2.0 resources

• Educator aggregating resources

– Charlevoix et al (2009): videos, animations, podcasts etc. in VLE to support “severe weather” scenario

• Librarians structuring & filtering resources, adding functionality which makes them suitable for inquiry

• Advice/ support in aggregating material (mostly not “official” reusable learning objects)

Recommendations from research

(Charlevoix et al)

• Integrate f2f and online elements

• Use f2f to build online activities completed out of

class

• Use existing multimedia related to discipline to the

maximum

• Encourage students to see links between online

and f2f

Key issue

• Balance between:

– limiting resources student interacts with, so not too

demanding; and

– developing information literacy skills.

• Evidence that, early on, academics tend to shield

students from complexity of information

environment; creating boundaries

Transition and inquiry

“Approaches to supporting transition are linked to improving preparedness for HE, easing integration into the university environment - both academically and socially - and encouraging the development of the independent learner.” (Whittaker, 2008: 3)

“Curriculum design should have a greater focus on the interactive dimensions of learning and the social experience of students, for example working in small groups and more enquiry-based and project work. It should also provide a more challenging learning experience to encourage greater engagement and the development of independent learning and high-level critical skills.” (Whittaker, 2008: 8).

Collaboration in inquiry

• Students, or staff and students, collaborating to create resources– Drafting a wikipedia entry

– Co-creating a diigo.com resourse in a 1st year history class: tagging & describing resources; stickynoting; students setting questions.

• Librarians providing advice and support as part of the community– Example of participation in the discussion board of 1st year

module “Understanding Law”

“I prefer setting the questions myself, mainly because it forces us to think about the issues in different ways; with the diigo site because people are reading sources in different ways so a wider range of issues comes up.” (Student, inWood, 2009)

Structuring inquiry

Students carrying out their own inquiry,but guided by a structure

• Webquest: step by step sequence

• Learning Management Software: creating learning sequence to guide steps of inquiry

• VLE templates for educators creating IBL

Students observing “model” structure, to reflect on/ discuss in relation to their own inquiry

• Online information literacy tutorials

• 3D model of research steps in Second Life

Search and write

http://sokogskriv.no/english/

Research

steps in SL/

Project management

• Project Management software

• Computer-supported collaborative work

environments (e.g. uSpace)

• Web 2.0 tools used to support PM (e.g. blogs)

• Librarians supporting and developing learners‟ PM

skills, especially information management aspects

Technology facilitating authentic inquiry

• Environment for data collection

• Access to raw data

• Tools to manipulate and analyse data

• Librarians‟ role in information management,

intellectual property issues, data quality issues

Creation & dissemination of output

• Novel output from inquiry

• Using technology to disseminate findings

• Examples: Hypertext novels; Virtual exhibitions (web, Second Life); Videos on Youtube; Online journals

• Librarians‟ support in using technologies to create/disseminate

• Librarians‟ inclusion of student generated material in the library

communicating andauthoring

School of Law Information School

fromlevel 1

inquiry

collaboratories

Physical spaces for blended IBL

Concluding points

• Technologies may integrate or fragment learning

– Physical spaces may inhibit or enable this

– Need to make link between f2f and online activities

• Support in using technology vital: may overestimate

learners‟ confidence & skill, f2f as well as online

• Think of students as researchers from level 1: not just

when postgrads

• Need to involve information literacy themes and

librarians as educators in IBL enhancement initiatives

Levy & Webber, 2010

Sheila Webber

s.webber@shef.ac.uk

Twitter & SL: Sheila Yoshikawa

http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/

http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/

Philippa Levy

p.levy@shef.ac.uk

Pictures/ photos: Sheila Webber & CILASS

References• Bovill, C., Morss, K., Bulley, C. (2008) Quality Enhancement Themes: The First

Year Experience: Curriculum design for the first year. Glasgow: QAA Scotland. (10) http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/firstyear/Curriculum_Design_final_report.pdf

• Centre for Inquiry Based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences. (2008) Inquiry-based Learning: a conceptual framework. Sheffield: CILASS. http://www.shef.ac.uk/cilass/resources

• Charlevoix, D.J. et al. Design and implementation of inquiry-based, technology-rich learning activities in a large enrolment blended learning course. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(3) 15-18.

• Cox, A. et al. (2008) “Inquiry-based learning in the first-year Information Management curriculum.” Italics, 7 (1), 3-21

• Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate research and Enquiry. York: Higher Education Academy.

• Khan, P. and O´Rourke, K. (2005). “Understanding Enquiry-based Learning”, In: Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (eds), Handbook of Enquiry and Problem Based Learning. Galway: CELT.

• Levy, P. & Nibbs, A. (in progress). Critical review and synthesis of the literature on technology-rich inquiry-based learning. Report to the Higher Education Academy.

References• Levy, P. & Nibbs, A. (in progress). Critical review and synthesis of the literature on

technology-rich inquiry-based learning. Report to the Higher Education Academy.• Levy, P. & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year students experience inquiry and

research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1).

• Webber, S. (2010) “Investigating modes of student inquiry in Second Life as part of a blended approach.” International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1 (3), 55-70.

• Whittaker, R. (2008) Quality Enhancement Themes: The First Year Experience: Transition to and during the first year. Glasgow: QAA Scotland

• Wood, J. (2009) “A question of taste.” Presented at the Learning Through Enquiry Alliance Conference 2009. http://www.slideshare.net/cilass.slideshare/a-question-of-taste-ltea-conference-2009-university-of-reading-jamie-wood

• Yorke, M. and Longdon, B. (2008) The first-year experience of higher education in the UK: final report. York: HEA.http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/publications/FYEFinalReport.pdf

38

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ibl

for the ‘Sheffield Companion’

and other follow-up resources