According to a 1999 National Research Council report, there is some misunderstanding as to the difference that exists between information literacy and information technology. While there is, indeed, some overlap of the two, the former’s “focus [is] on content, communication, analysis, information searching, and evaluation; whereas information technology ‘fluency’ focuses on a deep understanding of technology and graduated, increasingly skilled use of it” (from Association of College & Research Libraries – Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education). Information literacy competency also augments the goal of higher education in promoting lifelong learners and increases students’ opportunities for self-directed learning.
ACLR outlines some standards for the information literate students that seem to be deficient in considering the needs of the students for that information. The standards seem to treat all information seekers the same and seem to overlook the fact that information seeking can also be a personal, organic process. The standards make information seeking sound cold and clinical, applying to information literacy a one size fits all set of descriptors. A student may be information literate without ever having the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency of some of the outlined standards. Yet, the need to assess information literacy drives the creation of these standards. Education is about assessing learning, so there must be a method to quantify that learning. Information literacy falls beneath that umbrella to join other areas of learning such as reading and writing. Unfortunately, this seems like an area difficult to accurately assess as the true test of information literacy is the fulfillment of an information need.
A lot has changed in terms of definitions of literacy over the last ten years. In reviewing other college and university standards for literacy, it appears that information literacy and information technology have morphed into the term "information competency". This terminology seems to be more appropriate for the 21st century learner. He or she must be able to master and apply what they have learned in school in order to compete effectively throughout their careers. Through ePortfolio, we will be meeting the information core competency standards as mandated by SJSU in order to graduate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point you made about information seeking as a personal and organic process: there are many ways to acquire information and to not acknowledge that fact is a disservice to those being assesed on information literacy. I believe the best way to assess this is to assign a task that requires information literacy to be completed successfully. Using Geri's example, if we complete our ePortfolio properly we would be demonstrating that we are information literate or competent. If we fail to complete it successfully, then the areas that are lacking need to be worked on.
ReplyDeleteYou describe a real tension here, about the necessity but potentially limited usefulness of standards, and about how students are given opportunities to demonstrate what they know. How do we reconcile this? There's part of me that wants to throw the standards out the window and just use our students' needs and interests as a guide about what to teach. However, that's certainly not practical, and probably not the best solution. Just as we're thinking about authentic opportunities for students to learn, I think it's a smart idea to rethink assessment along the way.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you brought up assessment, and the need for it driving standards. I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing, but as you mentioned some information seeking and use is personal and organic and doesn't fit within the standards model. So what this leaves us with is the idea that the standards are located within instruction, that they are related to academic use, and they can be used both to design instruction, and assessment?
ReplyDelete