Successfully reported this slideshow.

Decoding the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy: Applying the “Decoding the Discipline” Model for Instructional Planning Workshop

2

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 40
1 of 40

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Decoding the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy: Applying the “Decoding the Discipline” Model for Instructional Planning Workshop

More from ALATechSource

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Decoding the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy: Applying the “Decoding the Discipline” Model for Instructional Planning Workshop

  1. 1. Decoding the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy: Applying the Decoding the Disciplines Model for Instructional Planning ALA Publishing Workshop October 29, 2015 Andrea Baer
  2. 2. Welcome + Introductions
  3. 3. POLL Which best describes your work environment? a. Academic library b. School library c. Public library d. Special library e. Other
  4. 4. Learning outcomes • Recognize commonalities between Decoding’s concept “bottlenecks of learning” and the ACRL Framework’s threshold concepts in order to explore ways that they may complement one another. • Identify steps in the Decoding the Disciplines process which may facilitate individual or collaborative instructional planning, including planning that applies elements of the ACRL Framework. • Reflect on effective language for opening conversation with fellow educators about approaches or concepts addressed in the ACRL Framework.
  5. 5. POLL How familiar are you with the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy? a. Had not heard about it before this webinar b. Heard about it but still unfamiliar with its central ideas c. Familiar with its ideas but still grasping central ideas d. Very familiar with its central ideas
  6. 6. POLL How familiar are you with “Decoding the Disciplines”? a. Had not heard about it before this webinar b. Heard about it but still unfamiliar with its ideas c. Familiar with its ideas but still grasping central ideas d. Very familiar with its central ideas
  7. 7. DISCUSSION Has the Framework and/or Decoding the Disciplines influenced your approach to teaching? How (not)?
  8. 8. ACRL Standards & Framework: Overview
  9. 9. ACRL Standards Definition “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.’” - “ACRL Standards for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” ACRL, 2001
  10. 10. ACRL Framework “Threshold Concepts” • Authority Is Constructed and Contextual • Information Creation as a Process • Information Has Value • Research as Inquiry • Scholarship as Conversation • Searching as Strategic Exploration
  11. 11. Photo by Julien.Belli - Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.flickr.com/photos/125615321@N04 Created with Haiku Deck “Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities… “reflective discovery of information” “how information is produced and valued” “use of information in creating new knowledge” “participating ethically in communities of learning” -ACRL Framework, 2015
  12. 12. “Threshold Concepts”: The Core of the Framework “Core or foundational concepts that, once grasped by the learner, create new perspectives and ways of understanding a discipline or challenging knowledge domain.” (Land, Meyer, & Baillie, 2010)
  13. 13. Threshold Concepts: Characteristics • Transformative • Irreversible • Integrative • Bounded • Troublesome (Meyer & Land, 2003)
  14. 14. ACRL Framework “Threshold Concepts” • Authority Is Constructed and Contextual • Information Creation as a Process • Information Has Value • Research as Inquiry • Scholarship as Conversation • Searching as Strategic Exploration
  15. 15. ACRL Framework Structure For each threshold concept: • Explanation of concept • Knowledge practices • Dispositions • Authority Is Constructed and Contextual • Information Creation as a Process • Information Has Value • Research as Inquiry • Scholarship as Conversation • Searching as Strategic Exploration
  16. 16. “Decoding the Disciplines: Overview
  17. 17. “Bottlenecks of Learning” “points in a course where the learning of a significant number of students is interrupted” (Anderson, 1996, cited in Middendorf and Pace, 2004, p. 4)
  18. 18. Decoding the Disciplines: Foundational Ideas • Mental operations that are expected of students differ greatly from one discipline to another • Lack of explicit instruction in disciplinary practices and thinking • Lack of opportunities for students to practice and get feedback on specific skills/tasks • Lack of systematic assessment of students’ understandings of disciplinary ways of thinking (Middendorf & Pace, 20, p.4)
  19. 19. 7 Steps of Decoding (paraphrased) 1. Identify “bottlenecks”: Where are students getting “stuck”? 2. “Unpacking” a process: How does an expert do this task? 3. Modeling: How can the task be demonstrated explicitly? 4. Student practice and feedback: What opportunities can students have to engage in the task and get feedback?
  20. 20. 7 Steps of Decoding (continued) 5. Motivation: How will students be motivated? 6. Assessment: How well are students doing the task? 7. Sharing results: How can the gained knowledge about learning be shared with other educators?
  21. 21. 7 Steps of Decoding (paraphrased) 1. Identify “bottlenecks 2. “Unpacking” a process 3. Modeling 4. Student practice and feedback 5. Motivation 6. Assessment 7. Sharing results
  22. 22. “Bottlenecks” and “Threshold Concepts” • What similarities do you see between Decoding’s “bottlenecks” and the Framework’s “threshold concepts”? • What differences do you see?
  23. 23. “Bottlenecks” and “Threshold Concepts” • Focus on transformational conceptual understandings vs. disciplinary tasks • TCs as a theory for learning vs. Decoding as a model for instructional planning • Framework’s TCs considered relevant across disciplines, Decoding focuses on discipline-specific tasks and ways of thinking
  24. 24. Sources about Decoding and the ACRL Framework Miller, Sarah. “Thinking through Information Literacy in the Disciplines: Using the Framework to Make Expert Processes Visible.” Indiana University-Kokomo, 2015. Townsend, Lori, Silvia Lu, Amy R. Hofer, and Korey Brunetti. “What’s the Matter with Threshold Concepts?” ACRLog, January 30, 2015. http://acrlog.org/2015/01/30/whats-the-matter-with-threshold- concepts/.
  25. 25. Sources about Decoding and Threshold Concepts Lundstrom, Kacy, Britt Anna Fagerheim, and Elizabeth Benson. “Librarians and Instructors Developing Student Learning Outcomes: Using Frameworks to Lead the Process (English).” Reference Services Review 42, no. 3 (cover date 2014): 484–98. Shopkow, Leah. “What Decoding the Disciplines Can Offer Threshold Concepts.” edited by J. Meyer, R. Land, and C. Baillie, 42:317–32. Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, 2010.
  26. 26. DISCUSSION Decoding Step 1 1. Identify “bottlenecks”: Think of a context/discipline in which you often work. Where do students often get “stuck” when doing research or using sources within that context? Examples: • Narrowing a topic • Making an argument • Integrating sources into a paper/presentation • Understanding varying purposes for using sources
