Category Archives: ACRL Standards

Development of a Metaliteracy Course for Online Ed.D. Students and Beyond

Posted on by
1

We welcome this guest essay by Dr. Melissa Atkinson, Director of Distance & Online Library Services at Abilene Christian University (ACU) Brown Library.

Metaliteracy, as introduced by Mackey and Jacobson in 2011, has been instrumental in developing metaliterate learners in a variety of contexts. The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, published in 2016, transformed the previous Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL, 2000) into frames that build upon each other and were not prescriptive in how to assess students’ learning. Many librarians turn to the Framework as a guideline for developing information literacy courses, tutorials, guided studies, and assessments. Libraries and librarians create assessments of the Framework that are varied and individualized.

Using the Framework in conjunction with metaliteracy goals and learning objectives can enhance the student experience as well as give librarians a standard to follow that ensures development of skills needed in a participatory, connected environment (Mackey & Jacobson, 2011). Notes that reference metaliteracy and metacognition can be found in the Framework (2016). The Framework does have its strengths, but incorporating metaliteracy goals and learning objectives into the frames can aid in assessment and add to the knowledge and skills students should develop throughout their lifetime, not just when they are participating in higher education.

Using the original set of metaliteracy goals and learning objectives found on metaliteracy.org (Forte, et al, 2014), a metaliteracy course was developed in the Learning Management System (LMS) Canvas, specifically for fully online Ed.D. students, preparing them for research-related content encountered in their courses (Atkinson, 2019). The original course by Atkinson (2019) compared pretest, posttest, and metacognitive skills, using the Metacognitive Strategies for Library Research Skills Scale (MS-LRSS) developed by Catalano (2017). 

The course was designed using backward design methods (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006) to introduce online doctoral students to common library terminology, metaliteracy, and metacognitive concepts. The metaliteracy course was not intended to take the place of library tutorials, individualized instruction, or research consultations–all of which are critical to meet the needs of doctoral students in an online environment.

The metaliteracy course consists of five modules, four of which are directly related to the metaliteracy goals and learning objectives from 2014 (Forte, et. al., 2014). The fifth module relates to specific skills students need to be successful, particularly in the Ed.D. program such as requesting materials through InterLibrary Loan, identifying research methods, and recognizing specific library databases. Each module consists of a pretest, an overview and videos (most of which are three minutes or less), and a posttest. Each module name, the video titles, and learning objectives are listed below.

Module 1: Evaluate Content Critically
Two Videos: Scholarly Resources; Peer Review

Objective: Metaliterate learners evaluate information critically by determining authority, relevancy, accuracy, and validity of each source regardless of the information’s delivery method.

By the end of this module, learners will be able to:

1) Recognize the criteria for evaluating authority, relevancy, accuracy, and validity of information sources

2) Determine context of an information source by considering purpose and format

3) Distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly sources

4) Understand the process of peer review and its purpose in scholarly research

Module 2: Information Ethics

Two Videos: Academic Integrity, Copyright, and Plagiarism; APA Style

Objective: Metaliterate learners understand and differentiate between their own intellectual property and others’ intellectual property, and give credit to others’ work using proper citation style methods.

By the end of this module, learners will be able to:

1) Understand the concepts of academic integrity, copyright, and plagiarism

2) Differentiate between various forms of attribution

3) Identify parts of a citation in APA style

4) Recognize elements of APA style in context

Module 3: Information Creation, Sharing, and Collaboration

Three videos: Social Media; Digital and Visual Literacy; Creating Original Content

Objective: Metaliterate learners are aware of their online environments, participate collaboratively, transfer information from one format to another, and produce and share original content.

By the end of this module, learners will be able to:

1) Understand the various ways of sharing original content

2) Consciously participate in social media environments

3) Describe digital and visual literacy and their importance to metaliterate learning

4) Identify digital and media formats and the uses and purposes of each

Module 4: Lifelong Learning Research Strategies

Two videos: Information Needs; Metacognition

Objective: Metaliterate learners connect learning with personal, professional, and lifelong goals using their experiences. Metaliterate learners recognize metacognitive principles of learning by acknowledging that learning is a process and can reflect on research difficulties to improve strategies.

By the end of this module, learners will be able to:

1) Know which search strategies are appropriate for the information needs

2) Determine tasks involved to develop research questions

3) Reflect on one’s own knowledge and determine ways to increase metacognition skills

4) Recognize the process of critical thinking that leads to metaliterate learning

Module 5: Research Skills Proficiency

Three videos: Types of Sources; Requesting Materials and ILL; Research Methods

Objective: Metaliterate learners are proficient in distinguishing between types of sources, describing research methods, and understanding how to request materials to find relevant, scholarly, and authoritative information sources.

