AARL

Information literacy and flexible delivery: are we meeting student needs?

Debbie Orr and Margie Wallin

Abstract: This paper discusses the impact of flexible delivery on the creation and delivery of information literacy programs. By focussing learning on the needs of the learner, libraries have had to adapt traditional services to meet the needs of a diverse and dispersed client group. On campus students visit the library and have the opportunity to attend face-to-face classes. Librarians can discuss their needs, demonstrate products, offer alternatives, ascertain appropriate levels of service and negotiate solutions until their information needs are satisfied. For students who choose not to visit the library, interpersonal communication, non-verbal cues, immediate feedback, human intervention and negotiation is limited, making it difficult to attain an equivalent level of personalised service.

At Central Queensland University (CQU) flexible learning is defined as 'learning that is focussed on the needs of the learner in such aspects as curriculum content, sequencing of developmental pathways through the curriculum, and the timing, location and method of learning'.[1] The implications for the library are increasing numbers of students who choose not to attend face-to-face classes, have highly individualised needs regarding the curriculum, are often geographically challenged and who are following a study timetable unique to their personal needs. With the publication of the NBEET report, 'Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education',[2] information literacy is an important issue for the higher education community. CQU aims to provide every student enrolled at the university access to global information and the opportunity to develop the changing skills needed to use it.[3]

Understanding the clients

CQU is a multi-campus institution with an enrolment of approximately 11,500 EFTSU. The main campus is located in Rockhampton with campuses in Mackay, Bundaberg, Emerald, Gladstone, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Fiji, Singapore and Hong Kong. There are five faculties including Arts, Health and Science; Business and Law; Engineering and Physical Systems; Education and Creative Arts and Informatics and Communication. Less than a quarter of CQU students study on campus and attend face-to-face classes.

A model showing the philosophical basis of information literacy education at CQU is shown as Figure 1. The student is central to all teaching and learning and students are drawn from a variety of cultural, economic, educational and social backgrounds. Ages vary, as do prior learning experiences and expectations. Once enrolled at CQU a student can choose units from a number of courses and often has a choice in the mode of study. The University Teaching and Learning Plan - as represented by the circle surrounding the student - acknowledges the attributes that each student should develop before graduation. They include:

• the ability to apply discipline related theory to practice in both familiar and unfamiliar situations
• the ability to solve problems and to apply scientific reasoning
• the ability to use information technology
• the ability to be information literate
• the ability to function effectively as team members and team leaders
• the ability to communicate ideas both orally and in writing. [[4]

As depicted in Figure 1, the attributes listed on the Teaching and Learning Plan are interdependent, and information literacy skills cannot be developed in isolation. Information literacy, like phenomena such as teaching and learning, does not have a life of its own, rather it is a way of thinking and reasoning about aspects of subject matter.[5] There is an especially strong link between the development of information literacy, problem solving and technical skills. Although core skills are not tested or demonstrated, the model assumes that students commence studies at university with sufficient skills to cope with higher education. Further development of skills and concepts is not a strict linear progression through various stages but rather an interactive and dynamic process unique to each individual.

Bruce[6] developed a relational model conceptualising information literacy as seven inter-related faces (components). These seven faces are:

1. information technology conception
2. information sources conception
3. information process conception
4. information control conception
5. knowledge construction conception
6. knowledge extension conception
7. wisdom conception.

The conceptual basis provided in Bruce's model underpinned the development of the CQU library framework. The fact that these conceptions or 'faces' are interdependent emphasises that the teaching of information literacy requires co-operation and knowledge of librarians and academics in the design and delivery of programs. At all stages during the development of the CQU library framework, it was acknowledged that there is no one process for achieving information literacy.

Having outlined the desired attributes of graduates and ascertained that the library and faculty are jointly responsible for information literacy outcomes (although it is often difficult to separate information literacy skills from other core skills), the outer circles show the concepts and skills that need to be identified. The processes (classes, web tutorials etc) for achieving desired outcomes then need to be discussed and a program prepared. Before an individual can achieve competence there must be evidence of application. All stages require collaboration and co-operation between librarians and faculty.