  27. 27. ‘FREEWRITE’ + DISCUSSION Decoding Step 2 2. “Unpacking” a process: How does an expert do a task related to this bottleneck? Example for “Narrowing a topic”: • Do background research. • Explore who does research on the topic • Locate themes and debates related to the topic through exploration of various sources and venues.
  28. 28. ‘FREEWRITE’ + DISCUSSION Decoding Step 2 (con’d) Think back to the bottleneck you identified and how an expert might approach it. Identify 1-3 specific concepts or processes that you would address in instruction related to the bottleneck (i.e. your instructional priorities). Example for “Narrowing a topic”: Use a “seed source” to identify themes/questions related to the topic. Identify other relevant sources. After your initial reflection, consider whether the bottleneck is related to one or more concepts from the ACRL Framework. If so, how?
  29. 29. ‘FREEWRITE’ + DISCUSSION Decoding Step 3 Identify one concept and/or process you just identified and translate it into tasks that are motivating and observable. 3. Modeling: How can the task be demonstrated explicitly? Example for “Narrowing a topic”: • Task: Use a “seed source” to identify themes/questions related to the topic. Identify other relevant sources. • Modeling: • Demonstrate the process of reading and annotating a source in order to identify themes and related sources. • Discuss students’ other approaches to task.
  30. 30. ‘FREEWRITE’ + DISCUSSION Decoding Step 4 4. Student practice and feedback: What opportunities can students have to engage in the task and get feedback? Examples: discussion, group work, peer feedback
  31. 31. DISCUSSION Decoding Step 5 5. Assessment: How well are students doing the task? (And how do you know?) General approaches: discussions, class activities, presentations, reflective writing prompts, worksheets, other assignments, etc. Example for “Narrowing a topic”: Task: Use a “seed source” to identify themes/questions related to the topic. Identify other relevant sources. Assessment: • Small and large groups discuss their approaches to the task. • Students annotate a source in order to illustrate where they identified themes and relevant sources. • Students write a short reflective essay on their process and on their emerging research questions.
  32. 32. Assessment: Articulating a Learning Outcome Articulate 1-2 learning outcomes related to your bottleneck or the related task. Examples: • Identify 1-2 issues or questions addressed in a “seed source” that relate to your research topic. • Identify one source used in the “seed source” and how the author uses the source. Do these outcomes reflect any aspects of the ACRL Framework? If so how?
  33. 33. Addressing Conceptual Understandings: Learning Outcome Examples Develop a search strategy. vs. Develop and refine a search strategy in light of the relevance of your initial search results. Articulate how your search strategy has changed. Identify sources of varying types (e.g. a blog post, a scholarly article) that are credible or non-credible. vs. Articulate the authority and appropriateness of a variety of source types for your research purpose.
  34. 34. DISCUSSION Decoding Step 6 6. Motivation: How will students be motivated? (Why should students care about this? How does it connect to their interests/experiences?) Example for “Narrowing a topic”: • Students articulate why their research topic interests them. • Students articulate who else might care about the research topic and why. • Students reflect on the “stakes” that different audiences might have in the research topic and how this might affect those audience’s viewpoints. • Students identify different types of sources they might explore in order to articulate varying viewpoints.
  35. 35. DISCUSSION Decoding Step 7 - Sharing Results How can the gained knowledge about learning be shared with other educators? • Did this “decoding” process give you general insight into how to talk to faculty about student learning? • Does this give you a different perspective on the ACRL Framework or different language with which to talk about concepts from the Framework?
  36. 36. 7 Steps of Decoding (paraphrased) 1. Identify “bottlenecks” 2. “Unpacking” a process 3. Modeling 4. Student practice and feedback 5. Motivation 6. Assessment 7. Sharing results
  37. 37. Decoding the Disciplines: Foundational Ideas College instruction generally characterized by: • Disciplinary differences in mental operations expected of students • Lack of explicit instruction in disciplinary practices • Lack of opportunities for students to practice and get feedback on specific skills/tasks • Lack of systematic assessment of students’ understandings of disciplinary ways of thinking (Middendorf & Pace, 20, p.4)
  38. 38. FURTHER DISCUSSION
  39. 39. ACTIVITY + DISCUSSION (time permitting) Identifying relevant learning experiences Brainstorm other possible learning experiences that would help students engage with the bottlenecks you have identified. Reviewing the ACRL Framework’s knowledge practices or dispositions may be helpful for this activity.
  40. 40. References Anderson, J. A. “Merging Teaching Effectiveness, Learning Outcomes, and Curricular Change with the Diverse Student Needs of the 21st Century.” Paper presented at the 21st annual conference of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Salt Lake City, Oct. 1996.Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015 Feb.) Framework for information literacy for higher education: The information literacy competency standards for higher education. (Final version). http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). “Standards for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency Lundstrom, Kacy, Britt Anna Fagerheim, and Elizabeth Benson. “Librarians and Instructors Developing Student Learning Outcomes: Using Frameworks to Lead the Process (English).” Reference Services Review 42, no. 3 (cover date 2014): 484–98. Middendorf, Joan, and David Pace. “Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking.” In Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 98, by David Pace and Joan Middendorf, 1–12, 1 edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. Miller, Sarah. “Thinking through Information Literacy in the Disciplines: Using the Framework to Make Expert Processes Visible.” Indiana University-Kokomo, 2015. Townsend, Lori, Silvia Lu, Amy R. Hofer, and Korey Brunetti. “What’s the Matter with Threshold Concepts?” ACRLog, January 30, 2015. http://acrlog.org/2015/01/30/whats-the-matter-with-threshold-concepts/. Meyer, J. H. F., and R. Land. “Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines.” edited by C. Rust, 1–12. Improving Student Learning; Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice - 10 Years on. Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development, 2003. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport4.pdf. Meyer, J. HF, Land, R. & Baillie, C. (2010). Editors' preface. In Meyer, J. HF, Land, R. & Baillie, C. (Eds.), Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Shopkow, Leah. “What Decoding the Disciplines Can Offer Threshold Concepts.” edited by J. Meyer, R. Land, and C. Baillie, 42:317–32. Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, 2010.

