Presentation by Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber (Information School, University of Sheffield) given on 2nd June 2016 at the Creating Knowledge 8 conference, Reykjavík, Iceland. There is a video of this presentation at https://youtu.be/JDr1DbJJKRA
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
Teaching the next generation of Information Literacy educators: pedagogy and learning
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
Information School, University of Sheffield
Creating Knowledge 8, Reykjavík, June 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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.
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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)
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
7
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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)
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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?
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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.
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016
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
19
Pamela McKinney and Sheila Webber, 2016