AARL

The getting of wisdom: reflections of a teaching librarian

Mandy Lupton

Abstract: The shift in focus from teaching to learning in higher education can be paralleled in the shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy. This move has resulted in a change of role from librarians as service providers to educators. This paper argues that in order to facilitate students' 'getting of wisdom', librarians who design and deliver information literacy programs should see themselves as teachers rather than trainers. It compares the role of the school teacher-librarian with that of the academic teaching librarian. The implications of a dominant training paradigm result in the reduction of information literacy to lower order surface learning. Support for teaching librarians is crucial in changing roles and self-image.

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting, get understanding. [1]

The aim of this paper is to challenge current information literacy practice in higher education. In doing so, I hope to encourage a culture of reflective practice in the academic librarian who designs and delivers educational programs, and to provide a framework with which to develop their self-image as one of a teacher rather than a trainer or service provider. This argument has emerged from the ongoing debate into the role and status of the academic librarian, and my own experience in a range of educational environments.

As a teacher-librarian moving into the world of the academic 'teaching librarian'[2] I experienced a change in culture akin to Henry Handel Richardson's Laura who 'went out from school with the uncomfortable sense of being a square peg, which fitted into none of the round holes of her world'. This highlighted the difference between the culture of the teacher-librarian and the teaching librarian.

The ongoing controversy regarding the roles and status of the teaching librarian has centred on Peacock's[3] view that librarians should hold academic status. Peacock[4] and Nimon[5] have proposed sound educational models to facilitate librarians moving from trainers to educators, and both have suggested strategies for building partnerships with academics. Blackall[6] has provided a political perspective on the power balance in higher education and suggests rethinking information literacy in terms of informatics. I present a different perspective - that teaching librarians should take a wider view and see themselves more as teacher-librarians, and that librarians are their own worst enemies in their misrepresentation of information literacy. In doing so, they are compromising their responsibility in facilitating students' getting of wisdom.

Roles and self-image

Primary differences between the teacher-librarian and the teaching librarian include self-image, academic qualifications and cultural norms of the institution. Teacher librarians see themselves as teachers first, librarians second. They have teaching qualifications and library qualifications. In many cases, the teacher-librarian has more qualifications than classroom teachers as many have studied librarianship at a post-graduate level after years of general teaching. In contrast, the teaching librarian is a librarian first, teacher or trainer second. They may have no teaching qualification, and in most cases are not more highly qualified than the mainstream teaching staff, in this case academics. Ironically, usually the academic does not have teaching qualifications either, but has a higher degree in their subject specialisation.

The crucial organisational cultural difference between schools and universities is that everyone in the school from general staff to teaching staff has a primary explicit responsibility to the students. Everyone is in the 'front-line' of customer service. The school is the ultimate in a client-focused environment. In contrast, the huge bureaucracy of a higher education institution results in some members never needing to interact with students. In this environment it is easy to become disconnected from the learner and loose sight of the primary objective - that of education and scholarship.

The dissonance in the image of the teaching librarian can be traced to a general misrepresentation of the nature of information literacy. Indeed, I believe much of what is presented as information literacy is actually library skills, user education or bibliographic instruction.

Understandings of information literacy

Both the teacher-librarian and teaching librarian work towards developing information literacy in students. However, the teacher-librarian's approach and understanding is grounded in the assumption that their role is primarily that of an educator. In contrast, the teaching librarian is restricted by operational boundaries that work against the implementation of information literacy.

The simplified definitions in the literature have contributed to misunderstandings and misconceptions of information literacy as a construct. Information literacy is 'an understanding and set of abilities enabling individuals to recognise when information is needed and have a capacity to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information'. [7] In this much quoted definition it is difficult to get a sense of the difference between bibliographic instruction and information literacy. The American Library Association[8] goes further in describing an information literate person as one who has learned how to learn. 'They know how to learn because they know how knowledge is organised, how to find information, and how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them'. This statement comes closer in relaying information literacy as a broad educational concept.