By the end of this module, learners will be able to:

1) Describe research methods, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods

2) Distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

3) Recognize ACU library’s databases, authentication process, and InterLibrary Loan procedures

4) Understand how to request physical materials

The original course has been modified to reach other fully online student audiences such as undergraduate students and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students. The undergraduate metaliteracy course is embedded in a critical thinking course that is taken by all online undergraduates. The program directors for the Ed.D. and DNP programs encourage students to self-enroll in the Canvas metaliteracy course specifically designed for those students in each program. Currently, a LibGuide is being developed to bring the metaliteracy course to a wider audience than is currently reached in Canvas. The full metaliteracy course will be available at this link (forthcoming), https://guides.acu.edu/metaliteracy, and currently includes all of the learning objectives and videos for each module.

A mapping of the ACRL Framework to the metaliteracy course objectives can help expand the knowledge and skills students need to succeed in their courses and beyond. The concept of metaliteracy is important for either an introduction for undergraduate students to library and research terminology or for graduate and doctoral students who already have these concepts developed as well as students who have not been to school for a long time and need a refresher on these concepts. Future plans include updating the metaliteracy course to incorporate the updated metaliteracy goals and learning objectives from 2018 (Jacobson, et al, 2018) as well as an update to the mapping of the Framework.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Atkinson, M. D. (2019). The relationship between metaliteracy pretest, posttest, and Metacognitive Strategies for Library Research Skills Scale: Creating a metaliteracy course for online Ed.D. students [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University]. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/library_pub/32

Catalano, A. A. (2017). Development and validation of the Metacognitive Strategies for Library Research Skills Scale (MS-LRSS). Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.017

Forte, M., Jacobson, T., Mackey, T.,  O’Keeffe, E., & Stone, K. (2014). 2014 Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/2014-metaliteracy-goals-and-learning-objectives/.

Fulkerson, D. M., Ariew, S. A., & Jacobson, T. E. (2017). Revisiting metacognition and metaliteracy in the ACRL Framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.1.45

Jacobson, T., Mackey, T., O’Brien, K., Forte, M., & O’Keeffe, E. (2018). 2018 Metaliteracy Goals and Learning Objectives. Retrieved September 29, 2023, from https://metaliteracy.org/learning-objectives/2018-metaliteracy-goals-and-learning-objectives/. 

Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries, 72(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-76r1

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Dr. Melissa Atkinson is the Director of Distance & Online Library Services at Abilene Christian University (ACU) Brown Library. In her 23-year career as a librarian at ACU, she has served as Online Learning Librarian, E-Collections & Web Services Librarian, Serials & Assessment Librarian, Electronic Services & Serials Librarian, and Reference Librarian. She is currently a dissertation chair for five dissertation students, one of whom recently  successfully defended their prospectus. She earned a Ph.D. from Regent University in Education (Distance Education concentration) in May 2019. Her research interests include metaliteracy, information literacy, online pedagogy, andragogy, and instructional design methods for library instruction. Her dissertation titled, “The Relationship Between Metaliteracy Pretest, Posttest, and Metacognitive Strategies for Library Research Skills Scale: Creating a Metaliteracy Course for Online Ed.D. Students,” is available in Proquest and ACU’s institutional repository (Digital Commons). In 2020, an article based on her dissertation was published called, “To Frame or Not to Frame: Creating a Metaliteracy Course for Online Ed.D. Students” in Library Hi Tech News (https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/library_pub/41/).

From the Literature No. 2

Posted on by
Reply

This second From the Literature post brings to your attention a 2022 article by Alison Hicks and Annemaree Lloyd, “Reaching into the basket of doom: Learning outcomes, discourse and information literacy,” published in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.

Hicks’ and Lloyd’s article, the third in a series, “employs the theory of practice architectures and a discourse analytical approach to examine the learning goals of five recent English-language models of information literacy” (p.1). The five models, all developed since 2010, include two from the UK: ANCIL and SCONUL’s Seven Pillars, and three from the US: AACU, the ACRL Framework, and Metaliteracy. Table 1 provides an illuminating overview of the origins and characteristics of each of the models, which is then explored in more detail in the literature review section. The authors compare these new models from the “second wave of constructivist-focussed information literacy models (Hicks and Lloyd, 2016)” with first wave models, including the ACRL Standards. [Hicks A and Lloyd A (2016) It takes a community to build a framework: Information literacy within intercultural settings. Journal of Information Science 42(3): 334–343.]

