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

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. Welcome + Introductions

3. POLL
Which best describes your work environment?
a. Academic library
b. School library
c. Public library
d. Special library
e. Other

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. 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. 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. DISCUSSION
Has the Framework and/or Decoding the Disciplines
influenced your approach to teaching? How (not)?

8. ACRL Standards & Framework: Overview

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. 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. 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. “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. Threshold Concepts:
Characteristics
• Transformative
• Irreversible
• Integrative
• Bounded
• Troublesome
(Meyer & Land, 2003)

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. 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. “Decoding the Disciplines: Overview

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. “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. “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. 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. 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. 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. ‘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. ‘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. ‘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. ‘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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. FURTHER DISCUSSION

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. 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.