Cameron Hoffman, University of Lethbridge Sarah Polkinghorne, University of Alberta

1. Launching “Infolit 2.0”?Considering Web 2.0's Potential to Support Critical Thinking and Higher-Level Learning in Information Literacy Practice Cameron Hoffman, University of Lethbridge Sarah Polkinghorne, University of Alberta WILU 2007 May 17, 2007

2. Overview • Discourse Analysis • Our Methodology • Discourses & Patterns Emerging from the Analysis • Constructivism • Constructivism Defined • Discovery Learning & Problem-based Learning • Practical Teaching Examples: Web 2.0 + Infolit • Questions and Discussion

3. Discourse AnalysisSituating Inquiry • How is it that one particular statement appeared rather than another? (Foucault 27) Discourse Analysis is a tool. It can help us investigate questions about the real world, which is reflected through communications practices.

4. Discourse AnalysisDefinition • A particular area of language use that: • Is associated with a concrete system or institution • Affects — and is affected by — individuals • Reflects — and is affected by — social, political, and cultural relationships • Affects — and is a product of — language • May dominate, but is rarely universal • Is neither good nor bad • Is constantly evolving

5. Discourse AnalysisMethods • Asking • What is the current nature of the relationship between Web 2.0 and information literacy? What discourses are in play within this relationship? • Generating Terms • Web 2.0 terms • Information literacy terms

6. Discourse AnalysisMethods • Searching and Reading • LibLit, LISA, ERIC, INSPEC, CISA, ASP • Thesaurus where available; keyword • Project management: limiting inquiry to formally published literature; time frame of 2005-present • 81 results • Observing • Themes, vocabularies, absences • Excavating/Interrogating • Discourses

7. Discourse AnalysisDiscourses (Role of Web 2.0 in Libraries) • Technology discourse • Web 2.0 positioned as a tool or technology: nothing more • Where prevalent:computing science literature; less so in the library literature • Marketing discourse • Web 2.0 positioned as library service/advocacy tool/library news/marketing tool, e.g. IM reference, podcast tours • Where prevalent: the library literature we examined • E.g., non-scholarly articles that are overviews or tech profiles • Learning discourse • Web 2.0 positioned as a platform to facilitate and enhance learning • Where prevalent: in the education literature we read; less so in the library literature

8. Discourse AnalysisDiscourses (Role of the Librarian) • Serving discourse • Seen alongside marketing discourse: librarians positioned as service providers • This is the predominant discourse relating to the role and core work of librarians within the literature we sampled • Manifested in:anxiety, the ‘need to catch up’: We’ll fall behind/become irrelevant if we don’t adopt Web 2.0! • E.g. librarians can be better service providers, give users more “value” through IM reference, library blogs • Teaching discourse • Seen alongside learning discourse: librarians positioned as teachers • Where seen: mainly education literature; does exist, though less widely seen, within the library literature • E.g. Doug Achterman (school librarian): seeing ourselves as guides in learning, including critical thinking skills

9. Discourse AnalysisDiscourses (Role of the Library User) • Customer discourse • Users are positioned as customers, consumers of service • Often seen alongside the marketing discourse and the serving discourse • Predominant discourse within the library literature we examined • E.g. descriptions of millennials (skilled multitaskers, demand instant info gratification, take path of least resistance) • Learner discourse • Users are positioned as learners • Most often seen alongside the teaching and learning discourses • Discourse is manifested in the library literature, though it is overshadowed by customer discourse • E.g. descriptions of millennials (skilled collaborators, communicators, reflectors, active agents in their education)

10. Constructivism Constructivism is a tool. As a learning theory, it lends itself well to our work in integrating Web 2.0 with IL. Learners ≠ passive receivers of information active collaborative reflective Teachers = guides through the learning process providing complex learning experiences modeling providing opportunities to think/work collaboratively Constructing knowledge rather than receiving it problem-solving critical thinking reasoning Instructional strategies over techniques (Driscoll, 2000; Fetsco & McClure, 2005; Marlowe & Page, 1998)

11. Constructivism Learning is social Knowledge is co-constructed with others – teachers or peers. Activity Design Working with the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky) Beyond a student’s current independent skill level Achievable with assistance or support Level of assisted performance Zone of proximal development Level of independent performance (Davidson & Davidson, 1994; Fetsco & McClure, 2005)

12. Discovery Learning * models the learning * points out unexplored features * reduces anxiety * keeps learners on track “guided discovery” Scaffolding: what the teacher does A philosophy rather than a technique “…allows learners to discover important principles, relationships or concepts through their own experiences” (Fetsco & McClure 140)

13. Problem-Based Learning Where applied: nursing/medical/law schools Role of the Learner Examples: • active participant • collaborates with peers, teachers • some learning activities involve the learner as the ‘teacher’ • Teaching by Problems • Teaching by Case studies & Role-Plays • Teaching by Real-World Questions Assessments and Example Activities [Create an ‘ideal’ library layout map] Portfolio/project assessment [Hold a debate on Wikipedia] [Write a job description of the librarian of the future]

14. Teaching Examples Activity-based lesson planning: Design active, guiding tasks create analyze classify integrate predict evaluate relate

15. Teaching Example #1Cyberculture blog http://cybercultureclassnotes.blogspot.com/ Synthesizing main ideas to construct new concepts (Standard 3.3) Comparing ideas to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information (Standard 3.4) Evaluating/determining whether certain ideas have an impact on an individual’s value system and taking steps to reconcile differences (Standard 3.5)

