Integrating Information Literacy into the Curriculum

by Marjorie M. Warmkessel and Joseph M. McCade

This article describes a two-week graduate wurse on information literacy, developed and taught by a librarian and a professor of industry and technology, and intended for teachers and librarians in elementary and seconday schools. Information literacy is not only the content of the wurse but also the basis of its structure: active, student-centered learning with several group assignments helps students develop skills in finding information, analyzing and interpreting it, and putting it to practical use. Both pedagogical and evaluation methods reflect recent educational reforms, and the team teaching provides a model of collaboration between teachers and librarians.

L ibrarians and other educators have written extensively about the need to promote information literacy as an integral part of

the education process. ’ The basic goal of information literacy is to enable people to become lifelong learners. The premise for this goal is that information literate individuals will be able to sift through the enormous amount of information available, effectively using appro- priate sources to solve problems and make decisions in all areas of their lives.

If information literacy is to be integrated into school curricula, to reach children in the earliest stages of their educational careers, then elementary and secondary school teachers must understand, accept, and become comfortable with it. Information literacy as a concept is consistent with other educational reforms that emphasize resource- based learning. In such an educational environment the student, not

Marjorie M. Warmkessel is Coordinator of Information Access Services and Joseph M. McCade is Associate Professor of Industry and Technology, Millersville University, Millersville, PA. E-mail: mwarmkes@narauakr.millersv.edu

Research Strategies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. SO-88 61997 by Research Strategies. All rights reserved.

war??lkessel1h4ccade 81

the teacher, is central to the learning process. Teachers offer direction, but do not provide all the information that students need. Instead, they guide students in finding, evaluating, and using information. As Doyle puts it, “Students will be encouraged from the start of their education to be self-directive, to work collaboratively with others, and to learn the process of information literacy which will assist them in problem solving and critical thinking.“*

INFORMATION LITERACY AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM Terms like “active learning,” “resource-based learning,” and

“brain-based learning”3 have a common basis in what can be consid- ered a constructivist-cognitive revolution.4 This change in educa- tional practice is not really a new idea; its roots can be traced to John Dewey or even to ancient philosophers. This revolution has been spawned by a gap between intention and accomplishment within the teaching-learning process, and is being fueled by a growing under- standing of how learning actually occurs.

The goal of the constructivist-cognitive movement is to help students learn how to learn independently, so they can continue the process for a lifetime. As most teachers likely accept this as a seminal goal of education, one might legitimately ask why this “revolution” is even necessary. The answer reflects the significant difference between the curriculum that students actually experience and the intentions of most teachers in presenting this curriculum to their students. Quite simply, the ultimate goals of the educational process are not always coming through to the students.

Some blame the shortcomings of the current educational system in the United States on its historical development. Educators sought to create a universal system quickly as large numbers of immigrants flooded into the country and many new workers were needed for factories.5 The mass production lines of the early 20th century did not need scholars; they needed workers with basic skills-reading, writ- ing, and arithmetic. Approaching the 21st century, however, industry needs a different type of worker: one who learns continuously, works with little direct supervision, and can solve problems.6

In part, the emphasis on process-oriented learning stems from a need for balance between process and content. In this era of the exploding knowledge base, the content of recent textbooks and cur- ricula is overwhelming. For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in its Project 2061, has defined science literacy, delineating what students should know and be able to do in science by the time they graduate from high school. Published in 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy is an impressive document that goes well beyond the traditional sciences to include technology as well as mathematics. Although the goals described in this report are com-

82 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Spring 1997

mendable, they are daunting to teachers and would be so even if the curriculum included only science.

