Category Archives: From the Literature

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

From the Literature

Posted on by
Reply

We will periodically highlight an article or other resource that proposes methods for using metaliteracy in practice, or the theory connected with metaliteracy. This initial From the Literature post brings to your attention a 2021 article by Kristen Schuster and Kristine N, Stewart, “Using Constructive Alignment to Support Metaliteracy,” published in the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science.

This article provides a case study that allows the authors to highlight key pedagogical suggestions and insights that have the potential to impact teaching and learning. The course that is the subject of the study focuses on XML and theories of knowledge organization in which many international postgraduate students were enrolled. Schuster and Stewart examine course assessment-related components and how metaliteracy, particularly metacognition, may be integrated to enhance student success. The pedagogical elements that they raise might be used in a wide variety of courses to meet the same goal of student success.

The authors consider the interplay between metaliteracy, constructive alignment, and learning-oriented assessments. They define constructive alignment as “a model of curriculum design in which teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks are systematically aligned” (p. 4) with the learning outcomes that an instructor has identified. Learning oriented assessment (LOA) supports the use of a range of assessment types that provide learners with “regular and applicable feedback” (p. 5) and that lends itself to instructors and students co-constructing assessments and feedback mechanisms.

Schuster and Stewart write,

This process of co-construction offers opportunities to scaffold curriculum and encourage students to actively acquire, transfer, and enhance their understanding(s) of the abilities and theories taught during a module. This approach shifts students’ focus away from performing certain study abilities and shifts it toward measuring their success against abstract frameworks for success. (p. 5)

They continue, drawing together constructive alignment and LOA with metaliteracy,

This shift has the potential to empower them to collaboratively and dynamically use curricular content to actively integrate their knowledge and experiences into teaching and assessment frameworks. This, in turn, enhances the types of work and feedback students are willing to engage in and has the potential to expand their metaliteracy practices beause they are able to synthesize new, taught abilities with their pre-existing skills. (p. 5)

Schuster and Stewart were working with international and English as a Foreign Language students during the fall 2017 and spring 2019 semesters. Toward the end of their article, they discuss how the course instructor used metaliteracy to make significant revisions to the course, including assessments, lectures, and seminar activities (p. 5).

The assessment techniques and strategies that the authors outline are transferable to a wide range of courses. Their insight that led to the incorporation of metaliteracy is noted in one in the Key Points they highlight on the first page of the article, “Metaliteracy can be adapted and used to develop innovative forms of assessment” (p.1).

We encourage you to read this important article, as this brief overview can not hope to capture the full impact of the authors’ work.

Citation:

Schuster, Kristen, and Kristine N. Stewart. 2021. ‘Using Constructive Alignment to Support Metaliteracy in International Classrooms’. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 62 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.62.1-2019-0077