I-ACTInstitute for Applied Creative ThinkingStaffordshire University
Dr Geoff WaltonSenior Researcher
Dr Mark HepworthSenior Lecturer
Department of Information ScienceLoughborough University
Fostering higher order cognition to enhance undergraduates’ information literacy
PLAN
Introduction - Geoff’s motivation for doing PhD Research project
Intention to build a picture to illustrate what students did during an information literacy learning interventions in an attempt to reveal what their thoughts and feelings were for each stage
Implications for models of information behaviour
Implications for models of information literacy New assessment tool for measuring levels of
information discernment Concluding remarks – A theory and formulae for
further research?
INTRODUCTION
Geoff’s original motivation to prove the ‘correctness’ of information literacy as a model and ‘expose’ VLEs as the ‘emperor’s new clothes’
Having completed PhD his view has changed somewhat!
Geoff’s own personal PhD journey ‘proof’’ and ‘correctness’ are problematic IL models don’t seem to be sensitive to the
cognitive and affective processes that impinge on becoming information literate
VLEs, or more generally e-learning, offer very promising pedagogical opportunities
RESEARCH PROJECT – RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS
How do the psychological states associated with information behaviour and thinking help explain the learning processes in an information literacy blended learning and teaching intervention?
Students who participate in online social network learning (OSNL) will demonstrate:(1) a greater degree of knowledge about e-resources(2) a greater ability to evaluate information
than those who do not receive this intervention
RESEARCH PROJECT - METHODOLOGY
ParticipantsSport & Exercise first year undergraduates in first year core module Effective Learning, Information and Communication Skills (ELICS)Three tutor groups who received the following delivery:A. Face-to-face workshop plus interactive web
tools plus online social network learning (n=12)B. Face-to-face workshop plus interactive web
tools (n=11)C. Face-to-face workshop only (n=12)
RESEARCH PROJECT – DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS
Focus-group interviews (Group A)
Questionnaire (Group A)Post-diagnostic test (All groups)Assessment - portfolio (All groups)Annotated bibliography Reflective practice statementsReflective essay
RESEARCH PROJECT – CODING FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITATIVE DATA
Codes based on:Bloom’s taxonomy Hepworth’s information
behaviour model Moseley et al
RESEARCH PROJECT – FACE-TO-FACE WORKSHOP
Overall context – Roles and normsstudents studying at university and
bring some prior knowledge with themTask – Problem-based scenario part of portfolio assignmentExamples in the one hour ‘hands-on’
activity-based workshop mirrored the problem-based scenario for the assessment (see p1 of handout)
RESEARCH PROJECT – FACE-TO-FACE WORKSHOP
Behaviour Interaction with source
Source character “looking at the library catalogue”, “search the library”
Source behaviour“you can look for a certain subject [on the catalogue]”
“you [the tutor] showed us what to do”
Comprehension Application
metacognition
Sometimes you don’t
know the book exists,
so you put in a litt
le
bit of w
hat your are
looking for a
nd you
get the m
atches
The keyword we did the searches for
I have realised that these sources contain information that can help me to develop while studying at university
Affective state Style state
You can get involved in the sessions yourselves more hands-on, it was active
Being able to find out the books was really interesting
FACE-TO-FACE WORKSHOPKnowledge
Factual knowledge“it [the library catalogue] allowed me to see what books were available and where I could find them”
Process knowledge “you don’t necessarily need to know what book you are looking for [on the catalogue], you can look for a certain subject”
New behaviour “I [now] use the online library to search for e-
books and books”
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORK LEARNING
Task - to find out how to evaluate web-pages by discussing the issue online Used a questioning approach for example,
So, how would you decide what makes a good quality web page?
Structure of process (see p2-3) Behaviour
Interaction with sources peers, tutors, Berkeley website on evaluating
information, the Internet Detective, and the tutor-summary for example, “we had to feedback on each others. I remember I was commenting on his [posting], he was commenting on mine”
See examples of a postings on p3-4
Questioning Analysis
metacognitionAffective state
“check the author or who it
was created by” , “evaluate
the web page by looking at
other pages with the same
topic and compare”, “look at
the last time when the web
page was updated”
Style state
[The tutor summary] gave the whole group a bit of recognition [...] you read through what other people thought of URLs and took advice from other people not just the lecturer’s, it worked really well, it is a good way of reflecting what you’ve done
I think it w
as quite
interesting gets you
involved as well and
that side of it was
quite fun - as
opposed to being
lectured to”
Allowed me to
see what other
people thought o
f the web
site, the way th
ey had
evaluated it, not ju
st myself.
