The New Framework for Information Literacy : Directions for the Future

Sharon Mader, ACRL IL Program Officer

Ann Campion Riley, ACRL Vice-president/President-elect

Fargo, North Dakota

April 27, 2015

From Standards to Framework Began with regular five year ACRL standards review Standards for IL had been in place since 1999 This time the committee recommended substantial change ACRL Board charged a task force Task force held meetings, forums, webinars etc. over several

years; made revisions based on feedback Framework presented to ACRL at ALA Midwinter Meeting in

Chicago, January 2015 ACRL Board “filed” it; parliamentary action to allow

additions and changes Previous standards still on ACRL website

Forces for Change: The Environmental Context

Higher education & the information ecosystem

Collaboration

Students as creators and participants in research & scholarship

The Personal & Professional Context

What has led us to this point?The evolution of information literacy

Defining ourselves as educators and collaborators

“Under conditions of complex, nonlinear evolution, we need more slow knowing.”

Contrasts

“We fear both ambiguity and complexity … because we still focus on the parts, rather than the whole system.

Where are we now?The frames

Authority is Contextual and ConstructedInformation Creation as a ProcessInformation has ValueResearch as InquiryScholarship as ConversationSearching as Strategic Exploration

What is new & compelling here?

Takes librarians to the heart of teaching and learning

Creates a common conversation Includes affective dimensions and habits of

mindDefines students as creators not just consumersReflects the way research is really doneEncourages self-reflection & self-knowledgeLives in the local contextBrings students into the dialogueShines light on the ‘stuck places’Leads to instructional design for understanding

Creates a common conversation

Topics that take us beyond technique and into the fundamental issues of teaching…

Includes affective dimensions

“The bibliographic paradigm is based on certainty and order, whereas the user’s constructive process is characterized by uncertainty and confusion.”

From the perspective of the student

1. The information technology conception

2. The information sources conception

3. The information process conception

4. The information control conception

5. The knowledge construction conception

6. The knowledge extension conception

7. The wisdom conception

Information Literacy as it is experienced...

“Within this framework, teaching and learning information literacy would stress not skills acquisition but the growth of learners in coming to understand and experience information literacy in these different ways.”

How research is really done

Nancy Fried FosterIthaka S+R Issue Brief, November 13, 2014

The Convergence

IL SC

Backwards design to uncover enduring understandings

Step 1: Identify desired results.

Step 2: Determine acceptable evidence to demonstrate results.

Step 3: Plan learning experiences and instruction.

In learning, questions come before answers…

Framework for information literacy for higher education

Metaliteracy

Threshold Concepts

“…an overarching set of abilities in which students are both consumers and creators of information in multiple formats.”

BehavioralAffectiveCognitiveMetacognitive

But what are threshold concepts?

Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge:Linkages to Ways of thinking and practicing

within the disciplines

Jan Meyer and Ray LandEnhancing teaching-learning environments in

undergraduate courses (the ETL Project, University of Edinburgh)

Occasional Report 4, May 2003

Threshold Concept Characteristics

TransformativeIrreversibleIntegrativeBoundedTroublesome

What are the stumbling blocks for students on the scholarly

path?

Threshold concept research:Transactional curriculum inquiry research questions

1. What do academics consider to be fundamental to a grasp of their subject?

2. What do students find difficult to grasp?

3. What curriculum design interventions can support mastery of these difficulties?

Cousin, G. (2009). Researching Learning in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.

Threshold concept research findings: Transactional curriculum inquiryThe dialogue amongst faculty, librarians, and students is essential in the process of developing the threshold concept framework.

The purpose of the threshold concepts is to improve the learning experience of students.

Threshold concept research provides curriculum design guidelines

1. Jewels in the curriculum2. Listening for understanding3. A holding environment for the toleration of

confusion and uncertainty4. Recursiveness and excursiveness5. The importance of engagement6. Take account of variation in where students

start out

Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts, Planet , 17, 4-5.

Unpacking the Framework

IL Threshold Concepts

Knowledge practices (abilities)

Dispositions

The Framework Threshold Concepts

Scholarship is a ConversationResearch as InquiryAuthority is Contextual and ConstructedFormat as a ProcessSearching as Exploration Information has Value

Applying a frame STEM – Undergraduate research

Frame: Scholarship as a conversation

Knowledge practice: Contribute to scholarly conversation at an appropriate level

Disposition: See themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than only consumers of it

Questions on learning lead to outcomes

Frame: Scholarship as ConversationCommunities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of varied perspectives and interpretations.

