Presented at LILAC 2010

1. An evaluation of a course located in
the relational frame of IL
Andrew Whitworth
University of Manchester
A presentation for LILAC 2010

2. Introduction
• Published & forthcoming papers on this
course:
• Journal of Information Literacy 3/2
• Mackey & Jacobson collection, Teaching
Information Literacy Online (Neal-Schulman, US)
• British Journal of Educational Technology (reviews
approach to learner & program control)

3. Introduction
• This presentation reports results from the
evaluation of two offerings: 2008-9 & 2009-
10
• A distinctive model of IL teaching is
explored...
• ...but is it effective?

4. Valuing information
Most definitions of IL treat the learner
as the agent and evaluator of an infor-
mation search. They therefore privilege
the subjective valuing of information.
However, we also value
information in objective and
intersubjective ways.
SubjectivitySubjectivity
ObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivity

5. Objective value
SubjectivitySubjectivity
ObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivity
We value information
objectively when we
judge it against scientific
measures of validity or
reliability.
Omit this scheme of value and we risk found information
(and knowledge formed from it) becoming counterknowledge
(Thompson 2008).

6. Intersubjective value
SubjectivitySubjectivity
ObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivityObjectivityObjectivity
Intersubjective forms
of value are created
consciously or unconsciously
by communities.
They include morals, laws,
economics etc.
Omit these and found information may be relativist,
making no reference to things like ethics, community
needs (workplace or local), etc.

7. Subjective value
SubjectivitySubjectivity
ObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivityObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivity
Subjective value is the realm of
personal calculations of need, as
well as considerations such as
aesthetics, prior experience etc.
Omit it, and we risk ‘groupthink’ or ‘battery cognition’
(Blaug 2007): an inability to distinguish our cognition
from that of the organisation or community.

8. Holism
SubjectivitySubjectivity
ObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivityObjectivityObjectivity IntersubjectivityIntersubjectivity
Because of the risks posed
by these three pathologies
of information processing:
* groupthink
* relativism
* counterknowledge;
...all three forms of value must be accounted for
by the information literate person.

9. The 6 frames of IL
• Among the few schemes of IL teaching to
address this holism is Bruce, Edwards and
Lupton’s Six Frames of Information Literacy
(2007).
• This was developed following research into
the different ways IL was viewed by learners
and practitioners.

10. Five of the 6 frames...
Frame Value Belief about IL Assessed by
Content Objective
IL is knowledge about the
world of information
Knowing about a tool or
technique
Competency Objective
IL is a set of competencies or
skills
Applying a tool or technique
Learning to learn Subjective IL is a way of learning
Solving a problem (without
prescribing a tool or technique
in advance)
Personal
relevance
Subjective
IL is dependent on context and
is different for different people
and groups
Reflecting on experience
Social impact Intersubjective
IL issues are important to
society
Transformation of practice

11. And the 6th?
Learning to learnLearning to learn
ContentContent
Social impactSocial impact
Personal relevancePersonal relevance
CompetencyCompetency
The sixth frame - the
relational frame - brings
the other five together
Learners working in the sixth frame
develop the ability to move between
the other five frames as appropriate

12. The Media & IL course
• Data have been collected from both the
2008-9 and 2009-10 offerings of the course
• As the two offerings were identical, they have
been analysed together - no cross-cohort
comparisons have been made
• A total of 32 students completed the course
• 13 were on-campus learners and 19 distance
learners

13. What I will look at today
• Questionnaire data, sent out to all students:
16 replied (50% response rate). 4 of these
participated in a more detailed focus group.
• Content analysis of all 32 submitted
assessments
• Moodle log file data exists and has been used
elsewhere (BJET paper): this is not being
looked at today.

14. Beliefs about IL
• Students were asked to rank the statements
about IL suggested in Bruce et al: they were
asked to pick their first and second choices
• This took place a few months after the
completion of the course
• Bear in mind that what I ideally want to see
is equal distribution between the responses

15. Beliefs about IL
• Ranked first by students:
• IL is knowledge about the world of information: 1
• IL is a set of competencies or skills: 4
• IL is a way of learning: 5
• IL is different things to different people: 3
• IL is important to society: 3
• Ranked second by students:
• IL is knowledge about the world of information: 1
• IL is a set of competencies or skills: 3
• IL is a way of learning: 4
• IL is different things to different people: 3
• IL is important to society: 5

16. Impact on personal &
professional development
•Have they used the portfolio activities in real
teaching situations?
• 11/16 had done so: this includes one student who had
given the resources to a colleague
• Of the 5 who had not used them, one student pointed
out that she had not had the opportunity to do so
(having gone straight onto PhD study after the course)

17. Impact on personal &
professional development
• Have they changed their own IL practices
following completion of the course?
• 13/16 students said they had done so, including several who
emphasised their response with terms like ‘significantly so’, ‘totally’,
‘definitely’
• Of the remaining 3, two gave ambiguous answers (‘to an extent’,
‘slightly’) and only one said clearly that she had not changed her
practice.

18. Content analysis of
assessment
• The course is assessed by a portfolio of 4
teaching and learning activities (with
commentary).
• If across these activities students had
addressed all frames (using the techniques
from slide 10), they could be said to be
working in a holistic way.

19. Content analysis of
assessment
Activity Text Coding
Title: How are young people represented in the news?
Aims of session: The aim of this activity is to investigate how young people are
represented in the news and look at reasons why they are presented in such a way.
Task: The tutor shows various news headlines from the newspapers about young
people and asks students to think about how the headlines make them feel and how
readers will react to the stories.
Students have to pick a headline each and analyse the corresponding news story and
look at how young people have been portrayed. What techniques has the newspaper
used to get a certain point of view across and promote credibility? For example,
quoting specialists or professionals, using statistics, imagery, language? Students
should make notes of their findings.
Students are then asked to rewrite the article briefly and include the opinion or point of
view of young people, to demonstrate how different the story might be were young
people able to give their account of events.
Reflection on practice
Use of a tool or technique
Use of a tool or technique
Title: Producing a newspaper
Aims of session: To decide on roles within the team who will publish the newspaper,
agree on a plan and content and begin work on the publication.
Task: With the help of the tutor students have to identify the roles and responsibilities
needed to get their newspaper published and decide who in their team would be best
suited to each role. The tutor acts as a facilitator to encourage collaborative learning
and encourage students to take ownership of the newspaper.
Having decided on roles and responsibilities students work as a group to plan the
publication. Once the action plan has been created students can then begin to work on
their individual responsibilities. These may include: researching topics, arranging
interviews, proof reading articles and acquiring images.
Solving a problem
Transforming practice

20. Content analysis of
assessment
• As this coding was done by the researcher alone, a member checking
process took place.
• Students in the focus group also assigned their activities to categories.
There are some discrepancies in ‘secondary’
assignations; students are also more likely to
define their work as transformative (in fact all
of them said this about the last activity).
Activity #1 #2 #3 #4
Student DL13 R: 1, 2
S: 1, 2
R: 2, 4, 5
S: 2, 4
R: 3, 4
S: 3, 5
R: 3, 6
S: 6
C16 R: 1, 2, 4
S: 1, 2
R: 2
S: 1, 2, 4
R: 2, 3, 5
S: 3, 5
R: 2, 3, 4
S: 6
C33 R: 1, 4
S: 1
R: 2
S: 2, 4
R: 3,4
S: 3, 4
R: 4
S: 6
C34 R: 1, 2
S: 1, 2
R: 2, 4
S: 4
R: 2, 4
S: 2, 4
R: 4
S: 6
This at least suggests students accepted the need
to transform practice as the ultimate objective of
IL, and had the intention of doing so in their
portfolio, even if in the assessor’s opinion they
did not follow through on this.
A wider sample is needed.

21. Content analysis of
assessment
•Across all submitted portfolios there were 33 x 4 = 132 activities. Each could
be classified in more than one frame.
• Telling students about a tool or technique (content frame): 46
• Teaching students how to use a tool or technique (competency frame): 60
• Setting a problem that learners have to solve (learning to learn frame): 24
• Getting the learners to reflect on prior experience (personal relevance
frame): 61
• Transforming policy or practice (social impact frame): 27

22. Content analysis of
assessment
• 10 of the 32 portfolios included at least one activity from each
of the five frames, and could therefore be considered truly
relational.
• 7 more portfolios did not include an activity from every frame
but did include one which was considered transformational,
or critical (though this drops to 4 if only the assessor’s
original categorization was used).
• Around half of all portfolios, then, indicated that students had
recognized the need to transform the literacy practices of
themselves or of others.

23. Conclusions
• It is of course impossible to ‘prove’ that
students are thinking about IL holistically as
a result of the teaching on this course...
• ...but the results do at least suggest that it is
possible to teach IL in the relational frame.

24. Further developments
• Can such an involved approach to IL
education be suitable for all?
• Perhaps not... but a modified version is in
development with the John Rylands
University Library at Manchester, for
teaching PGR students
• This project is being funded by the HEA-ICS

25. PGR Student version
• Development version resides at
http://83.170.93.38/~unimanc/ [see the
handout]
• Please log on as a guest: we welcome
comments and feedback

26. Thank you
• andrew.whitworth@manchester.ac.uk