16. Teaching Example #2APA Wiki http://wilu2007.pbwiki.com/APA_Citation_wiki Selecting an appropriate documentation style and using it consistently to cite sources. (Standard 5.3)

17. Teaching Example #3Wikipedia evaluation wiki http://wilu2007.pbwiki.com/evaluating_wikipedia Collaborative writing activity Evaluating Wikipedia articles and article sources for Bias, prejudice, manipulation Cultural or community context Reliability Validity Authority Comparing information between different electronic sources (Standard 3.2)

18. Teaching Example #4 flickr tags Activity: students sign into class-wide flickr account Comparing/contrasting natural vocabulary with controlled vocabulary c.f. Vygotsky’s block game Identifying keywords, synonyms and related terms for the information needed Selecting controlled vocabulary specific to the discipline or information retrieval source (using database thesauri) (Standard 2.2)

19. Teaching Example #5del.icio.us Activity: student groups organize research information using del.icio.us (social bookmarking) Group organizing of information for research Recognizing that knowledge can be organized into disciplines that influence the way information is accessed Categorizing knowledge through social tagging Identifying the value and differences of various Web sites Identifying the purpose and audience of various Web sites (e.g., popular vs. scholarly, current vs. historical) (Standard 1.2)

20. Teaching Example #6Google Docs Activity: Group writing project, article evaluation, using Google Docs Collaborative writing Using Web as platform Identifying scholarly vs. non-scholarly articles Reading articles and selecting main ideas Restates textual concepts in student’s own words Analyzing the structure of articles (Standards 3.1 & 3.2)

21. Teaching Example #7facebook Teaching activity still under construction Situating scholars as members of a community Researching through citation chasing: 6 degrees of separation (Brown cites Jones, who cites Williams, etc.) Possibly tying this to Web of Science database (Cited Ref searching) How to assess this?

22. Questions and Discussion

23. Conclusion • Special thank you to Dr. Heidi Julien • Thanks as well to: • University of Lethbridge Office of Research Services • University of Alberta School of Library and Information Studies • University of Alberta Faculty of Education • University of Alberta Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research • Library Association of Alberta

24. Selected WorksWeb 2.0 & Teaching/InfoLit Achterman, D. (2006). Making connections with blogs and wikis. California School Library Association Journal, 30(1), 29-31. Albanese, A.R. (2006). Google is not the Net: Social networks are surging and present the real service challenge -- and opportunity -- for libraries. Library Journal, 131(15). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6370224.html Chase, D. (2007). Transformative sharing with instant messaging, wikis, interactive maps, and Flickr. Computers in Libraries, 27(1), 7-8, 52-56. Farabough, R. (2007). ‘The Isle is Full of Noises:’ Using wiki software to establish a discourse community in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness, 16(1), 41-56. Hauser, J. (2007). Media specialists can learn Web 2.0 tools to make schools more cool. Computers in Libraries, 27(2), 6-8. Huwe, T.K. (2006). Some best practices for personalizing outreach. Computers in Libraries, 26(2), 36-38. Lewis, C., and Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501. Maloney, E.J. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(18), B26. O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Network. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news.2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Payne, P. (2007). Rich internet applications: Enabling Web 2.0. Network Computing, 18(3), 72, 74-78. Ramsay, K.M., and Kinnie, J. (2006). The embedded librarian: getting out there via technology to help students where they learn. Library Journal, 131(6), 34-35. Ray, J. (2006). Welcome to the blogosphere: The educational use of blogs (aka edublogs). Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(4), 175-177. Zhang, L. (2006). Effectively incorporating instructional media into web-based information literacy. The Electronic Library, 24(3), 294-306.

25. Selected WorksConstructivism Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Albany: SUNY.Excellent backgrounder on constructivist learning theory. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Constructivist-based explorations of various classroom issues (e.g. making teaching relevant, valuing students’ points of view, etc.) Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2006). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Easily accessible writings on learning theory, task analysis, creating learning environments and learner assessment. Davidson, F. (Producer), & Davidson, J. (Director). (1994). Vygotsky’s development theory: An introduction. [Videotape]. Woodstock, Ont.: Canadian Learning Company.Excellent introductory video on constructivism from a Vygotskyian perspective. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Practical tips for organizing a constructivist classroom. Fetsco, T., & McClure, J. (2005). Educational psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. Boston: Pearson.Comprehensive educational psychology textbook with well-written descriptions of constructivist ideas, and related learning theories and strategies (e.g. inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, discovery learning). Marlowe, B.A., & Page, M.L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Brief history of constructivism and interesting reading on “active learning” in the classroom. Notess, G.R. (2006). Teaching web search skills: Techniques and strategies of top trainers. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Weaving Web design concepts with instructional suggestions. Good resource for help with online tutorials.

26. Selected WorksDiscourse Analysis Budd, J.M. (2006). Discourse analysis and the study of communications in LIS. Library Trends, 55(1), 65-82.A readable and expansive exploration of the two main schools of discourse analysis and their potential as tools within LIS and library practice. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. A.M.S. Smith trans. New York: Pantheon.A landmark in the history of discourse analysis. A somewhat inscrutable read. Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Solid introduction (and discourse) of discourse analysis.

27. thank you cameron.hoffman@uleth.ca sarah.polkinghorne@ualberta.net