Literacies lightning round academic librarians


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • <a href="" title="Wordle: Information Literacy"><img src="" alt="Wordle: Information Literacy" style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a>
  • In his 2006 book Convergence Culture, professor and media studies scholar Henry Jenkins talks about convergence not simply as a technological or media process but also as a cultural shift.In my paper, I talk about convergencein terms of the literacies people need to navigate a rapidly changing information landscape. My aim was to describe the intersection of current literacies theory and emerging work in digital media and learning; to identify several examples of information and digital media literacy from my university and other venues; and to imagine a possible future integration of 21st century literacies.
  • In libraries, information literacyhas been the dominant literacyparadigm during recent decades. However the field is increasingly recognizing that updated definitions are necessary to address a digital generation.
  • Big SixSylvia Edwards’ Net Lenses model
  • there are a host of other literacies from other fields and traditions – digital literacy-“the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” visual literacy- “find, interpret, evaluate, use, and create images and visual media. Visual literacy skills equip a learner to understand and analyze the contextual, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, intellectual, and technical components involved in the production and use of visual materials” ACRL/ILG working group definitionmedia literacy-” ability to ACCESS, ANALYZE, EVALUATE, and COMMUNICATE information in a variety of forms, including print and non-print messages. . . .critical thinkers and creative producers of an increasingly wide range of messages using image, language, and sound. It is the skillful application of literacy skills to media and technology messages”. there have been repeated debates and attempts to highlight similarities and differences between various conceptions or to articulate overarching literacy concepts such as Transliteracy-“the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and films, to digital social networks.” “analyzes the relationship between people and technology, most specifically social networking, but is fluid enough to not be tied to any particular technology. It focuses more on the social uses of technology, whatever that technology may be”the debates in the blogosphere over transliteracyMultiliteracies or new literacies-Multiliteracies acknowledge the multiplicity of cultural and linguistic contexts in which we make meaning and the changing social and technological environment, which require not just a singular formal literacy but also a range of old and new literacy strategies and the critical thinking ability to adapt to emerging technologies and practices21st century skills-“the three Rs and four Cs (critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, and creativity and innovation)”new media literacies-skills needed to participate collaboratively in a networked culture, including play, performance, simulation, appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking and negotiationMetaliteracy-Mackey and Jacobsen’s 2011 article in College and Research Libraries on Information Literacy as Metaliteracy and. However there are more similarities than one might imagine from the amount of debate that has arisen. In general, besides the skills like-determining, accessing, evaluating and using information in a variety of formats for a purpose-- some overarching themes within many of these literacies are:Movement beyond technical skills to concepts learned not only in formal education but also in students’ informal interest driven practicesStronger emphasis on critical analysis and creation of information in various formats as well as on communication and collaboration in groups Literacy for Lifelong learning, democracy, citizenshipHowever, what interests me more than the definitional debates is how literacy learning is playing out on the ground amongst our students and future students. 
