Welcome

1. Welcome Introduction Author name Information Services Enquiring Minds & information literacy: infiltrating the curriculum and challenging the assessment agenda Chris Harrison, Alison Pope, Keith Puttick and Geoff Walton ALT Conference, Clare College, Cambridge 29-31 March 2010

2. Thank you for the invitation! Aims for the session Enquiring Minds (EMs) (1) Applications: improved design of research tasks, and opportunities for students; use of students’ research results as a resource (Chang’s ‘mechanism of inheritance’) (2) Initial pilot (3) Later projects, eg - Polish students: reception support & homelessness - US-UK comparisons: ‘stop & search’, due process - UK-Spain employment law comparisons Bringing in comparative & interdisciplinary aspects Enquiring Minds & IL

3. Information literacy What is IL…? In 2000 the US Association of College and Research Libraries defined information literacy as ‘an intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating, and using information - activities which may be accomplished in part by fluency with information technology, in part by sound investigative methods, but most important, through critical discernment and reasoning’(4)

4. In 2004 the American Association for Higher Education and the Council of Independent Colleges endorsed these standards: an information literate person ‘should be able to determine the nature and extent of information needed access the needed information effectively and efficiently evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected information into his or her knowledge base and values use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose understand many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and accesses and uses information ethically and legally’(5) More precisely…

5. Furthermore, said the American Association for Higher Education and the Council of Independent Colleges ‘IL can no longer be defined without considering technology literacy ‘in order for individuals to function in an information-rich, technology-infused world’. (6) ‘Technology literacy’

6. UNESCO’s Alexandria Proclamation 2005 Builds on a report entitled ‘The Prague Declaration: Towards an Information Literate Society’ issued by the first international Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, held in Prague, Czech Republic (2003)(7) The High Level Colloquium organizers invited 30 participants from 17 countries, representing six major geographic regions, to assess the progress and opportunities for implementation of the report’s recommendations, with the goal of empowering citizens across the globe to be information literate

7. By Presidential Proclamation, October 2009 was US National Information Literacy Awareness month ‘In addition to the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic, it is equally important that our students are given the tools required to take advantage of the information available to them. The ability to seek, find, and decipher information can be applied to countless life decisions, whether financial, medical, educational, or technical.’ (8) Then came Barack Obama…

8. Feldman’s findings An information literate workforce will help avoid the situation which Feldman (2004) (9) identified where workers found only 50% of the information they were looking for and spent 15% of their time duplicating knowledge which already existed.

9. Staffordshire University’s strategic approach From 2005 to 2009 Alison Pope undertook a Learning and Teaching Fellowship which explored the viability of taking a strategic approach to information literacy. In the same period Walton, Pope and Puttick began various pilot studies which sought to integrate information literacy into the curriculum.

10. The strategic framework January 2007: Staffordshire University started to implement IL expectations and standards more explicitly Information Literacy Statement of Good Practice (January 2007)(10) September 2007: University approved revision of learning outcome on ‘Enquiry’

11. Staffordshire’s learning outcomes • Knowledge and Understanding • Learning • Enquiry • Analysis • Problem Solving • Communication • Application • Reflection

12. Revised learning outcome (undergraduate level) Honours Deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry and initiate and carry out projects within (the field of study). Evaluate use of information literacy, including the ethical use of information in (the field of study)

13. Masters Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding and critical evaluation of methodologies and techniques, including Information Literacy, applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship and, where appropriate, propose new hypotheses [emphases added] Revised learning outcome (postgraduate level)

14. Linking to a learning outcome This also means that skills ‘outcomes’ are to be assessed. This includes information literacy standards: One of the new Law SKILLs Module learning outcomes says ‘To identify, retrieve and evaluate legal material for a given purpose and to use such material appropriately.’ Webber and Johnston (2006) (11) argue (and we agree) that information literacy should be regarded as a graduate attribute, and be assessed by credit bearing work.

15. Linking to assessment One of our team, Geoff Walton has also made the case for making elements of IL an assessed feature of the curriculum (Walton 2005) (12) Without assessment IL becomes an evanescent entity which colleagues avoid evaluating and with which students avoid true engagement. How is this to be approached, given the considerations that are relevant to law, and what we expect from law students at different levels..?

16. Learning Outcomes: Family Law (Level 3) UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LAW ON CHILDREN, PARENTING & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP(S) (Knowledge & Understanding) DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO PLACE ENGLISH FAMILY LAW WITHIN OTHER RELEVANT LEGAL AREAS (Reflection) ANALYSE LEGAL SITUATIONS ARISING FROM THE FORMATION, LIFE, AND FAILURE OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS (Analysis) APPLY THE RELEVANT LAW WITH JUDGMENT AND SENSITIVITY Application COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON WRITTEN COMMUNICATION (Communication) CONDUCT APPROPRIATE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AND STUDY, BOTH PAPER- AND IT-BASED, INCLUDING THE INTERNET, DEMONSTRATING AN AWARENESS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION LITERACY (Enquiry) NB In practice, having introduced this into Learning Outcomes it will be necessary for lecturers to detail in further guidance how this ‘translates’ – for example when they set tasks, or provide guidance ahead of formally assessed assignments… IL in learning outcomes

17. An EXAM length 2 HOURS weighted at 50%. An ASSIGNMENT length 3000 WORDS weighted at 50%. End of Teaching Block 1 assignment of maximum length 3,000 words weighted at 50%. It will assess learning outcomes1-6End of Teaching Block 2 two-hour, unseen examination weighted at 50%. It will assess learning outcomes 1-5. To pass this module, students must obtain an overall mark of at least 40% and at least 25% in each element of assessment. How does IL map on to this…? Let’s also consider formative assessment, feedback and formal assessment criteria delivery issues, including on-line learning… Assessment details

18. Projects embedding IL standards & ‘marking points’* Contract of Employment, with comparative UK-Spanish small-group tasks Administrative Law Tasks, including small-group tasks and presentations (evaluating features such as reward systems; presentation; peer group evaluation) NB we have started to address potential ‘problem areas’ highlighted by the findings of the Independent Committee of Inquiry The Impact on Higher Education of Students’ Widespread Use of Web 2.0 Technologies (2009) * Among other things, only setting tasks at a stage when the students have the technical ability and know-how to ‘search, authenticate and critically evaluate material from a range of appropriate sources’; attribute the material correctly; and use material ethically – for example by not reconstructing knowledge so as to maximise the impact of visual images: an issue in the Admin Law study... IL in practice

19. Online discourse for learning Online discourse – a.k.a. online collaborative learning or online social network learning Protocol for facilitating higher order thinking We used Blackboard discussions boards but the protocol can be used on any social networking platform Pedagogy of the question – ask students to discuss and agree what are the features of good quality web based information rather than tell them the answer

20. Online discourse for learning Their thoughts posted on-line for all to see Student reaction to this form of learning typically: “Somebody commenting on your evaluation could possibly highlight things that you overlooked obviously you always think your own work is perfect, sometimes it’s a bit of an eye opener when somebody says you should have done this, gets you thinking about everything”.

21. Communicating their results… Team One: Laurence Burford, Chris Henshall, and Robert Coakley, with their lecturer Keith Puttick Team Three: Our winning team Hemashini Ramanathan, Tanjibur Rahman, and Anoojan Rajendram Team Two: Laura Devine, Adrian Tang, and Sarah Smith

22. How does all this map on to vocational course design and delivery…? Vocational courses

23. Blended learning & ILSomething we have been very busy with…!http://phoebe-app.conted.ox.ac.uk/- Template- Constructivism- Experiential learning

24. Key features: The incorporation of IL elements of ‘good practice’: Opportunities for dialogue within small groups of learners Development of critical thinking skills to coincide with technological skills development (adeptness at searching for the right information, distilling it in the context of tasks, etc) IL elements

25. Space and opportunities for reflection and analysis Opportunities to self-evaluate, eg as part of a problem-solving exercise – the results of which are then presented and evaluated within the peer group (mirroring transactional tasks in legal practice) Feedback & peer as well as lecturer assessment IL elements

26. Starting Point: Technologies and Skills

27. http://www.ning.com/

29. Conclusions Effective inclusion of IL in a course improves the possibility of students becoming information literate through changed behaviour. Not just gaining new knowledge but also engaging in higher order thinking in order to comprehend, analyse, apply, synthesise and evaluate it, as described by Bloom et al (1956)(13)

30. ‘Effective inclusion’ means key elements of IL need to be the subject of learning outcomes(14) adequate opportunities for reflection and self evaluation of researched material, and completed tasks, need to be provided (15) Formative and formal assessment of learning outcomes: for specific tasks as well as modules, has a key role to play, we suggest Conclusions

31. Full title: ‘Enquiring Minds: Strategies for the Design and Use of Enquiry Tasks that Promote the Law Teaching-Research Nexus, Cross-Disciplinary and Comparative Law Studies, and Effective Deployment and Assessment of Students’ Enquiry Skills’. (2) Hasok Chang, ‘Turning an Undergraduate Class into a Professional Research Community’ Teaching in Higher Education (2005)10(3), 387–394. For present purposes, our main interest has been in his ideas about the ‘mechanism of inheritance’, and students research as an enduring source of knowledge on which later generations can draw. (3) People, Diversity & Work (2007). The project was commissioned by the organisers of the Empowerment, Work & Welfare conference (and assisted by participants, including the TUC, Dept of Business & Enterprise, Disability Alliance, Carers UK, Child Poverty Action Group, and CBI). The work was undertaken by a team of five 3rd Year SU Law, Advice Studies, and Broadcast Journalism students, which researched the government’s proposed new ‘empowerment’ policies, and investigated the experiences of young people in the labour market. Their results were presented to the conference in Nov 2007. References

32. References • US Association of College and Research Libraries (2000): • http://skil.stanford.edu/intro/research.html • (5) The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education were • approved in 2000. Then in February of 2004 the American Association for Higher • Education and the Council of Independent Colleges endorsed them, and they are being • progressively incorporated in to US HEs, including Law Schools’ programmes. Details: • http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standards.pdf • (6) The National Higher Education Information and Communication Technology (ICT) • Initiative has developed a definition of literacy for the 21st century which combines • cognitive and technical skills with an ethical/legal understanding of information. ICT • proficiency is the ability to use digital technology, communication tools, and/or • networks to define an information need, access, manage, integrate and evaluate • information, create new information or knowledge; and to be able to communicate this • information to others. See the International ICT Literacy Panel (2002) Digital • transformation: A framework for ICT literacy (A report of the International ICT Literacy • Panel) Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service • http://skil.stanford.edu/intro/research.html

33. The Prague Declaration Towards an Information Literate Society, issued by the International Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, Czech Republic (US National Commission on Library and Information Science, National Forum on Information Literacy and UNESCO, 2003: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=19636&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html As ordered by President Obama’s Presidential Proclamation on Information Literacy: http://www.febab.org.br/2009literacy_prc_rel.pdf (9) Feldman, S. (2004) ‘The high cost of not finding information’ KM World Magazine, March 1. [Online] http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9534 (accessed 19 March 2008). (10) SU Information Literacy Statement of Good Practice (January2007) (11) Webber, S. and Johnston, B. (2006) ‘Working towards the information literate university’ in Walton, G. and Pope, A. (eds) Information literacy: recognising the need Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent: 17 May 2006. Oxford: Chandos, pp 47-58 http://dis.shef.ac.uk/sheila/staffs-webber-johnston.pdf References

34. Walton, G. (2005) ‘Assessing students is essential for success’ Library and Information Update, 4 (1-2), pp36-37. (13) Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, D., Furst, E. J., Krathwohl, D. A. and Hill, W. H. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals: handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc. (14) In the context of embedding IL standards, we would agree with much of what Trevor Hussey and Patrick Smith have to say in ‘Learning Outcomes: A Conceptual Analysis’ Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 13 Issue 1 (Feb 2008) 107-115. They argue that learning outcomes are generally at their most useful when used to specify what they want students to acquire from a specific teaching event or session, helped by ‘summary statements roughly specifying fairly small pieces of learning…They would point towards, or indicate in the most general manner, what is to be assessed but not determine it exactly…’ In this context, a learning outcome can aim to achieve a relatively specific, long-lasting change in the students who can achieve it, focusing on one or more of the seven categories identified by Mary James and Sally Brown (2005) ‘Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes’ Curriculum Journal 16:1 , pp. 7-30: Attainments involving mastery of specific rules or procedures associated with particular tasks; Understanding of ideas, concepts, processes; Cognitive and creative: imaginative construction of meaning, arts or performance Using: how to References

35. practice, manipulate, behave, engage in processes or systems; Higher-order learning: advanced thinking, reasoning, meta-cognition; Dispositions: attitudes, perceptions, motivations; and Membership, inclusion, self-worth reflecting ‘the learners' affinity towards, readiness to participate in, and sense of worthwhile contribution to the group where the learning takes place'. Learning outcomes for modules and short courses will ‘generally specify much larger areas of knowledge or assemblages of skills than those specified for a teaching event…’ As they note, the learning outcomes for modules can be useful as guides to the design of assessments, and coursework and examination questions; and other exercises can generally be devised to measure whether these outcomes have been achieved. However ‘the idea that the learning outcomes can be defined with such exactness as to give minute guidance to marking criteria is mistaken...’ In the context of IL standards, it is important that lecturers are clear about what they expect from students – and this can be dealt with in guidance provided before work starts on tasks (and in the case of formally assessed work this can link to marking schemes). (15) Arguably, the inclusion of sufficient opportunities for reflection, analysis, sharing of results of work within learning groups, and self-evaluation are essential elements in addressing IL requirements – and help to off-set many of the negative features normally associated with formal assessment systems, including systems that formally assess research and research-related skills competences. This may also facilitate learning after the completion of programmes (‘prospective’ or ‘life-long’ learning), and employability: issues highlighted by David Boud and Nancy Falchikov in ‘Aligning Assessment with long term learning in Assessment & Evaluation’, Higher Education Vol 31 (4) August 2006, 399-413. References

36. Chris Harrison is E-Learning Facilitator at SULS. She has been closely involved in a number of recent Enquiring Minds-related initiatives, including web and on-line support for the bi-annual ‘Work & Welfare’ conference Family Welfare & Migration in 2009; and a ‘tool kit’ of technology-supported learning, teaching methods, and assessment for a Blended Learning version of the Legal Practice Course. This includes the use of Ning forums and technologies to facilitate student ‘communities of learning practice’, implement experiential approaches to learning, and opportunities to engage in online discussion, critique other group members’ work, and collaborate on law research projects and other tasks. Alison Pope is Senior Subject and Learning Support Librarian at Staffordshire University, supporting the Schools of Law and Business. As a Learning and Teaching Fellow at the University, Alison has been closely involved in the university’s Learning and Teaching strategy, initiatives to integrate information literacy elements in Law and other university programmes, and Enquiring Minds (EMs). She was co-editor (with Geoff Walton) of Information Literacy: Recognising the Need (Oxford: Chandos, 2006) and other IL work. She is co-editor of Information Literacy: Infiltrating the Curriculum, Challenging Minds (Oxford: Chandos, forthcoming later in 2010). In June 2007 she received the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) University, College & Research (UC & R) Award for Innovation. Keith Puttick lectures in employment, social welfare law and family welfare aspects of migration at SULS. He is a co-author of Employment Rights; Civil Appeals (ed. Sir Michael Burton: Foreword Lord Woolf); Butterworths Family Law/SFLS (ed. John Fotheringham); and The Challenge of Asylum to Legal Systems (ed. Prakash Shah). Other work has included articles in the Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law and Industrial Law Journal. He has organised the bi-annual ‘Work & Welfare’ conference since 1997; and with support from the TUC, the Department of Business & Enterprise, Disability Alliance, and the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre (some of the organisations participating in the 2007 conference) commissioned the student project People Diversity & Work, the pilot for Enquiring Minds. Geoff Walton is Research Informed Teaching Project Officer at Staffordshire University. He obtained his PhD after work on models for delivering e-learning, on-line discourse, and information literacy in on-line settings. In addition to the work referred to in the abstract, Geoff’s conference papers have included Using Digital Video to Capture First Year Students’ Views of a Blended Information Literacy Programme (with Mark Hepworth, Loughborough University) (LILAC 2007, Manchester Metropolitan University); and Developing Study Skills in Higher Education (2006, Wolverhampton University). He is co-author of E-literacy for the Independent Learner: A Guide to Teaching and Learning E-literacy (Oxford: Chandos, 2008); and From Virtual to Reality in Relay, the Journal of the University, College & Research Group, Library Association (48) 21 –22 (1999) (with D. Roberts). The Paper’s Authors