What is information literacy?

Many (but not by any means all - I teach community college) of my younger students are computer literate, but not information literate. They can use Google or Wikipedia; but how well are they using them? Let me put it this way - whenever I catch anyone plagiarizing, it's usually from a web page in the first page or two of the Google search results.

That is so not information literacy.

According to the ACRL, "Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.'" The ACRL has defined 5 standards that indicate information literacy, and they pretty closely align with my understanding as someone who is unofficially paid to teach information literacy under the guise of a college composition course: know when you need information, know how to go about seeking it (e.g., Google versus the library, how to do effective searches), be able to recognize "good" information (i.e., critical reading), use the information in an effective way once it's found, and use other people's ideas ethically (i.e., don't plagiarize).

Let me interject here that this is harder than it seems.

The final project for my freshman composition classes, an argument or analysis paper that is informed by outside sources have outcomes (which are given to me) that look a bit like the above standards. This usually requires hitting the easy button by telling them they need X amount of sources, half of which must be "library" sources (and we discuss the whys and hows of that, which includes what even I must admit is a terribly boring orientation - and I like this stuff! - at the library to the catalog, databases, and internet with tips that the students seem to mostly forget. I've tried requesting a short, database only version for this Monday, so let's see how that goes.) I require these "library" sources (argh, I can't call them non-internet because practically the whole library collection is digital and accessible online) or else from some students I will get a bunch of stuff no doubt found in the first 2 pages of Google. However, I do let them use internet sources - but they have to be "credible." This is a concept we (try to) explore at length (the critical reading component), and admit that I am pretty happy if they can at least halfway look critically at a source.

This would be a noble goal alone in a semester, but I am also supposed to get them to know when they need outside information (again, by force of assignment combined with models in our readings, usually a discussion focused on argument - but since I think many are happy sticking with their already-formed ideas, I'm not so sure this "sticks"), how to not plagiarize (integration and citation practice with some explanation of why and a dash of turnitin.com), and how to use that information effectively. This last one is tough. Humans are good at the quick categorization into the "I agree" and "I disagree" files.

Oh, and I'm also supposed to be teaching them how to write an effective college essay. 

All in all it is hard for me to say I am doing any of this well. I can measure types of sources and how well sources are integrated and cited easily, but the rest?

The ACRL standards lean heavily towards primary resources and academic scholarship as the information to be sought out. I think that at the freshman level, this can be instructive but is not as helpful as at a more advanced level. Scholars in the field need primary sources and peer-reviewed journal articles. But, really, do my freshmen, beyond a first-hand experience in how primary sources can be interpreted?

The standards also emphasize, somewhat implicitly, database search engines (through the use of advanced search features as an outcome), thus downplaying the role of the internet search engine and its plethera of secondary sources. Considering I, an MLIS student and holder of an MA in English, with 24-hour access to a few college library catalogs and many databases, still go to Google most of the when I need to know something (sometimes even "expert" stuff - thank you internet forums when my computer did _____), this focus is a bit unrealistic. I wish the librarians would spend more time showing my students how to use the internet better.

Intellectual property rights get another spotlight in the standards, which makes sense given the Western, scholarly perspective. Finally, there is much emphasis on technology in general, which is a separate skill (as the ACRL freely admits) but one that has gotten so wrapped up in information retrieval and has really confounded information literacy with the sheer volume of information now available.

Learning Theories Infographic via Prezi

My first attempt at either an infographic or Prezi software (which is pretty neat, but time-consuming!).

What does it mean to learn?

In a previous post I looked at how knowing differs from understanding. Knowing was more formal, surface-level, factual, whereas understanding was seen as deeper, more about application to new situations and insight; what Understanding by Design points to as the ability to transfer. Likewise, learning seems to have degrees (a comment to which my husband responded - yes, associate's degree, bachelor's degree...ha).

On the one hand, learning is clearly separate from mere memorization (although ironically this is what much assessment, especially at the lower educational levels - undergraduate college included - tests; my subject, college reading and composition doesn't really accommodate this, as much as I'd love to let the scantron machine be my grading assistant). However, learning does have a memory component. I can, for instance, say I learned Spanish verb tenses even though I don't really remember them, besides a touch of present tense conjugation, because I don't converse in Spanish.