  • Digital Media Youth and Credibility ed. By Miriam Metzger and Andrew Flanagin. In chapter three of the volume, “College Students’ Credibility Judgments in the Information-Seeking Process,” researchers Soo Young Rieh and Brian Hilligoss discuss their study of credibility evaluation, in which they asked 24 undergraduates to keep online diaries of their information seeking activities, and then subsequently interviewed them. Rieh and Hilligoss note three types of judgments that students make: predictive (where to start for credible information), evaluative (whether the information they have found is actually credible) and verification (confirming with other sources). They found that the college students in their group were often more aware of the need for credibility judgments than we might assume. Aand use variety of strategies in information seeking: “(1) starting information-seeking at a trusted place (often meaningwith trusted and knowledgeable individuals and particularly those they are socially close to, (2) using multiple resources and cross-referencing, director of the Information Institute of Syracuse, R. David Lankes, in his chapter “Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools,” posits that the disintermediation of information sources created a shift in credibility evaluation from authority to reliability.Lankes highlights the conversational and participatory process where students are used to: conversations and commentary around various resources; ratings, recommendations and reviews; counter-narratives and protests; and links to other information and additional resources and (3) compromising information credibility for speed and convenience.” make judgments about the importance of credibility based on context (how important the information was for their purposes and, interestingly, whether the information was going to affect others).Metzger and Flanagin followed up their 2007 volume with the 2010 publication of their research on the credibility attitudes of 2,747 children, ages 11-18. In their survey, they found that children: are concerned with credibility, especially as they age; do distinguish between types of information and their level of credibility for various purposes (school-related, health, news, commercial, etc.), though they don’t distinguish as much as necessary between the credibility of entertainment and health sites; and report skepticism about information found on blogs. However, the majority of them rate themselves higher on Internet skills than their peers, think online information is reasonably believable (often more than books for school assignments), rate themselves as believing more information on Wikipedia than they think others should, and show a disparity between their conscious evaluation of information and their actual practices, which are often more heuristic and less rigorous.  What does this mean for the way we approach information (and other) literacies? Research such as that outlined above suggests ways we can adjust our instructional strategies. For example, instead of only presenting students with an initial credibility checklist at the start of their search, we can ask them to consider credibility at points during the process, capturing the evaluative and verification portions of the information seeking spectrum. We can also play to students' socially motivated evaluative process, which could include asking them to: look for both traditional (citation counts) and emerging (ratings and online reviews) indicators of reliability; talk with other members of their class about the resources they find; or, if they are working in group projects, find a source they think is credible and then have other group members evaluate it as well, coming to a collective decision about the resources to use that will give them the best grade. For the newer generation of students we see coming in, we can move beyond simplistic messages about the reliability of Wikipedia as an information source and ask students not only to examine the content of Wikipedia articles compared to other sources, but also to evaluate it as if they were advising someone else or reflect upon their own credibility evaluation process, automatic as well as conscious.  
  • Jami Carlacio’s 2880 English class: Moodle site, Confluence wiki hosted by ITClass was heavily multimedia basedLance created LibGuide and taught in class finding text and multimedia information, evaluation and citation but also creation of their own multimedia projects which was where IT came in againVideo from 00:26
  • Model for IMLS-funded learning labs: Learning Labs in Libraries and Museums
  • Literacies lightning round academic librarians

    1. 1. Literacies Lightning Round:Integrating 21st Century Literacies Into the Curriculum Camille Andrews Learning Technologies & Assessment Librarian Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University Images of Wordles are licensed .
    2. 2. Overview• Convergence of literacies and emerging research on digital media and learning• Examples of integration of literacies• Possible futures
    3. 3. To be information literate one must "recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.“  American Library Association. Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final Report.(Chicago: American Library Association, 1989.)
    4. 4. IL Models ACRL IL Competency 7 Pillars of IL Standards AASL Standards for 7 Faces of IL 21st Century Learner
    5. 5.
    6. 6. Overarching themes• Movement beyond technical skills to concepts learned not only in formal education but also in students’ informal interest-driven practices• Stronger emphasis on critical analysis, filtering and creation of information in various formats as well as on communication and collaboration in groups• Recognition of multiple literacies and socially and contextually situated nature of literacy• Literacy for lifelong learning, democracy, citizenship
    7. 7. Literacies Research arch/goodplay/
    8. 8. Credibility Research• Predictive, Evaluative, Verification (Rieh and Hilligoss, 2007)• Strategies: Trusted Places; Multiple Resources and Verification; Compromising Quality for Speed• Distinguish between types of information but overestimate skill; recognize need to evaluate but automaticity wins out over effortful consideration (Metzger and Flanagin, 2010)
    9. 9. EXAMPLES
    10. 10.
    11. 11. The Jamies (Jamie Hacker and Jamie Peretz:; Digital Literacy in the Google Generation:
    12. 12. Flexibility Creativity Fun Letting students chart their own course canPhotos: Gwen Glazer, be scary but it makesCornell University LibraryCommunications . . for good learning.