[...] Y
ou got to see what you
was (sic) m
issing out or
something you hadn’t looked
at, so th
ey could bring up th
e
points saying may be look at
at this.” somebody commenting on your evaluation could highlight things you’d overlooked [...] you always think your own work is perfect, sometimes it’s a bit of an eye opener when somebody says you should have done this, gets you thinking about it
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORK LEARNING New knowledge
Both in terms of postings to the discussion and the tutor summary and final summary handout – synthesised output from discussion (see p3-6)
Transition to a feeling of less uncertainty “It makes you aware, a little bit more aware of what web
sites are more useful to you than others and there are quite a lot of web sites on line and you don’t want to be writing stuff in your assignments that’s not true. [Before] I didn’t know what the things at the end like .ac. org meant […].”
(Changed) Behaviour “I have used [the evaluation criteria] actually, since we did
it for essays and stuff, since we did these things in Effective learning it actually alerted me to what to look for when looking for a good web site and what to steer clear of.”
COMMERCIAL BREAK All and more in the
book! Practical examples of
learning and teaching interventions underpinned by theory
Face-to-face learning Online learning Based on empirical
research Also, Journal of
Documentation article in 2011
ASSESSMENT
Task Answer the problem-based scenario see p1
Behaviour Found six resources, two books, two journal
articles and two web pages, evaluated them and then wrote about it
Written reflective statement
Application Evaluation
Analysis
I know about scope, audience,
timeliness, scholarly vs. popular,
authority documentation and
objectivity. I have learnt how to
judge how good a book or a
journal is against this criterion.
Evidence via assessed work transcripts see examples on p7k
SynthesisI would evaluate a web
page by; looking at the
ULR address
It [URL] informs
you that it is from
a popular and
reliable source,
the BBC
ASSESSMENT (REFLECTIVE STATEMENT)
New knowledge “I have acquired new knowledge on the Library
Catalogue, Swetswise, e-journals and the Web. I now know how to look for E-journals and E-books on Swetswise and E-brary, something I did not know how to do before.”
Task completion See assessed work transcript on p7
Changed behaviour “I will incorporate this new knowledge and skills
in the future by using these skills when completing a new task e.g. I can use the online library to search for e-books and books.“
ASSESSMENT (REFLECTIVE STATEMENT)
Richness of written language used to express reflections on evaluating information very different between groups
Group A Group B Group C Relevant Relevance Recent Judge Criterion Scope Audience Timeliness Scholarly Popular Authority Documentation Objectivity Published date Reliable (3) Evaluate Evaluating Critically evaluate Deciding Valid (2) Reputable
Reliable Trustworthy (2) Topic related Up-to-date Unreliable Relevant Evaluate
Suitable Breadth Intended audience Published Trustworthy Relevant Evaluating
OTHER EVIDENCE (QUANTITATIVE DATA) Assessment (annotated bibliography)
One-way ANOVA statistical test Variety of evaluation criteria
Experimental group used greater variety of evaluation criteria than either groups B or C, but not statistically significant
However, large effect size (using Eta squared test) found – therefore, if this part of the study was carried out again with nineteen subjects per condition it would have produced statistically significant results
Frequency of evaluation criteria Again, similar result to variety measure However, large effect size - to gain a statistically
significant result in a future study would require between twenty and twenty five subjects per condition.
OTHER EVIDENCE (QUANTITATIVE DATA)
Post-delivery diagnostic test – 14 multi-choice questions on the library catalogue, e-journals, referencing and evaluating web pages (analysed using one way ANOVA statistical test) Test scores between Group A (experimental group) and
Group C (control group) are significantly different at p < .025, t= 2.66 , Degrees of Freedom (df)= 22 (within groups).
IMPLICATIONS FOR MODELS OF INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR a number of cognitive states (knowledge and application)
were evident at the face-to-face stage; the higher cognitive states of analysis, synthesis and
evaluation appeared to be most evident for those students who experienced the OSML process;
Three stages in behaviour transition – existing, new and changed
Affective and style states also appeared to be critical factor and the importance of task in maintaining a positive affective and style state leading to new knowledge;
Task completion via the assessed work indicated: changed behaviour and implied that assessment is an
essential component in facilitating deep learning and enabling students to become information literate
the complex inter-relation of these factors in a learning and teaching intervention.