As part of the constructivist-cognitive revolution educators are challenged to rethink some basic assumptions about how we learn and when we truly understand. For years, many educators have followed the model of content before process, believing that one cannot process until one has something to process. Cognitive scientists, however, are beginning to refute this idea. Brooks and Brooks have written, “Much of traditional education breaks wholes into parts, and then focuses separately on each part. But many students are unable to build concepts and skills from parts to wholes. . . . We need to see the ‘whole’ before we are able to make sense of the parts.“‘Constructivists and cognitive scientists have continued to question not only basic ideas about stages of development, but also the very definition of intelligence. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences may well become the heart of current educational reforms.*

Developing information literacy skills shares a symbiotic relation- ship with other education reform efforts mentioned above. The cur- rent emphasis on more student-centered learning demands that students be able to use information to create knowledge rather than simply remember predigested knowledge delivered by teachers. Constructivists believe that learning is best facilitated when students discover a significant amount on their own. The theories of cognitive science have brought about broader acceptance of these approaches in the educational process. Respect for learning differences and a better understanding of multiple intelligences further strengthen the case for the effectiveness of active learning within such a reformed system. Rather than pass along their own thinking and learning styles, teach- ers can help students construct knowledge in ways that make sense to them individually. This approach facilitates both understanding and application while increasing the likelihood that the knowledge will form the basis of new learning.

DEVELOPMENT OF A COURSE

With the above ideas in mind, the authors designed, developed, and team taught a graduate course in information literacy at Millersville University during the 1994-95 academic year. Entitled “Information Literacy: Creating Active Learners,” the course was specifically aimed at practicing elementary and secondary school teachers and librarians. The authors/teachers, a librarian and a mem- ber of the Department of Industry and Technology, provided con- trasting perspectives on the subject. Consistent with the direction of many current educational reforms, this interdisciplinary team ap- proach also served as a model of collaboration for teachers and librarians at the elementary and secondary level.

“As we move into the electronic village, with universal and instant accessibility to information reliable and unreliable, each individual must learn to be discriminating in selecting

from among the vast number of available resources. This need supports our decision to emphasize not only skill in finding information, but also the ability to analyze

it and use it in some meaningful way.”

Throughout the development of the course, we sought to “practice what we preached.” Clearly we could not teach a course about infor- mation literacy using traditional methods. Instead we strived to model a resource-based learning approach, employing group assign- ments, active learning, and collaborative learning techniques. Infor- mation literacy was not merely the content of the course, but also the driving force behind its entire structure, influencing our choice of methods for both instruction and evaluation of student progress. Our methods focused on three major skills in information literacy: (1) finding information; (2) analyzing and interpreting information; and (3) putting information to practical use. These three skills largely determined the organization of the course.

Although we would be using the Internet in the course and anticipated great student interest in its applications, we were clear that this was not just another “how-to” course. Instead, we attempted to put the Internet into a broader perspective of information resources. Throughout the course we stressed that information literacy is not Internet-dependent. The value of information literacy has, however, been both accentuated and accelerated by the Internet. Prior to the advent of the Internet, there was more opportunity for librarians, teachers, journalists, and others to filter information before it reached the general public. As we move into the electronic village, with universal and instant accessibility to information reliable and unreli- able, each individual must learn to be discriminating in selecting from among the vast number of available resources. This need supports our decision to emphasize not only skill in finding information, but also the ability to analyze it and use it in some meaningful way.

COURSE OVERVIEW “Information Literacy: Creating Active Learners” is a regularfy

offered three-credit graduate course, administered by the University’s School of Education. The class meets for 40 hours within a two-week period-a rigorous schedule, though some time is built into the class schedule for students to work on collaborative projects.

84 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Spring 1997

During the first week, the instructors guide students through planned activities-primarily exercises and tutorials-designed to develop basic information literacy competencies as well as a familiar- ity with specific resources, including those available through the Internet. Although we expect students to gain competency with a variety of Internet tools and discuss the Internet as a major informa- tion resource, we present it as one part of a much bigger picture. Unlike courses on how to use the Internet, “Information Literacy” stresses universal skills such as developing good search strategies and applying critical thinking in approaching information; moreover, the students are expected to view this content in the context of other educational reforms, specifically the concept of how information literacy facilitates active and student-centered learning.

During the second week, students further refine their information literacy skills by putting them to practical use in responding to four research assignments. Each student must first develop a brief rationale for information literacy which becomes the foundation for their work on the remaining three assignments-all collaborative projects. Working in groups of three or four, students are asked to apply their information literacy skills to develop: (1) an Internet access policy for a school or school district, (2) an information evaluation strategy for use by students in their schools, and (3) a vision of how to protect themselves and their students from several negative aspects of the information explosion.

