Article 2: Using rubrics to assess information literacy
In January 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) established a set of standards for information literacy along with performance indicators and outcomes by which to measure attainment of the standards. This article’s thesis is stated in the proposal that there are several advantages of using a grading rubric to assess information literacy; 1. The learning objectives of library instruction are easily adapted to the literacy standards, 2. The rubric fits the library environment and is flexible to meet changes in that environment, 3. It provides clear measures of learning and states them at the outset of learning. The article reports the results of a study of the impact of using grading rubrics to assess a written learning outcome of information competency in a specific course for college freshman. The establishment of the course learning objectives and the grading rubrics was based on the literacy standards of the ACRL. The study results confirm a positive impact on outcomes by using grading rubrics based on literacy standards. Additionally, some aspects of the instruction were shown to be deficient in this study, and by reviewing this evaluative tool in this manner some improvements in the course were implemented later.
Using rubrics also leads to a more objective measure of students’ success in achieving the goals of the literacy standards. Instructors are also able to determine if the learning environment has any impact on the students’ learning. Further, the grading rubric can measure a specific outcome, such as happened in this study. It was desired to know if students valued scholarly sources over web sites, and that outcome was measured and assessed as a result of the rubric being used. It is seen that very specific goals can be achieved by use of rubrics to assess literacy.
The article emphasizes the need to formulate course objectives properly and inform students at the outset of those learning objectives. Another key finding was that it is very important to use authentic methods of evaluation, rather than episodic or self-reported methods. Authentic evaluations give real measures and are not subject to bias, wishful thinking or the students reporting what they might think is a desired evaluation.
The author uses the results of this study to encourage librarians to engage faculty in acceptance of the ACRL’s literacy standards. The results definitely reveal value in using rubrics to measure literacy outcomes in library instruction courses.
Article Citation: Knight, Lorrie A.. “Using rubrics to assess information literacy.” Reference Services Review 31.1 (2006): 43-55.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 1: How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials
Evaluation of teaching measurement tools, student performance and comparing results to learning objectives identifies strengths and weaknesses that can be addressed and adjusted as needed. The author uses personal experiences as a bibliographic instructor to develop a framework for revising a course’s objectives based on reviewing the results of current evaluative tools.
The author’s experiences show how to use the results of quizzes as one method to identify how well course objectives are defined and whether or not they are being met. There are, of course, other evaluative tools, which can get to the same results. Reflective writing exercises such as this one is another example. Offering a practical experience of executing on a skill being taught in a course is a third example. In each case, student performance is measured. Reviewing the results of those measurements is obviously an excellent way to determine any necessary adjustments in the defined learning objectives of the course. Further, this article surfaced in my mind the additional concept that review of such evaluative tools can identify any needed adjustments in pedagogy and can lead to the best formulations of the evaluative tools themselves. While the author didn’t specifically state this idea, the concept is apparent in the article. Another very helpful insight was the author’s quoting Brookhart’s point that instructors who focus on content rather than learning have difficulty with assessment. This statement highlights for me the need to remain focused on desired outcomes not only when writing objectives, but also when developing the teaching methods and evaluative tools. Maintaining focus on learning outcomes will produce the best results of any instruction opportunity.
Article Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials.” Research Strategies 18 (2001): 75-83.
Other works cited: Brookhart, S. M. The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. Washington DC (1999). George Washington University.
Evaluation of teaching measurement tools, student performance and comparing results to learning objectives identifies strengths and weaknesses that can be addressed and adjusted as needed. The author uses personal experiences as a bibliographic instructor to develop a framework for revising a course’s objectives based on reviewing the results of current evaluative tools.
The author’s experiences show how to use the results of quizzes as one method to identify how well course objectives are defined and whether or not they are being met. There are, of course, other evaluative tools, which can get to the same results. Reflective writing exercises such as this one is another example. Offering a practical experience of executing on a skill being taught in a course is a third example. In each case, student performance is measured. Reviewing the results of those measurements is obviously an excellent way to determine any necessary adjustments in the defined learning objectives of the course. Further, this article surfaced in my mind the additional concept that review of such evaluative tools can identify any needed adjustments in pedagogy and can lead to the best formulations of the evaluative tools themselves. While the author didn’t specifically state this idea, the concept is apparent in the article. Another very helpful insight was the author’s quoting Brookhart’s point that instructors who focus on content rather than learning have difficulty with assessment. This statement highlights for me the need to remain focused on desired outcomes not only when writing objectives, but also when developing the teaching methods and evaluative tools. Maintaining focus on learning outcomes will produce the best results of any instruction opportunity.
