Information overload is the popular conception of information, especially with the internet and the 24-hour news cycle. Information is something we are "bombarded" with: news reports, radio programs, billboards, magazine articles, facts, statistics, stuff on websites - type information into Google and you'll get "About 2,640,000,000 results." However, the popular conception of information is still pretty text-based, narrower than that of information theorists like Christine Bruce, who defines information as "anything we experience as informing" (p. 5, Informed Learning). This view of information is contextual and can include stuff with words but also visuals we wouldn't usually think of. For example, fire contains information for a fireman, as does the body language of his colleagues.
Certainly the conception of information in academia is largely text based, composed of figures and numbers and primary sources - things you can look up in books and electronic databases and possibly verify. The ACRL information literacy standards illustrate this emphasis. Multimedia forms are included, but information is still something that can be fact-checked.
Nonetheless, the traditional views of information and the broader view a la Informed Learning both boil down to two important parts of information literacy - knowing how to get useful information and knowing how to use the information you get.
Of course this begs other questions: Where do we go to find information? How do we go about looking for it How do we recognize useful information when we find it? Or in other words, how do we evaluate the information we find? How do we understand or conceptualize the information? How do we integrate the information into our work? It is these questions that the information literacy standards attempt to address, in a general way that speaks to a specific discipline - academia. Thus the emphasis on more scholarly sources, electronic retrieval of information, and intellectual property.
This expanded definition hasn't so much changed my view of information literacy as much as it has made explicit what I would have implicitly agreed with - it's all about context. However, it further emphasizes the need to have some methods of interfacing with information in a critical way that facilitates evaluation and reflection.
Showing posts with label library school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label library school. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)