METHODS OF INSTKUCTION AND EVALUATION Using the methodologies of the constructivist-cognitive revolu-

tion, we have sought to help students learn independently by serving in a facilitating role. We do little lecturing; most of the class time is devoted to active learning techniques and collaborative research projects. Each assignment and class activity is clearly defined and includes the goal and suggested procedures. An evaluation rubric is also provided for each research assignment to clarify the instructors’ expectations for what might otherwise be interpreted as an open- ended project. The evaluation rubric also helps students focus their time and energy sufficiently to complete the four ambitious assign- ments within the course’s two-week time frame. (See Figure 1 for an example of an evaluation rubric.)

For each group project, a team leader is selected. No student is leader for more than one project. All students are required to provide resources to the leader, and each leader is responsible for synthesizing the information and convening a meeting to gather input from group members before creating the final version of the assignment. Leaders are also charged with assuring that each group member can answer those questions on the final exam that relate to that particular project.

Wamkessei~McCade 85

Figure 1 Evaluation Rubric

.

.

Needs Improvement ’

.

.

Definition of information literacy is unclear or is contradictory to established sources. Paper is not supported by documented secondary sources. Paper lacks a discussion of how other educational reforms relate to information literacy. Paper does not use APA style for documenting sources. Self evaluation is not consistent with rationale or supported by the final product.

.

Meets Expectations . .

.

.

Shows clear understanding of Doyle’s book. Includes a concise definition of information

literacy. Includes a discussion of active learning,

resource-based learning, and student- centered learning.

Includes at least one additional source. Includes a convincing argument that information literacy is an important skill for all students. Uses APA style for all documentation, including electronic sources. At end of paper includes a self evaluation based on existing rubric, including a rationale for the evaluation.

l Includes everything in category for “Meets Expectations.”

l Deliberately looked for opposing views or

Exceeds Expectations different perspectives and has attended to this in the discussion.

l Includes discussion of how the role of students, teachers, and librarians will change and provides rationale for these changes.

l Takes into consideration a plan for funding information literacy initiatives.

Again following constructivist-cognitive methodologies, we have employed multiple assessment instruments in evaluating student performance. Throughout the course each student is responsible for creating a “process-folio,” similar to a portfolio but emphasizing the entire process of work rather than focusing on the finished product. According to Gardner, “process-folios represent an effort to capture the steps and phases through which students pass in the course of developing a project, product, or work of art.“9 Our students’ process- folios include exercises, group projects, individual comments, discus-

86 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Spring 1997

sions, brainstorming ideas, and more. Additional assessment is done through a final exam in two parts:

a written test and a performance evaluation. The written part of the exam covers the class’s four research assignments. Through this type of exam the instructors can determine that every student-not only the group leaders- understands the issues involved in the major topics assigned as group projects. The goal of the performance evalu- ation is to assess each student’s competence in the three skills that constitute information literacy. The instructor randomly selects a topic from a predetermined set of real problems and observes the student explore it through online resources. Students are expected to demonstrate their ability to:

l develop, implement, and adjust information retrieval strategies;

l apply good critical thinking skills to evaluate the relevance and validity of the information they collect; and

l use the information to solve the real-life problem.

Sample topics are listed in Figure 2; the instructions following each topic read “Show us the steps you’d use to start the process and then describe the rest of the process.”

CONCLUSION We have now taught three sections of this course. In general,

participants have responded very positively and have commented that they learn a great deal. Although desire to learn to use the Internet is perhaps the primary motivation for most enrollees, stu- dents come away with greater appreciation for the integration of all information into the educational process. Moreover, students can take back to their own schools the policy statements, strategies, and other lessons that they have created.

As instructors we have stressed that using the Internet or any group of information resources makes good pedagogical sense only if

Figure 2 Topics for Performance Evaluation

1. I’m looking for some research on the connection between writing skills and thinking skills.

2. I’m looking for examples of how cultural literacy has been incorporated into the curriculum.

3. I’m looking for information on the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies in the teaching of information literacy.