Article Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials.” Research Strategies 18 (2001): 75-83.
Other works cited: Brookhart, S. M. The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. Washington DC (1999). George Washington University.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 2: Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries
By placing the psychosocial and cognitive development theories in the context of Carol Kuhltau’s Information Seeking Process (ISP) model and the Information Literacy (IL) Standards model of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Gatten’s objective is to encourage designers of library instruction to draft their learning process interventions to support and enhance students’ information research skills as they develop. Representative of this intention is his statement that “educational theory has value only to the extent that it is known and that it informs practice.” The author does acknowledge certain challenges and limitations in this approach, but encourages a gradual introduction to library resources as needed and as the student is prepared to receive the instruction or resource exposure (as measured along the development theory continuums, not necessarily linear in nature).
Since the development theories do not apply to each individual in exactly the same way or in the same time frames, it becomes difficult to apply a single interaction, or a few interactions, that will meet all of the needs of all of the students all at once. The interactions must come in shorter pieces of time, and offer smaller segments of knowledge, and at multiple times (frequently) to span the development process. This approach allows for interactions to come at the time when students are prepared for them, or in other words, when they are in the proper developmental vector, stage or phase to appreciate and receive the instruction. Gatten provides an interesting mapping diagram comparing the stages or vectors of two development theories to the stages of the ISP and the standards of IL by aligning them on a comparative progression line. The intent of this new model is to allow instruction designers to match programs to audiences in their anticipated developmental phase, their information seeking skill level and while in the perceived stage of the search process. It is an interesting approach, fraught with difficulty since instructors and designers are not psychologists or experts at determining development progress and skill levels. For that matter, who could possibly do that analysis in one interaction? However, with some care and understanding, use of the model has the potential to assist designers and instructors to provide more effective and successful library instruction interventions.
Article Citation: Gatten, Jeffrey N.. “Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries.” Reference Services Review 32.2 (2004): 157-163.
By placing the psychosocial and cognitive development theories in the context of Carol Kuhltau’s Information Seeking Process (ISP) model and the Information Literacy (IL) Standards model of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Gatten’s objective is to encourage designers of library instruction to draft their learning process interventions to support and enhance students’ information research skills as they develop. Representative of this intention is his statement that “educational theory has value only to the extent that it is known and that it informs practice.” The author does acknowledge certain challenges and limitations in this approach, but encourages a gradual introduction to library resources as needed and as the student is prepared to receive the instruction or resource exposure (as measured along the development theory continuums, not necessarily linear in nature).
Since the development theories do not apply to each individual in exactly the same way or in the same time frames, it becomes difficult to apply a single interaction, or a few interactions, that will meet all of the needs of all of the students all at once. The interactions must come in shorter pieces of time, and offer smaller segments of knowledge, and at multiple times (frequently) to span the development process. This approach allows for interactions to come at the time when students are prepared for them, or in other words, when they are in the proper developmental vector, stage or phase to appreciate and receive the instruction. Gatten provides an interesting mapping diagram comparing the stages or vectors of two development theories to the stages of the ISP and the standards of IL by aligning them on a comparative progression line. The intent of this new model is to allow instruction designers to match programs to audiences in their anticipated developmental phase, their information seeking skill level and while in the perceived stage of the search process. It is an interesting approach, fraught with difficulty since instructors and designers are not psychologists or experts at determining development progress and skill levels. For that matter, who could possibly do that analysis in one interaction? However, with some care and understanding, use of the model has the potential to assist designers and instructors to provide more effective and successful library instruction interventions.
Article Citation: Gatten, Jeffrey N.. “Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries.” Reference Services Review 32.2 (2004): 157-163.
Self-Directed Reading Post
Article 1: A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).
Friday, February 12, 2010
Article 2: Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)