This brings another component of learning, which is reinforcement. More reinforcement though repeated application deepens the learning in the memory as well as increasing understanding. Increased understanding gives one a bigger picture view (of the concepts, the pattern involved - could we call understanding the forest whereas knowledge is the trees?). This bigger picture, conceptual view seems to "stick" deeper in the mind. (This jives with what I know about the brain - the more connections made between things, the more structurally permanent they become.)

So perhaps instead of degrees there is depth of learning. If I carefully read and "learn" a book, long after the names and details fade, the major concepts (and the connections I made to my own life) will stay with me.

Learning Reflection Comments and Thoughts

I had the following comments from Mary Ann Harlan regarding my learning reflection that got me thinking: 

...one idea I am sure you have explored but isn’t terribly obvious in your reflection is writing as a thinking tool.  Some questions – is it the physicality of the act, a focusing tool, a strategy for memory – and in terms of the skill of note taking, how did that develop, how did you learn to identify important details in a lecture for example.  I am finding that strategy is relatively unexamined, and I am wondering if people take the skill for granted.  

The first comment got at something I had discussed with my husband (another teacher) and had even started to query in my reflection before deciding to edit it out - how does writing help me think? There is certainly the memory component, especially when it involves the physical act of writing (I haven't yet decided if typing does the same). Interestingly, for my freshman composition class I assign Adler's How to Mark a Book as the first reading where he argues that writing is an essential active reading strategy, and one of his reasons is writing's link to memory. (Students confirm this when I ask them whether they have done something like writing a shopping list and then leaving it at home, only to realize they remember their items nonetheless.)

I wondered aloud to my husband if writing wasn't also about doing, making it a physical learning method. He thought not, but it still seems logical to me. And certainly writing is about focusing attention, thoughts, energy. This is often overlooked. As an example, I normally do not write about my teaching thoughts. Usually it's more along the lines of worrying and maybe talking it out with my husband or, if I'm lucky, another English instructor (unfortunately the schedule of an adjunct often precludes seeing other teachers regularly). However, I have already felt the benefit from this focused reflecting - articulating it makes it more concrete and hence more resolvable and less anxious.

When it comes to note taking, writing can serve all of these functions - however, for me it more strongly acts as a memory agent.  Yet where, when, and how did I learn to take notes? I have to admit I am not sure - and I have tried to consider how I learned what is important to notice because I would like to use that insight to help my students be better at this. But I have no memory of conscious awareness of the method developing in me. I suspect it is a combination of osmosis (lots of reading throughout childhood) and modeling what instructors and, later, criticism articles do. So I try to model my thinking to students when we go over readings. But probably not as much as I could - this is a good reminder to do this more and more explicitly. 

Knowing and Understanding

Knowing and understanding are often seen as synonymous terms: Merriam Webster even defines knowing as having a (practical) understanding of something. However, from the perspective of learning (either as a student or a teacher), one can see these as two different concepts. Thus framed, knowing is about ability to recite and recognize facts, concepts, and processes whereas understanding becomes something more vague, less measurable - the ability to apply that knowledge to other, new situations. Understanding implies a depth that knowledge does not. You can certainly know without understanding (as we do with much of the world, be it technological or natural), but one could understand without knowing (I'm thinking of those who possess easy and quick insight into the workings of things without any education about them).

For an example of how one can know but not really understand, take what I learned about in my database management class: I know the basic components of a relational database, but without having worked with one, I really wouldn't say I understand relational databases. That said, my instructor did the best he could do to get us close to understanding, by having us define and explain in our own, conversational words and apply the concepts to imaginary situations. Both helped bring me a little into the realm of understanding. There's nothing like having to explain something to someone else that makes you really know it - and if you do a good job of explaining it (and hence applying your knowing of it to a new situation), that seems a decent indication that you're at least somewhat understanding it.

Because knowledge and understanding are abstract concepts, and because there is arguably a certain amount of overlap between the two, a firm definition is difficult to pin down. However, they are about the best terms to apply to the various hues of gray that mark our comprehension (argh, another one!) of the world.