This document summarizes an information literacy module taught to future educators. The module uses Entwistle's Teaching-Learning Environments model to examine the context of the course. It is offered in both face-to-face and distance learning formats, with similar content but different delivery methods. The goals are for students to understand information literacy concepts, develop their own skills, and learn approaches for teaching others. Assessments include an annotated bibliography and designing an information literacy intervention with reflection. Student characteristics and quality of learning are also discussed.

1. Teaching the next generation of
IL educators: pedagogy and learning
Pamela McKinney
Pamela McKinney
p.mckinney@sheffield.ac.uk
@ischoolpam
Sheila Webber
s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk
@sheilayoshikawa
http://information-literacy.blogspot.co.uk
University of Sheffield Information School

2. 14/06/2016 © The University of Sheffield
2
Contents
• The module context
• Entwistle’s et al. (2004) Teaching-learning
Environments model
• The institutional environment & teachers’
characteristics
• The learning design
• Characteristics of the learners
• Conclusions

3. The “Information Literacy”
modules
• Face-to-Face (F2F) and Distance Learning (DL course new in 2015) running
in tandem
• Learning aims:
• understand from both theoretical and practical perspectives the
concepts of information literacy and information behaviour;
• develop their own information literacy and understanding of its
application to their future lives;
• compare different approaches to teaching and demonstrate
awareness of implications for adopting different approaches to
teaching and learning;
• understand how the information environment is evolving, including
both traditional and new media, and the implications for citizens’
information literacy; and
• develop practical skills in searching, evaluating and presenting
information.

4. The development of the TLE model
• ETL project “Enhancing teaching-learning
environments in Undergraduate Courses”
• 5 case studies in different disciplinary areas
• Gathered multi-institutional data and used multiple
data collection methods – from students and from
staff
• Research project also created the “Threshold
Concepts” (Meyer & Land 2003)

5. The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et
al. (2004: 3)

6. Subject knowledge & pedagogical beliefs
• Pam -Background as a learning developer working specifically to
extend and develop Inquiry-based learning (IBL) at the university.
Research intersection between IBL and IL
• Sheila – expertise in TEL and IBL – 2nd Life, MOOCs; research
experience in phenomenography; Institutional teaching award
• Our joint understanding of IL and what it means from a theoretical
and practical perspective in different communities and landscapes
What students are expected to learn and understand
• Desire to bring about conceptual change in students and not just
“develop skills”.
• Develop a strong theoretical basis for their teaching

7. Departmental and institutional influences
• Drive to extend the market and create a DL
alternative to f-2-f programme (financial)
• “Brand new” programme – freedom to design and
develop
• Institutional procedures & policies e.g. new
programme & module creation procedures,
assignment word counts
14/06/2016
7

8. Validating bodies and academic community
• CILIP accreditation and Professional
Knowledge & Skills Base (PKSB)
• QAA subject benchmarks
• Professional views – e.g. from employers and
alumni
• Research –Corrall & Bewick (2009) /Wheeler
& McKinney (2015) / Hornung (2013)

9. Overall course design (linked with constructive alignment)
• Both modules share subject, sequence and assessment but the tools used
to deliver and mediate the teaching are different in the F2F and DL
versions of the module.
• 2 overarching strands – what is Information Literacy, what is Teaching &
Learning
• Practical activities (e.g. use TEL tools, Dialog searching) that are linked to
expected progress on assessment tasks
• Theoretical material dealt with towards end of module to ensure students
have had teaching that directly relates to the assessment
• Front loading to cover more material at start to leave time for students to
complete assessment at end of semester
• F2F class – focus on activity happening in the 3 hour class
• Distance Learners – focus on providing content and facilitating interaction
that students can manage in their own time – synchronous activities

10. 14/06/2016
10
Principal tools we use

11. Principle tools we use
14/06/2016
11

12. • Assignment 1: create an annotated bibliography on a topic
negotiated with a tutor and reflect on how personal IL has
been developed through this activity.
• Assignment 2: Work in a group to design an IL learning
intervention (not assessed). Critically reflect on the experience
of designing and delivering IL teaching and their personal
development as teachers.
• Interaction: Groups of DL and F2F students were paired up
and asked to provide each other with an IL learning need.
• Low stakes teaching: only the reflection is assessed, not the
teaching
• Assess both theoretical understanding and practical
application

13. Model activity: Reflect on an experience
of finding information and identify the
sources used
Face-2-Face
• Pre-session students asked to post
to a Blackboard discussion forum.
• In the session students were given a
short lecture and then asked to
discuss their post with a partner or
small group in the light of material
covered on “Information Horizons”.
(Savolainen and Kari, 2004)
• Plenary discussion led by the tutor
where individual’s experiences
were discussed and points of
interest or comparison were
surfaced.
Distance Learning
• Pre-session (week) students
asked to post to Google+ group.
• A lecture was recorded with
audio & video components and
made available on the VLE
• Students were encouraged to
reflect on their original post in
the light of material covered on
“Information
Horizons”
and post again.
• A short feedback
video was created
that discussed the
student posts and
this was also made
available on
the VLE

14. Entry characteristics
• DL students mostly working while studying (only part
time students)
• F2F more “just” students (but all had previous work
experience in an information context)
• F2F students ¼ International; DL students 1/10
international
• Range of Undergraduate degree subjects (but we can’t
see what they are on the student management system)
• Ethnic diversity? BME? Age? Disability?

15. Conceptions of learning & approaches to studying
• Encouraged a reflective approach to their own learning through use
of learning styles instruments e.g. VARK learning styles
questionnaire (Fleming and Baume, 2006)
• All encouraged to take the “approaches to study” inventory
(Entwistle & Tait, 1994) Some really thoughtful responses and
discussion about these on VLE discussion boards (but much more
for DL students)
• Being reflective about learning currently and in previous
educational experiences was an explicit aspect of the module. (class
time planned for this but found to be unworkable)
• Perceptions of T&L environment: evaluations show that different
students had radically different perceptions of the same T&L
environment

16. Quality of learning achieved
• Problem: How do we as tutors identify this? How do learners
identify this?
• Information School procedure: Module evaluation questionnaire
with a mix of quantitative and qualitative data
• Our reflection: what does a mark really mean?
• Do students feel validated by getting a good mark?
• Failure rate is very low
• Reflective assessments allow us to understand more about how
and what students feel they have learned (but strategic learners
could simply write what they think the lecturer wants to read)
• Further research ongoing with learners

17. Conclusion
• Multi-modal method in the DL environment perhaps engages
students more and gives wider opportunities for different types of
engagement. Some activities could be extended into the F2F
module.
• Creative use of different platforms for learning worked well for
both cohorts
• Being in-work allows students to more immediately contextualise
their learning through discussion and observation
• We both enjoyed planning and delivering the DL module, and found
the contrast between the 2 sets of students interesting
• The reflections prompted by this presentation will be taken forward
as part of a larger research project looking more closely at the DL
experience.
• Being in class seemed to promote a more passive and judgmental
view of learning – we need to work on creating the online learning
ethos in the classroom.

18. References
• CILIP (2016) My professional Knowledge and Skills basehttp://www.cilip.org.uk/jobs-
careers/professional-knowledge-skills-base [ Accessed 10.05.16]
• Corral, S. & Bewick, L (2009) Developing Librarians as Teachers:A Study of Their Pedagogical
Knowledge. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 42 (2)
• Entwistle, N. J. & Tait, H. (1994). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. Edinburgh:
Centre for Research into Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.
• Entwistle, N., Nisbet, J. and Bromage, A. (2004). Teaching-learning environments and student
learning in electronic engineering: paper presented at Third Workshop of the European
Network on Powerful Learning Environments, in Brugge, September 30 – October 2, 2004.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/Brugge2004.pdf
• Fleming, N., and Baume, D. (2006). Learning styles again: VARKing up the right tree!
Educational Developments, (7.4), 4-7. Retrieved 28 September 2015 from http://vark-
learn.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/08/Educational-Developments.pdf
• Hornung, E. (2013) On your own but not alone: One person librarians in Ireland and their
perceptions of continuing professional development. Library Trends 61 (3) 675-702

19. References (contd)
• Meyer, J & Land, R (2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge:
Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within disciplines.
http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport4.pdf
• Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding teaching and learning.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
• Quality Assurance Agency (2015) Subject benchmark statement: Librarianship,
Information, Knowledge, Records and Archives Management.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/SBS-librarianship-15.pdf
• Savolainen, R. and Kari, J. (2004). Placing the internet in information source
horizons: a study of information seeking by internet users in the context of self-
development. Library and Information Science Research, 26, 415-433.
• Wheeler, E. (2014). Investigating academic librarians’ perceptions of their own
teaching skills. MA dissertation. Sheffield, England: Information School University
of Sheffield. Retrieved 4 October 2015 from
http://dagda.shef.ac.uk/dispub/dissertations/2013-
14/External/Wheeler_130117630.pdf
• Wheeler, E. & McKinney P. (2015) Are librarians teachers? Investigating academic
librarians’ perceptions of their own teaching skills. Journal of Information Literacy
9(2) 111-128
14/06/2016
19

20. To
Discover
And
Understand.