Information Literacy Assessment Strategies

The ACRL 6 information literacy standards mentioned in the previous posting are meant to be instructional design guidelines. Each standard has several performance indicators and outcomes.

Here is a summary of the first standard:

An information literacy learner can determine the type and depth of information needed
Performance indicator	Outcomes
1. Learner knows their need for information	a) Communicates with classmates to identify research information need b) Creates a thesis statement and questions based on information need c) Becomes familiar with topic through general information sources d) Modifies information need into manageable content e) Identifies key search words f) Synthesizes existing information to produce new information
2. Learner can identify various information types and formats as sources	a) Knows the formal and informal types of information organization b) Knows the disciplines of information organization c) Knows the value and differences of various media formats d) Distinguishes audience of resources (popular vs. scholarly) e) Knows the difference between primary and secondary sources f) Realizes the need to at times construct information from raw data
3. Leaner knows cost and benefits of finding information	a) Can broaden search beyond local sources (e.g., interlibrary loan) b) Considers the realistic time involved in finding information
4. Learner can reevaluate the nature and extent of information	a) Revises and refines initial information need b) Articulates how information gathering decisions were made

One of the questions in researching about information literacy that I have had involves determining how to best assess these standards within instruction. In practice, the group project that I am involved in with the IDE 611 class is using information literacy standards to help guide our instructional design. However, a challenge we are facing is how to assess that a learner is indeed, for instance, ‘identifying key search words’. Through this process I am hoping to look at assessment as a way to best design instruction.

Perhaps a checklist such as this one could help with the process:

Communicates with classmates to identify research information need	Does the learner share with classmates and teacher the challenges faced in finding what information is needed?
Creates a thesis statement and questions based on information need	Does the learner’s information need influence research thesis and questions?
Becomes familiar with topic through general information sources	Is the learner exploring general information sources? (e.g., wiki, blog, newspapers)
Modifies information need into manageable content	Is the learner modifying search topics into manageable forms? (e.g., narrowing down search terms and using Boolean operators)
Identifies key search words	Is the learner using appropriate keyword searches?

By using the standards as guidelines, an instructional designer can create ideal learning situations and assess them in a meaningful way. Perhaps then, its not so much a matter of determining who is better at using the technology (digital natives or digital immigrants) but HOW they use the technology.

This week I would like to highlight a couple of videos someone forwarded to me, which relates to the DI/DN debate and its impact on defining why digital literacy is so important.

Michael Wesch, an anthropology professor at Kansas State University made these videos to communicate to educators how things have changed and are changing in the way we access, organize and use information. My interest in developing this awareness, is to argue that no matter if a person considers themselves DI, DN, or somewhere inbetween, the distinction is a mute point within the need for digital literacy. After watching these videos, consider the context of the Information Literacy Standards (digital literacy) listed below.





Information Literacy Standards (2000) from the American Library Association
"An information literate individual is able to:

• Determine the extent of information needed
• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
• Evaluate information and its sources critically
• Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base
• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally"

Now our job is to figure out ways to design instruction that engages learners in these standards.

Elaborating on the Digital Native/Digital Immigrant debate

Distinguishing between the two groups of digital natives (DN) and digital immigrants (DI) might seem helpful to education on the surface, but needs to move beyond the attitude of radical change.

Indeed, learning systems need change, prompted by research and feedback, but the DI/DN argument should be recalibrated within more of a notion of digital literacy. Furthermore, some people (young or old) have high capacity to use various ICT tools in school and work, whereas others simply never learned. This does not mean that all people born after year XXXX are better or worse regarding digital literacy.

Some questions prompted by the research (Bennett, et al, 2008; Kennedy, et al, 2008) I found which should be asked by instructional designers:
1. Does DN usage, and supposed expertise of ICT tools, merit a fundamental change in education?
2. Even though DN use lots of ICT tools in their daily lives, what can they actually do with them?
3. What are the misassumptions of DN?

Some generalizations of DN include:

- The notion that they learn differently and have a preference and learning style which fits more into a constructivist framework (experiential learning, multi-tasking, problem solving, etc.

However, can educators then assume that DN want these types of learning structures. Furthermore, Bennett, et. al., (2008) commented on the fact that multi-tasking is not a new phenomenon in learners and that regarding knowledge acquisition, multi-tasking could cause ‘cognitive overload’.