The authors state that

“Since their creation, these models have been widely implemented within North American and UK systems of higher education and have been welcomed by teaching librarians…and teaching faculty, particularly in the area of writing and composition studies…. However, somewhat surprisingly, given the role that models play within teaching librarianship, there have been few attempts to examine and critique these guidelines” (p.4)

(Please see their article for the authors they cite in connection with these statements.) Grounding their work in the theory of practice architecture, they use discourse analysis to examine the learning goals and outcomes of the five models.

This analysis suggests that there are 12 common dimensions across the five models, and the authors provide details of these dimensions in Appendix 1. Hicks and Lloyd assert that the 12 dimensions can be grouped into two categories, Mappying and Applying (p. 6).

The Mapping category encompasses learning outcomes that introduce the learner to accepted ways of knowing or what is valued by and how things work within higher education. Comprised of seven dimensions, including Access, Comply, Disseminate, Evaluate, Identify, Manage and Search, this category inculcates induction into the ways in which information is understood, interpreted and organised within new or specific academic cultures. One of the most prominent emphases within this category is on the mapping of information systems that will contribute to academic success, whether this is the information tools or the information sources that will be useful for academic study. (p. 6)

They continue,

The Applying category encompasses learning outcomes that encourage the learner to implement or integrate ideas into their own practice, including to their own questions, to themselves or to their experience. Forming a more personally focussed approach to learning, this category comprises five dimensions including Analyse, Determine need, Maintain, Reflect and Transfer. (p. 7)

The discussion section not only examines these findings, but also touches upon those aspects of information literacy from the first wave that were not found in the analysis of the five models.

The implications from the authors’ research have a potential major impact on information literacy in higher education:

Beyond helping to demonstrate areas of practice that have been overlooked, this research provides insight into how the writing of learning outcomes could be improved, including by making the language more specific. This research also calls for the broadening of research methods that are used to create institutional models and guidelines…. (p. 9)

As with our first look into the literature, we encourage you to read this critically important article, as this brief overview can not hope to capture the full impact of the authors’ work. It will also afford you the opportunity to understand the article’s title.

Citation:

Hicks, Alison, and Annemaree Lloyd. 2022. “Reaching Into the Basket of Doom: Learning Outcomes, Discourse and Information Literacy.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 0(0). 10.1177/09610006211067216

Metaliteracy Webinar for ALA eLearning Series

Posted on by
Reply

In June we presented a webinar on metaliteracy for the ALA Editions eLearning series.  The slides are now available on Slideshare.  This presentation features several new pieces in support of our new book Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners.

Video of 2014 CT IL Conference Keynote

Posted on by
Reply

This is the YouTube video of our metaliteracy keynote at the 2014 Connecticut Information Literacy Conference. All of the presentation videos are available via the conference web site. The metaliteracy keynote slides are also available on slideshare.

Photo Gallery from Recent Metaliteracy Keynote

Posted on by
Reply

In June we presented the keynote address at the Connecticut Information Literacy Conference sponsored by the Connecticut Library Association.  Thanks to the conference organizers for sending us several pictures from that event!  We really enjoyed the opportunity to connect with everyone at the conference.  Click on any image to see the full gallery.

Metaliteracy Keynote at Connecticut Information Literacy Conference

Posted on by
Reply

We enjoyed presenting this year’s keynote at the Connecticut Information Literacy Conference sponsored by the Connecticut Library Association. This year’s conference explored Our New Frontier: Metaliteracy, Threshold Concepts, New Standards, and Other Wild Ideas and our keynote addressed Crossing the Threshold: Envisioning Information Literacy through the Lens of Metaliteracy.  We were thrilled that metaliteracy was a key part of this year’s theme and we appreciated all of the great conversations! Trudi Jacobson also presented an afternoon breakout session “Threshold Concepts: Exploring the Potential and the Challenges for Information Literacy Instruction” based on her work as co-chair of the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task Force.

Video Recording of 2014 IL Summit Keynote

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to Troy Swanson Department Chair and Teaching & Learning Librarian at Moraine Valley Community College for posting the video of our keynote Changing Models, Changing Emphases: The Evolution of Information Literacy at the 2014 IL Summit.  We enjoyed our time at the summit and appreciate this opportunity to share the video.