HEPWORTH’S (2004) IB MODEL
Knowledge state
Cognitive state
Style state
Affective state
Source behaviour
Source Character
1 2
5
4
3
Sociological data
Psychological data
Behavioural data
Source data
Roles
Norms
Tasks
Psyche
Behaviour
Sources
Iterative interaction
Key: 1= associated with 2= associated with 3= interaction with4= has impact on 5= may resolve situation and help complete task(s) Hepworth (2004, p705)
Key: 1= associated with 2= associated with 3= interaction with4= has impact on 5= may resolve situation and help complete task(s) Hepworth (2004, p705)
IMPLICATIONS FOR MODELS OF INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR (NEW MODEL)
Walton, G & Hepworth, M. (2011, p470)
IMPLICATIONS FOR MODELS OF INFORMATION LITERACY
They are too rigid and over simplified The step-by-step approach indicated by some
models doesn’t necessarily reflect how the person becomes information literate
They don’t seem to reflect (or harness) the social nature of learning
SCONUL Seven Pillars’ (1999) did not recognise that potentially any student can synthesise information and produce new knowledge, this changed in redesigned model (2011)
Don’t take into account the affective dimension ‘Grand narratives’ which aren’t sensitive to
context
CONCLUDING REMARKS – A THEORY (SEE P9)
Becoming information literate appears to be about an individual completing a task in a given context. This context leads to the interaction with sources (e.g., databases, e-journals, books, e-books, peer and tutors etc) and in so doing brings about the interplay of an individual’s behavioural, cognitive, metacognitive and affective states. It is this interplay which determines the level of new knowledge learnt (or produced or both) and the degree of changed behaviour (i.e., level of information literacy) exhibited.
THREE SPHERES OF INFORMATION LITERACY
Spheres can occur in no particular order
Find/ access/ locate
Evaluate/ discern
Use/ communicate/ produce
Each sphere triggers its own set of behavioural, cognitive, metacognitive and affective states
Becoming information literate takes place in a wider social context determined by roles, norms and tasks
MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE TO FOCUS FURTHER RESEARCH?
HEREKey As = Affective stateB = BehaviourBc = Changed behaviourCana = Cognitive state, analysisCapp = Cognitive state, applicationCcomp = Cognitive state, comprehensionCeval = Cognitive state, evaluationCq = Cognitive questioning stateCsyn = Cognitive state, synthesisKx = Knowledge stateSb = Source behaviourSc = Source characterΣK = Final knowledge stateMcog = Metacognitive stateSs = Style state
REFERENCES Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, D., Furst, E. J., Krathwohl, D. A. and Hill, W.
H. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.
Hepworth, M. (2004). A framework for understanding user requirements for an information service: defining the needs of informal carers. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 55 (8), pp695-708.
Hepworth, M. & Walton, G. (2009). Teaching information literacy for inquiry-based learning. Oxford: Chandos.
Moseley, D. Baumfield, V., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Newton, D., Robson, S., Elliot, J. and Gregson, M. (2004). Thinking skills frameworks for post-16 learners: an evaluation. a research report for the Learning & Skills Research Centre. Trowbridge: Cromwell Press.
Walton, G. & Hepworth, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of changes in learners’ cognitive states during and following an information literacy teaching intervention. Journal of Documentation, 67(3), 449-479.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Walton, G. (2010). From online discourse to online social
networking, the e-learning Holy Grail?. In Parkes, D. and Walton, G. (eds.). Web 2.0 and libraries: impacts, technologies and trends. Oxford: Chandos, pp33-65.
Walton, G., Barker, J, Hepworth, M. and Stephens, D. (2007a). Using online collaborative learning to enhance information literacy delivery in a Level 1 module: an evaluation, Journal of Information Literacy, 1 (1), pp13-30. [Online] http://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/RA-V1-I1-2007-2/3 (accessed 17 June 2011).
Walton, G., and Barker, J., Hepworth, M. and Stephens, D. (2007b). Facilitating information literacy teaching and learning in a level 1 sport and exercise module by means of collaborative online and reflective learning. In Andretta, S. (Ed.) Change and Challenge: Information Literacy for the 21st Century. Adelaide: Auslib Press, pp169-202.
I-ACTInstitute for Applied Creative ThinkingStaffordshire University
Dr Geoff WaltonSenior Researcher
Dr Mark HepworthSenior Lecturer
Department of Information ScienceLoughborough University
Top Related