- They possess sophisticated technological knowledge
o This may be true, but as Bennet states, their sophistication does not translate into content creation. For instance, a person who chats on the internet is not necessarily creating webpages.
o Another important point to consider is the socio-economic status of different students. Some may not grow up with a computer in their homes.

- The idea that a DN is net savvy – but being able to use a computer is not the same as being information literate

Education should use various technologies in curriculum, but not just assume that DN are capable, nor really want to, use the technology. Information literacy should be emphasized in learning, and not assumed - teaching ways to develop critical thinking skills.
Next week, more on information literacy.

The digital native/digital immigrant debate: A matter of information literacy

The next portion of my blog will focus on how learners approach ICT - concentrating on the debate within research literature on the divide between digital immigrants and digital natives. This initial distinction, although helpful in discussion, is somewhat inaccurate, but helpful in defining information literacy. As I have begun to define the differences between the groups and factors that prove or disprove them, a more productive and less binary distinction considers the discussion on information literacy.

The main point being that instructional design within educational technology needs to design and assess ways to improve information literacy, moving beyond the debate.

To briefly summarize, the notions of digital immigrants/digital natives were first postulated by Marc Prensky (2001), who divided learners based on their access to information technologies from a certain age. Because digital natives have grown up with the culture of new technologies such as the internet and video games, Prensky theorizes that their cognitive functions are different from the older generation of digital immigrants. The native and immigrant metaphors represent, in a way, how this debate is a matter of cultural differences between the groups and also a generation gap.

Here are a few characteristics of digital natives and digital immigrants:

Digital native	Digital immigrants
[N]et generation/[D] generation Immersed in technology Prefers fast information stimulus Multitaskers Visual appeal over textual Non-linear learning with random information access Has a learning preference different from traditional education Assumed to have better technology skills than what education offers them Belief that the world is the same, only more technologized	Digitally accented Seeks information from traditional sources first, internet second Reads manuals to learn software Prints emails Uses pen and paper for editing (not computer) Linear learner – raised under traditional education system Belief that the world is very different because of technology

As intuitive as these distinctions might be, the divide is not so clear and certain. Next week I will introduce the inconsistencies. For now, it is important to note how these distinctions are useful in discussing implementations and the beliefs each group brings (Lankshear & Bigum 1999).

However different these learners might be, the debate should consider what it means to be digitally literate, which is best defined outside of the debate.

A definition of information literacy should consider:

• Steeped in the native/immigrant debate – how each group views access and control, but really should be about change
• Certain skills are needed to process information and be ‘digitally literate’ within more of a native perspective
• Developing objectives beyond the traditional definition of literacy
• How individuals use technology to “create, communicate, design and self-actualize” (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006, p 8).
• Going beyond the glitz of the internet of Facebook and youtube
• How individuals develop critical thinking skills

Jones-Kavalier, B.R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21^st century. Educause Quarterly, 2, 8-10.

Lankshear, C., & Bigum, C. (1999). Literacies and new technologies in school settings. Curriculum Studies, 7(3), 445-465.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Virtual Learning implications part II

This being my second and also final posting relating to the topic of virtual learning, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the somewhat chaotic direction this inquiry analysis has gone.

I began with defining virtual learning within the context of MUVE – as shown in Second Life. This program/platform is new, exciting, and still in its infancy. However, as various academics and instructional designers are beginning to design and develop Second Life classrooms, I think that its important that the deeper issues of virtual learning be discussed. That is, even if a wonderful learning learning environment is created, there will always be the underlying question of: “Are people actually learning?”

Frankly, I am not the biggest fan of Second Life, but I am intrigued by it. At this point, I would like to let the trailblazing academics, doctoral students, and entrepreneurs shape Second Life as a virtual learning platform and instead focus on what it means to be a virtual learner.

Its also important to ask that no matter how fancy and 'real' a virtual learning environment can be, does humanity really want to spend its time there?

Think of the movie “The Matrix” - or go back further and read “The Allegory of the Cave”, or the “Brain in a Vat” argument. The debate then becomes a questions what is 'real' vs. 'unreal' in our experience. Sorry for getting philosophical here, but when throwing around the word 'virtual', I tend to cringe a bit, wondering why 'the real' isn't good enough.

Back to learning then.

So, we create a virtual learning environment (design, develop & evaluate it) and place students in it, then expect learning to occur, but perhaps it is not as effective as we had hoped.