4. I came across the term “resource-based learning* in my reading about information Iiteracy. I’d like to know what it is and how it relates to information literacy.

it is coupled with an emphasis on active learning. To teachers who attempt to give students “everything they need to know,” Internet use becomes just one more skill to teach. Teachers who see themselves as a coach in the process of developing individual learners, however, can fully integrate information literacy into the curriculum. The latter group will likely be much more successful in helping students to learn.

In each of the three sections the students have all been teachers or librarians. More represented middle schools and high schools than elementary schools, but the division between librarians and class- room teachers was nearly equal. This distribution allowed the instruc- tors to address the strengths of each group, much as we took advantage of our own separate strengths in developing and teaching this course. Although generalizations are often dangerous (and there were some exceptions), the librarians tended to be more familiar with database searching and more comfortable with the idea of learning as a process, whereas the classroom teachers were more familiar with specific subject matter and more comfortable with designing effective student activities and assignments.

The team teaching approach was viewed as highly effective by both the students and the instructors. It provided students with a greater breadth of expertise and richness of perspective than one instructor could have offered; it enabled instructors to spend more time working with students individually or in small groups; and it presented students with a model of librarian-teacher collaboration that they could then apply to projects in their own schools.

What this course has made clear is that teachers and librarians have much to learn from each other and that students gain the most when the two groups work together. At the elementary and secondary level, as in higher education, both groups can benefit from the educa- tional changes that have resulted from recent technological innova- tions. Teachers can learn from librarians how to incorporate information resources into their classes; librarians can learn from teachers how to use pedagogical theories and techniques that are appropriate to resource-based learning. Whatever the scenario, stu- dents must be encouraged to explore a complete range of resources within the structure of information literacy.

REFE~NCES ‘For examples of articles on information literacy and education, see: Patricia Senn Breivik and Dan L. Jones, “Information Literacy: Liberal Education for the Information Age,” Liberal Education 79 (Winter 1993): 24-29; Mary F. Lenox and Michael L. Walker, “Information Literacy in the Educational Process,” Educational Forum 57 (Spring 1993): 312-324; Shirley J. Behrens, “A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy,” Coffege & Research Libraries 55 (July 1994): 309-320; Diane Nahl-Jakobovits

88 ~SE~C~ST~TEG~ES Spring1997

and Leon A. Jakobovits, “Bibliographic Instructional Design for Information Literacy: Integrating Affective and Cognitive Objectives,” Research Strategies 11 (Spring 1993): 73-88; Jeremy J. Shapiro and Shelley K. Hughes, “Informa- tion Literacy as a Liberal Art,” Educom Review 31 (March/April 1996): http://www.educom.edu/web/pubs/review/reviewArticles/31231.html *Christina S. Doyle, Information Literacy in an Information Society: A Concept JOY the Information Age (Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University, 1994). ED Dot. 372763. ~18. 3For discussions of active learning, see: Merrill Harmin, Inspiring Active Learning: A Handbook for Teachers (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi- sion and Curriculum Development, 1994); Chet Meyers and Thomas 8. Jones, Promofin Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993); David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom (Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co., 1991). For discussion of resource-based learning, see: Ann Bleakley and Jackie L. Carrigan, Resource-Based Learning Activities: Information Lit- eracy for High School Students (Chicago: ALA, 1994). For discussions of brain- based learning, see: Gordon Dryden and JeannetteVos,The Learning Revolution: A Life-Long Learning Program From the World’s Finest Computer: Your Amazing Brain! (Rolling Hills Estates, CA: Jalmar Press, 1994). qFor information on the constructivist-cognitiverevolution, see: David Hyerle, Visual Tools Ior Constructing Knowledge (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996). SFor discussions of educational reform in relation to industrial history, see: Hedrick Smith, Rethjnkjng America (New York: Random House, 1995) and Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations (New York: BasicBooks, 1992). %I.S. Department of Labor. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, What Work Requires of Schools (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1991). ‘J.G. Brooks and M.G. Brooks, The Case for Constructivist Classrooms (Alexan- dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993), p. 46. 8Howard Gardner, Multiple Zntelligences: The Theory in Practice (New York: BasicBooks, 1993). 9Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: BasicBooks, 19911, p_ 240

II