Appendix 1

Planning services for the clients

Strategic plan for flexible learning

CQU's Strategic Plan for Flexible Learning 2001-2003 aims to develop opportunities, technologies, pedagogies, structures and systems that are responsive to the needs of learners and the changing nature of higher education in the 21st century. One goal is to promote high levels of flexibility for learners in the processes, models and interactions used for learning and teaching. Another goal aims to promote and ensure that the flexible learning environment incorporates, at all levels of planning and practice, an inclusive and equitable ethos.[7] The strategic plan recognises that activities, functions and responsibilities within the organisation must be realigned if the objectives of the plan are to be realised.

Teaching and learning plan

The library's Teaching and Learning Plan[8] has responded to the demands of the CQU Strategic Plan for Flexible Learning. The library staff have identified goals, strategies, targets and performance indicators to improve skills and scholarly practice in a complex information environment. The challenge has been to provide flexibility and to ensure an inclusive and equitable ethos. For each goal a number of learning situations has been identified in order to develop strategies that not only cater for various student needs, but give an element of choice. One of the goals of the 1999-2001 Teaching and Learning Plan was to develop a planning framework which would articulate the desired learning outcomes and thereby enable the stakeholders to define a process which would expedite these within a range of learning contexts.

Planning framework

The framework[9] or set of guidelines acts like scaffolding and provides support and overall structure to the planning process. Since it allows for flexibility within the design process, a teaching model unique to the particular academic context can be developed.

Specifically the framework:

• supports at least the disciplines taught at CQU
• caters for all modes of delivery - face-to-face, distance education, web-based, videoconference
• recognises different teaching and learning styles and provides appropriate options
• is applicable to a variety of contexts - across a unit, a course, a major or a bridging course
• caters for the various levels of study - undergraduate, research and higher degree by coursework
• promotes collaboration between librarians and academics and identifies areas of responsibility and the expected contribution of all parties.

The last point is of paramount importance. Researchers point out that faculty often fail to acknowledge that students need help inattaining information literacy; that based on their own experience, many faculty believe that students can become skilled on their own.[10]. Some academics do not realise how much time is needed to teach information literacy and it needed to be demonstrated that limited time with students would result in limited learning outcomes.

In conceptualising the development of the model the principles that encapsulate information literacy were identified. These were based on the Australian Information Literacy standards[11] and include:

1. The information literate person recognises the need for information and determines the nature and extent of the information needed
2. The information literate person accesses needed information effectively and efficiently
3. The information literate person evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into their knowledge base and value system
4. The information literate person classifies, stores, manipulates and redrafts information collected or generated
5. The information literate person expands, reframes or creates new knowledge by integrating prior knowledge and new understandings individually or as a member of a group
6. The information literate person understands cultural, economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically, legally and respectfully
7. The information literate person recognises that lifelong learning and participative citizenship requires information literacy.

Each principle was then defined by a number of learning outcomes that the student would be expected to achieve. For example, the second principle governs the following learning outcomes and selected examples (Table 1).

The learning outcomes and examples make explicit the actions required for gathering, analysing, managing, evaluating and using information. It is argued that these actions should be performed recursively and that the reflective, evaluative aspects included within each principle will require the student to practice the skill, think critically about the process and transfer the information-seeking process into another context.[12] That is, mastery of generic information seeking skills is the precursor to, and lays the foundation for the development of higher-level thinking and evaluative skills.

Table 1

The notion of 'shared responsibility' for information literacy underpins the CQU Library Teaching and Learning Plan, and was addressed in the development of the framework.

Information literacy is an issue for librarians, but it is not a 'library' issue. It is an educational, societal and democratic issue which should be of fundamental concern to all those who call themselves educators.[13]

Focus groups (comprised of academics and librarians) were conducted to discuss the issues of 'responsibility' - for the range of learning outcomes. These discussions articulated and reinforced the philosophical basis of information literacy at CQU. Each example within the learning outcomes was designated as an academic, library or joint (library and academic) responsibility. These were also specified as having some student responsibility. For example, the following responsibilities were assigned to the selected examples within the second principle (Table 2).