One reason could be due to learner cognitive style – how people think and act to analyze and solve problems. Different cognitive styles could have different experiences within the virtual learning environment. Without elaborating on this issue, virtual learning experience needs to keep in mind how different individuals approach the virtual experience within cognitive styles (global – big picture/local narrow picture; introverted-extroverted) and build into the learning system a way to create some “cognitive flexibility” (Liu, X., Magjuka, R., & Lee, S., p. 845, 2008; Sternberg, 1997 in Liu, et al.).

My future blog will focus more on these resistance issues such as the 'digital immigrant - digital native' divide and hopefully come full circle into understanding how to best design e-learning instruction.

My final question is how can we utilize the technological virtual learning tools AND create the best learning environment possible for all learners without compromising their individuality nor the technological tools?

References

Liu, X., Magjuka, R., & Lee, S. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students' learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 829-846.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Virtual Learning implications - Part 1

Over the past several weeks, my discussion has focused on a specific use of virtual learning within MUVE such as Second Life. During the next couple of weeks I would like to generalize the discussion towards virtual learning based on the discussion in current research literature on the topic within other realms of virtual learning.

Virtual learning environments (VLE) after all, are defined within the domain of e-learning, which could encompass a-synchronous environments, such as Blackboard, and synchronous environments, such as 3D environments like Second Life -- used by schools to facilitate classes from a distance (Bromham & Oprandi, 2006; Nishide, et. al., 2007).

Questions relating to VLE that I have been asking myself throughout this exercise concern how a real learner approaches virtual learning experience. More specifically, how well are changes in learners facilitated by the virtual learning experience as compared to traditional environments? And, are the changes which take place influenced more by the technology or the pedagogy?

Bromham & Oprandi (2006) studied how the virtual learning experience assisted learners especially when hybridized with face to face classes to create metacognitive change in developing self-study and self-assessment skills in learners. This study would seem to relate with the assumption that learners would need more than just a text based learning environment like Blackboard to best learn. Nevertheless, many learners have completed 100% online classes through Blackboard.

Consider how easy it might be to place someone in a virtual learning environment, noting how the technology creates the environment, and also influences a learner's perception. What I am getting at here is how instructional designers need to consider the holistic nature of virtual learning and how it has implications that are just now being explored. The virtual learning environment is an 'environment', which needs to be analyzed the same as we would analyze a classroom or work environment.

Refernces

Bormham, L. & Oprandi, P. (2006). Evolution online: Usine a virtual learning environment to develop active learning in undergraduates. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 21-25.

Nishide, R., Shima, R., Araie, H., & Ueshima, S. (2007). Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(1), 5-24.

Links and Reflection

As I have been continuing my research into Second Life as a virtual learning environment I have begun to face a serious technical issue. That is, Second Life software does not fully support Windows Vista, thus the program keeps crashing. Since this blog is part of an assignment, and not really a soapbox, I will limit my comments about VISTA to one word: USELESS!

Enough said!

Since I can't explore Second Life as I would like, my post this week will focus on introducing a few useful links for educators in Second Life.

First off, is EDTECH Island's site http://edtechisland.wetpaint.com/?t=anon hosted by Boise State University.

The site has links to a few lectures which discuss implications of Second Life education as well as the list of classes for BSU students. One lecture worth noting for instructional designers is the Webinar by Dr. Lisa Dawley, the designer of EDTECH island, who addresses the issues of needs analysis and course design in Second Life. She stated that traditional ID models such as ADDIE are too strict for virtual learning environments and technology enhanced learning. Since most of us are just beginning to learn about these models its nice to hear a different perspective.

Another website worth mentioning is the Second Life Education wiki http://www.simteach.com/wiki/index.php?title=Second_Life_Education_Wiki
This site provides information and links to various Second Life materials for educators.

Finally, the site http://sleducation.wikispaces.com/educationaluses – Second Life in Education provides links and information for both experienced SL users and newbies.

To really understand virtual learning, we as educators need to experience it as learners. The virtual learning environment of SL can be intimidating, or like Tim said, “"The Sims" on steroids”, but I feel that we need to really explore and get a feel for it as soon as we can. More than that, as instructional designers we need to see how virtual learning is understood through the various filters of learning theories and eventually step back to develop and/or support new theories that can help drive our instructional design. We might not particularly be using SL for our future careers, but the implication for our careers in the instructional design field is tremendous.