Editor's Notes

  • 2:30 Decoding:
    a model for instructional planning, centered on identifying “bottlenecks” (which share similarities with threshold concepts)
    a practical approach can help in thinking about applications of the more conceptual/abstract Framework
    Means of prioritizing instructional goals and learning outcomes
  • 2:35
  • 2:40
  • 2:40
  • From the ACRL Framework: Knowledge practices: “ways in which learners can increase their understanding of these information literacy concepts”
    Dispositions: “ways in which to address the affective, attitudinal, or valuing dimension of learning”
  • 2:45
  • Broader concept than “threshold concept”
  • Introduction to Decoding the Disciplines and to its relevance to the ACRL Framework (15 minutes)

  • 2:50
  • 2:55
  • 2:57-3:03
  • 3:03-13
    3 MINUTE FREEWRITE
    Note this examples connections to Scholarship as Conversation and Research as Inquiry.
    Note intersections between frames.
  • 3:13-20
  • 3:20-25
  • 3:25
    Overview of concepts of authentic assessment and of assessable learning outcomes, particularly as they relate to Decoding the Disciplines and the ACRL Framework; outcomes as assessable/observable, assessment as learning, formative assessment

    Assessment is probably already part of your plans for students engaging in the task and getting feedback, but useful to step back after identifying ways students will engage in the given task and to think deliberately about how they will demonstrate their learning.

    Examples of how your responses to #4 reflect assessment, or if you see certain gaps there
  • 3:27-30
    The outcome(s) ideally will address a conceptual understanding or disciplinary way of thinking and will reflect an observable action through which students would demonstrate their learning.

  • 3:30-33
    Discuss connections between outcomes and Framework – how are conceptual understandings, knowledge practices, or dispositions addressed?
  • 3:33-37
    Will depend largely on instructional context (e.g. duration of instruction)
    Experiences with addressing motivation?

    e.g. a topic students care about; metaphors that relate scholarship to students everyday experiences
  • 3:37-47
    Share examples of ways you might use Decoding to open conversations.
    e.g. Where do your students get stuck?

    Share experiences with opening such conversations.
  • 3:45-55
  • ×