Before using the framework it is necessary to articulate the context in which it will be used. For example, the framework was used to prepare a program for 30 students enrolled in the thematic tourism unit[14] (that is, a face-to-face undergraduate unit). The academic and the librarian discussed the learning outcomes and decided which ones were desirable in the given context. It was also important that areas of responsibility were clearly defined. In this case it was decided that one of the desired learning outcomes would be that students use library catalogues as part of learning outcome 2.3.1 and that the lecturer would be responsible for ensuring this outcome. Having identified the desired learning outcomes (and examples), the process of achieving them then becomes critical and it is up to the librarian and the academic to discuss and establish the process. It could be that the librarian gives a catalogue demonstration, that students work through a tutorial or as in the model used with thematic tourism students, the lecturer agrees to demonstrate the use of the catalogue. Of course the context in which the framework is applied will impact on the process - for example first year students may require a one-hour practical session, while research students may require a five-minute update. It is envisaged that the process will change according to the needs of the discipline, the specific mode of delivery, the teaching style of the academic, the time available and the context within which the program is being developed. Each time the framework is used, a curriculum model unique to the needs of a particular academic situation will be developed.

Table 2

Delivering services to clients

Communications technologies have redefined the nature, scope and possibilities within the learning environment, while the dispersed nature of the CQU campuses and its student body have necessitated the innovative and flexible use of these technologies. For example, lectures to the regional campuses are often delivered using videoconferencing and this has alleviated the need to temporarily or permanently locate lecturers on the campuses. Use of videoconferencing has also enabled content specialists (eg guest lecturers) to be included in the teaching across campuses relatively cheaply. Likewise, the use of technology has allowed librarians to deliver information literacy programs in an innovative manner ensuring that an increasing number of off-campus students receive library instruction via an appropriate, stable and cost-effective mechanism.

Web-based programs

Many libraries are investing considerable time and money in producing and maintaining generic information literacy packages. These include the University of Southern Queensland (eGO),[15] Queensland University of Technology (Pilot),[16] Griffith University (Library Research Tutorial or LRT)[17] and CQU (Compass).[18] Each program has targeted a number of competencies and users are encouraged to work through and practice the skills needed to access and retrieve information. It is argued that the competencies should be performed recursively and that the reflective, evaluative aspects included within each standard will require the student to practice the skill, think critically about the process and transfer the information-seeking process to another context.[19] That is, mastery of generic information seeking skills is the precursor to, and lays the foundation for the development of higher level thinking and evaluative skills.

In 2000 a research project to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based information literacy programs asked 50 first year students enrolled at Griffith University to evaluate the LRT. Respondents reported that the LRT suited their learning needs. They could choose the time, place and manner in which to use the program and could revise skills and concepts, as they were needed. Elements such as screen layout and design, the level of language, graphics and navigation also received favourable comments. However, some students did not see the program as useful, interesting or relevant.[20] For these students, there was little to relate the generic skills practiced on the LRT with the information needs of their courses. Although teaching philosophies differ between institutions, many librarians favour an integrated approach to information literacy. This approach embeds the process of seeking, evaluating and using information within the course content. This philosophical approach allows the use of information to become part of the learning process, as opposed to yet another requirement or an 'add and stir' solution.[21] Making web-based programs relevant to students, especially beginning students, requires that the importance of the discipline context be recognised. It could be that more discipline based examples are incorporated or that programs are modularised and modules are incorporated into various courses. In 2002 librarians at CQU aim to transfer the generic framework used in Compass to a science context. That is, all examples will be rewritten, science based resources will be incorporated and the tasks will centre around finding information for a major assessment component of the course. The irony of producing web-based programs lies in the fact that while generic programs are usually cheaper to produce, can be shared by more institutions, have wider versatility and meet the needs of flexible delivery, they are not always useful to students.