    13. 13. Institute for Multimedia Literacy @ USC: and What is IML?
    14. 14. Public Library’s YouMedia:
    15. 15. Badges for interest-driven learning
    16. 16. Possible Futures?Wordle by Margaret Gaudino:
    17. 17. Bibliography• Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture : Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 2-3.• American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report. (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, para. 28 (1989),• David Bawden, "Information and Digital Literacies: A Review of Concepts," Journal of Documentation 57, no. 2 (March 2001), 218-259.• Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson, "Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy," College & Research Libraries 72, no. 1 (January 2011), 62-78,• Craig Gibson, "Information Literacy and IT Fluency," Reference & User Services Quarterly 46, no. 3 (Spring 2007), 23-59,;• Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (n.d.),• American Association of School Librarians, AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (2007), 2. m• Society of College, National and University Libraries, Seven Pillars of Information Literacy (2011)• Bruce, C.S. (1997) The Seven Faces of Information Literacy, AUSLIB Press, Adelaide.
    18. 18. • Paul Gilster, Digital Literacy (New York; Chichester: Wiley, 1997), 1.• Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel, Digital Literacies : Concepts, Policies and Practices (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 7.• Maria Avgerinou, "What is Visual Literacy?" International Visual Literacy Association, accessed January 5, 2010,• ACRL Image Resources Interest Group, "Visual Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education: Standards Introduction," accessed March 22, 2011,• National Association for Media Literacy Education, "Media Literacy Defined," accessed January 5, 2011,• New London Group, "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures," Harvard Educational Review 66, no. 1 (March 1996), 60-92. 304&site=eds-live.;• Julie Coiro et. al., eds., Handbook of Research on New Literacies (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group, 2008), 1-21.• Henry Jenkins, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture : Media Education for the 21st Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), 4.• Partnership for 21st Century Skills, accessed January 5, 2011,
    19. 19. • Sue Thomas et. al., "Transliteracy: Crossing Divides," First Monday 12, no. 12 (December 2007),• Tom Ipri, "Introducing Transliteracy: What does it Mean to Academic Libraries?" College & Research Libraries News 71, no. 10 (2010), 532,• John Buschman, "Information Literacy, "New" Literacies, and Literacy," Library Quarterly 79, no. 1 (January 2009), 95-118• Bobbi Newman, "Why Transliteracy? Bobbis Two Cents (or Less)," Libraries and Transliteracy, December 22, 2010, transliteracy-bobbis-two-cents-or-less/• David Rothman, "Commensurable Nonsense: Transliteracy,", December 22, 2010,• Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, Studying Students : The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007).• MacArthur Foundation, "Domestic Grantmaking : Digital Media & Learning," _Media__Learning.htm.• Mizuko Ito et. al., “Foreword,” in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds. Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), viii.
    20. 20. • Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin, "Introduction," in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds. Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 1-4,• Soo Young Rieh and Brian Hilligoss, "College Students Credibility Judgments in the Information- Seeking Process," in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds. Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 49-71,• R. David Lankes, "Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools," in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds. Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 101-121,• Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger, "Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and Unprecedented Responsibility," in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds. Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 5-27,• Andrew J. Flanagin, Miriam J. Metzger and Ethan Hartsell, Kids and Credibility : An Empirical Examination of Youth, Digital Media use, and Information Credibility (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), x-xv.• Jami Carlacio and Lance Heidig, "Teaching Digital Literacy Digitally: A Collaborative Approach," [paper presented at Media in Transition 6: stone and papyrus, storage and transmission, Cambridge, MA, April 24-26, 2009).• Institute for Multimedia Literacy, "About IML: History and Background," accessed January 5, 2010,• YouMedia, “Philosophy,” accessed January 5, 2011, philosophy/pages/56-philosophy• Mizuko Ito et. al.. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out : Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010, 21.
    21. 21. Q&A• Presentation on SlideShare• Camille Andrews: