Presented by Phiippa Levy and Sheila Webber (Information School, University of Sheffield) on 24th November 2010 at the Web 2.0 Untangled conference: http://www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/special-interest-groups/ucr/divisions/bbo/pages/events.aspx

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. • 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 …

5. • 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 …

6. 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. 7
Modes
of IBL

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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. 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. 14
Planning IBL
Students
Learning outcomes
Inquiry theme
Inquiry process
Tasks
Assessments
Information
Spaces
Technologies
Tutoring
Peer-to-peer
Dissemination
From: The Sheffield Companion to IBL

15. 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 ethics
Semester 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)

16. 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)

17. • 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)

18. Sheila Webber, 2010
Short lecture and
handout about
interviewing
Practice 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

19. Sheila Webber, 2010
Individual mindmap
Group mindmap,
presented and
discussed in class
Copycam Photographed & uploaded to WebCT
Copycam
WebCT aka
“MOLE”

20. 20

21. Technology-rich IBL – what does the
literature say?

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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).

26. 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)

27. 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

28. Search and write
http://sokogskriv.no/english/
Research
steps in SL/

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. communicating
and
authoring
School of Law Information School
from
level 1

33. inquiry
collaboratories
Physical spaces for blended IBL

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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/FYEFinalR
eport.pdf

38. 38
http://www.shef.ac.uk/ibl
for the ‘Sheffield Companion’
and other follow-up resources