Dewald[22] claims that designers of web-based programs should also consider the variety of learner ability levels and learner-chosen objectives. Often, web-based programs consist of short modules designed to teach specific library skills and concepts. They follow a logical progression of step-by-step acquisition of skills needed to accomplish the objectives. This model assumes all learners have the same ability level and learning objectives. For first time users of Compass there is a suggested path. Alternatively, there is a table of contents in a separate frame so that users can select the elements and their order. They can move between and within sections as needed, and receive additional explanations if desired. The challenge is to produce systems that, while actually having parameters in which the user may roam, provide a seemingly endless conversation in which the user is carefully and gradually brought to the point of understanding through experience.[23]

Web-based programs vary in the degree of interactivity they offer students. Hall[24] describes interactivity as the means by which people learn, by having their brain engaged and interacting with the content. Interactivity contributes to learner motivation, aids learning by providing opportunity for students to practice skills, and allows for assessment of student understanding at the completion of the learning module. Simulations, quizzes, practice questions and feedback all encourage the user to evaluate and reflect on the content, making it a more meaningful learning experience. All students involved in the 2000 research project commented on the usefulness of the feedback. However, some commented that at some point they would like to make contact with a librarian. The next milestone seems to be the incorporation of a real time synchronous chat facility so that users could discuss issues with a librarian and receive immediate feedback.

Electronically Mediated Tutorials

As a traditional provider of distance education, CQU has always encouraged the innovative use of technology for the delivery of programs. Between 1995 and 1997, librarians responsible for the unit Scholarly Information Sources conducted a virtual (electronic based) residential school. Using a range of technologies such as Timbuktu, Chat and CUSeeme (desktop videoconferencing), a number of databases were demonstrated, students completed individual exercises and a number of interactive discussion sessions were facilitated.[25] In 2001 students enrolled in the Master of Clinical Nursing were offered the opportunity to participate in a tutorial using Chat. Each student was issued with a video outlining the nature of a database and describing how to access and retrieve information. They were encouraged to practice searching before joining the Chat session where questions and issues could be discussed. Originally it was planned to use a voice chat software package but prohibitive bandwidths prevented this.

Evaluation of electronically mediated tutorials shows that students see them as a valuable learning experience. Very early in the residential workshops students established a working relationship and developed a system based on collaboration and co-operation. Their learning was collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working with each other increased their involvement in learning and by sharing ideas and responding to others, thinking and understanding was improved.[26]

Bauman[27] argues that the social factors in learning communities can be as powerfully motivating as the intellectual factors. Everyone needs to be able to socialise with a group of like-minded people and to form friendships based on trust and confidence. Social acceptance helps students become integrated into the academic community so that they at least accept its expectations and the ways in which it operates. In traditional settings many meaningful social interactions take place outside of class time, or on the periphery of the class period. Individual interactions work iteratively to create the classroom climate, to convey instructor and student expectations, and to develop attitudes about the course, the material being covered, the instructor and the university as a whole.[28] Transcripts of the 2001 chat sessions show a significant amount of social discourse. Facilitators felt it was important to create an environment where students devoid of social opportunities outside the workshop could get to know each other and develop friendships. The number of the interactions on the e-mail discussion list has increased since the initial chat tutorial, as has the willingness of the students to discuss and collaborate on issues.

The dynamics of a virtual classroom are vastly different from traditional on campus classrooms. Virtual classrooms do not allow students to sit face to face with other classmates and experience the traditional sense of community created in a real life classroom by body language, personal conversations and mutual interests.[29] Nor do they allow the instructor to respond to puzzled looks, sighs of boredom or aspects of content which are not quite understood. In all virtual sessions these characteristics are explained to the participants and individuals are encouraged to interject if they wish to raise a question. Some students have commented that they appreciate the anonymity associated with virtual classrooms. Students take risks every time they share their work with others, offer comment or criticism, or collaborate on a project. For some students it is easier to take these risks in a virtual learning environment because the face to face encounter is missing. For others, the difficulty comes from wondering if the unknown is a reliable source.[30]

Conclusion

Flexible delivery has offered some new challenges to librarians. As communications technologies become increasingly available, the options for the delivery of information literacy programs increase. The issue of instruction has moved from a concern for transmitting information to a concern for understanding where people are, what their learning needs and goals are, and the cognitive and physical processes by which they can move from their initial state of knowledge to their goal.[31] That is, the information literacy needs and learning styles of students are individualistic. If individuals are to reach their goals, many libraries have to realign traditional services.