Example questions: Can learners contribute to scholarly conversation at an appropriate level? Do learners see themselves a contributors to scholarship rather than only

consumers?

Frame: Searching as Strategic ExplorationSearching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.

Example questions: Can learners utilize divergent and convergent thinking appropriately when searching? Do learners understand that first attempts at searching do not always produce

adequate results?

From the Framework FAQ’s(July 2014)

Threshold concepts present an avenue to broaden our practice from focusing on skills and indicators to focusing on the development and exchange of knowledge within scholarship, professional discourse, and the larger society.

A new companion

Standards worldACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education

ACRL Standards for Information Literacy in Higher Education

ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education

AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner

Learning Standards and Common Core State Standards Crosswalk (ala.org/aasl)

A Dear John Letter to the Standards [for IL]

I know things won’t be perfect with the Framework, either.  I know things won’t change overnight.  But I also know that things will be a lot better, because the Framework inspires me.  It’s been a really long time since I was inspired by you, Standards.  Most of all, the Framework gives me language to express the potential for information literacy instruction to subject faculty, administrators, and my fellow librarians–language I hope will help me make a positive, large-scale impact on student learning throughout my career.Lauren Wallishttps://laurenwallis.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/a-dear-john-letter-to-the-standards/auren Wallis, posted Feb. 5, 2015

Librarians-true academic partners

The Framework“The intent of the framework is to encourage conversations among a broad group of stakeholders who will craft an IL program that meets the needs of their institution.

The Standards for Libraries in HEDesigned to guide academic libraries in advancing and sustaining their role as partners in educating students, achieving their institutions’ missions, & positioning libraries as leaders in assessment and continuous improvement on their campuses.

Structure of the Standards for Libraries

9 Principles, including:The Educational Role of the Library

Library-centered Performance Indicators for each Principle – expectations of what all libraries do.

Locally developed user-centered outcomes that provide evidence of the impact of the library

The Framework opens the way for librarians, faculty, and other institutional partners

to redesign instruction sessions, assignments, courses, and even curricula;

to connect information literacy with student success initiatives;

to collaborate on pedagogical research and involve students themselves in that research;

and to create wider conversations about student learning, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the assessment of learning on local campuses and beyond.

One example:

From Moriana Garcia, Natural Sciences Liaison Librarian, Denison University, Ohio Created a 90 minute-long faculty workshop in

September/2014, “A Roadmap to Better Class Assignments: Helping Students Understand the New Information Ecosystem”.

Participants brought an assignment based on research or IL that they wanted to improve. Worked in small groups to incorporate the new threshold concepts and to create new learning objectives.

One result: a shift in professors’ perceptions: “Information literacy was not the library’s sole responsibility anymore. For them, it became a common project”

Another example from Nicole Pagowsky, Arizona State University

Developed “big questions” for the frames:

Frame 1: Scholarship is a ConversationWhat barriers exist when entering into the “conversation” of scholarship?How can we gain greater understanding of topics by examining the connections and ongoing narratives between different scholarly pieces?How do our responsibilities shift when moving from just consumers of information to critics and/or creators of it?

Then learning outcomes were developed…..

Students should be able to:Recognize the metaphor of “conversation” to describe

the purpose of research Identify the contribution of specific scholarly pieces

and varying perspectives to a disciplinary knowledge “conversation”

Contribute to the scholarly conversation at an appropriate level, through the lens of becoming a creator/critic

A VisionThe Framework will be actively and creatively used in research and practice in order to transform the role of librarians as educators and of the library as an integral partner in the teaching and learning mission of higher education.

Much more work for ushttp://www.ala.org/

acrl/standards/ilframework

Virtual sandboxBank of examplesMapping of outcomesCrosswalk from

standardsMany blogs and articlesCommunity of usersOpen educational

resources of all kinds

SourcesBruce, Christine. The

Seven Faces of Information Literacy. AUSLIB Press, 1997.

Common Ground at the Nexus of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication. Edited by Stephanie Davis Kahl. ACRL, 2013

Foster, Nancy Fried. Information Literacy and Research Practice. Ithaka, 2014.

Fullan, Michael. Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Kuhlthau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning. Libraries Unlimited, 2003

Sources continuedMackey, Thomas and

Trudi Jacobson. Metaliteracy. Neal-Schuman, 2014.

Palmer, Parker. The Courage to Teach. Jossey-Bass, 1997

Wheatley, Margaret. Leadership and the New Science. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1992.

Wiggins, Grant, Jay McTighe and Allison Zmuda. Understanding By Design. ASCD, 1998.