Notes

1. Central Queensland University Strategic Plan for Flexible Learning 2001-2003 http://www.cqu.edu.au/staff/strategic.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
2. P Candy G Crebert and J O'Leary Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education Canberra Higher Education Council & Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee 1994
3. Central Queensland University op cit
4. Central Queensland University Teaching and Learning Implementation Plan 1999-2001 http://www.cqu.edu.au/documents/unipol/teaching_learning_implementation_plan.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
5. C Bruce, 'Information Literacy: An International Review of Programs and Research' paper presented at the LIANZA Conference (Auckland New Zealand 1999) http://www.auckland.ac.nz/lbr/conf99/bruce.htm p2 of 8 [accessed 18 June 2001]
6. C Bruce The Seven Faces of Information Literacy Adelaide Auslib Press 1997
7. Central Queensland University Statement of Strategic Intent 2000-2004 http://www.cqu.edu.au/strategic2000.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
8. Central Queensland University Library Teaching and Learning Plan 1999-2001 http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/informationliteracy/teachinglearningplan.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
9. Central Queensland University Library Information Literacy Framework http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/informationliteracy/standards/index.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
10. P Daragan and G Stevens 'Developing Lifelong Learners: An Integrative and Developmental Approach to Information Literacy' Research Strategies vol 14 no 2 1996 pp68-81
11. Council of Australian University Librarians Information Literacy Standards 2001 http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-doc/InfoLitStandards2001.doc [accessed 18 June 2001]
12. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education 2000 http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
13. A Bundy 'Information Literacy: The Key Competency for the 21st Century' paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association of Technological University Libraries Pretoria South Africa IATUL 1998
14. Central Queensland University Library Academic Delivery Model (53268) - Case Study [Online] 2000 http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/informationliteracy/Academic_delivery_model.pdf [accessed 18 June 2001]
15. University of Southern Queensland eGO [Online] 2000 http://www.usq.edu.au/b-eGO [accessed 18 June 2001]
16. Queensland University of Technology Pilot [Online] 1999 http://wwwlib.qut.edu.au/elearn/tutorial.html [accessed 18 June 2001]
17. Griffith University Library Research Tutorial [Online] 2000 http://www4.gu.edu.au/shr/lrt/ [accessed 18 June 2001]
18. Central Queensland University Library Compass [Online] 2000 http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/compass/intro.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
19. ACRL op cit
20. H Drew W Abbott and D Orr 'What a Web We Weave: Evaluating the Flexible Delivery of Information Literacy Education' paper presented at Online Ondisc Sydney January 2001
21. L Snavely and N Cooper 'The Information Literacy Debate' Journal of Academic Librarianship vol 23 no 1 1997 pp9-13
22. N H Dewald 'Web-based Library Instruction: What is Good Pedagogy?' Information Technology and Libraries vol 18 no 1 1999 pp26-31
23. B Hall Web-based Training Cookbook New York Wiley 1997
24. Ibid
25. D Orr M Wallin and M Appleton 'Student Interaction in an Electronically Mediated Classroom: Results, Issues and Potential' Open Learning 98: Offering New Directions Brisbane Qld 1998
26. A W Chickering and S C Ehrmann Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever [online] 1997 http://www.aahe.org/technology/ehrmann.htm [accessed 18 June 2001]
27. M Bauman 'Online Learning Communities' Second Annual Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference 1997 http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/org/tcc_conf97/pres/bauman.html [accessed 18 June 2001]
28. Ibid
29. J Killion 'Establishing Community in a Virtual Classroom' Second Annual Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, 1997 http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/org/tcc_conf97/pres/killion.html [accessed 18 June 2001]
30. Ibid
31. R J Todd 'Information Literacy: Philosophy, Principles and Practice' School Libraries Worldwide vol 1 no 1 1995 pp54-68

Debbie Orr, reference services librarian, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Qld. E-mail d.orr@cqu.edu.au

Margie Wallin, faculty liaison librarian-Health Science, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Qld. E-mail: m.wallin@cqu.edu.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).