Bruce's 'seven faces' study describes higher educators' experiences of information literacy as:

Table 1
The Seven Faces of Information Literacy

Bruce's study gives a rich description of information literacy from the users' perspective, while the Information Literacy Standards[10] offer a framework from the expert's standpoint. It is apparent by surveying the definitions and descriptions presented that information literacy represents a concept far wider than libraries. Indeed, Marcum[11] concludes that information literacy is too broad and asks 'how can IL be distinguished from a comprehensive learning process?' He criticises information literacy in practice as being 'too limited, too grounded in text, and overly concerned with conveying basic skills to fully encompass the visual, the interactive, and the cultural domains required by the current situation'. [12] Similarily, Boyce analyses the teacher-librarianship literature for representations of information literacy and concludes:

Collectively, they have an indeterminate quality which seem to encompass anything and everything from: computer competencies, search engine savvy, standards and formulae for cognitive skills and metacognitive processes, right through to a philosophy of learning how to learn, personal mastery and leadership. Added to this, the strongly print, bibliocentric logic of information literacy seems to me to be inappropriate for the anarchic environment of digital information. [13]

No longer can neat operational boundaries be delineated as in the case of library skills or information skills. Indeed, early in the debate on information literacy, Cavalier[14] remarked that he had come to the 'lame conclusion that information literacy is another way of expressing one of the outcomes of a sound general education'. Information literacy is so broad that the responsibility for it does not start and end with the library. In the context of higher education, the academic, librarian and academic skills/study skills advisor have joint responsibility.

The shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy has led to confusion regarding the role of the teaching librarian and the place that information literacy occupies in the higher education agenda. Information literacy in practice is too fuzzy, and too hard to do. It involves a conceptual shift on behalf of academic librarians about their core business. Are they service providers, trainers or teachers? In order to understand the position of information literacy in the higher education context, it is necessary to look at the shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy.

Information literacy education

The evolution of information literacy is based in library programs variously described as 'user education', 'library skills', 'bibliographic instruction' and 'information skills'. [15] However, these programs are librarian and library centred, print-based, involving information location and retrieval, and based within a formal educational environment. In contrast, information literacy is a holistic educational outcome, involves all information formats, includes evaluation, analysis and synthesis, is learner centred and involves the learner in all aspects of their lives. [16]

This shift from a narrow library centred paradigm to a broad learner centred paradigm is a huge conceptual leap that many academic librarians have still yet to grasp. Inevitably, rebadging of traditional library instruction as information literacy has occurred without making a corresponding shift in thinking and practice. [17] This has been exacerbated by a compliance mentality of institutions rushing to get on the bandwagon by saying they are doing information literacy, and including it in graduate attributes or qualities. This rebadging is counterproductive. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are 'embedding' information literacy into the curriculum by delivering the standard 50-minute bibliographic instruction session, even if it is within the context of the subject. We are also misrepresenting information literacy. Webber[18] points out that this is a 'vicious circle' for teaching librarians. If the librarian has represented the activity as information literacy, when really all that is being taught is information retrieval or library skills, then academics and students understandably assume that this is what information literacy is.

The authors of the paper accompanying the Information Literacy Standards have made the point that the Standards reflect both higher order and lower thinking skills. [19] Outcomes such as 'Identifies keyword, synonyms, and related terms for the information needed' and 'Differentiates between the types of sources cited and understands the elements and correct citation style for a wide range of resources' are grist to the mill for the academic librarian. Outcomes such as 'Recognises interrelationships among concepts and combines potentially useful primary statements with supporting evidence' and 'Analyses the structure and logic of supporting arguments or methods' are outcomes that one would assume lecturers, tutors and study skills advisors would prefer to take responsibility for developing in students. The breadth of the Standards relate more readily to the role of the teacher-librarian who seamlessly is a teacher, study skills advisor, IT trainer and information skills teacher in one. The teacher-librarian has no sense of boundaries of responsibility as is prevalent in the culture of higher education.

If the Standards statements are mapped to practice by using them as learning outcomes or goals, it becomes obvious that working in isolation, teaching librarians can only realistically hope to develop lower order skills, as operational boundaries restrict the development of higher order skills. This reinforces the case for partnerships between librarians and academic staff.

So far, librarians have taken ownership for information literacy. But to own the responsibility for a literacy is a heavy burden. [20] What do we need to do in order to get it right?

Student learning

There is a danger that our misconceptions and misrepresentations of information literacy could lead to a poorer quality of student learning. Limberg[21] reported in her study of Year 12 students' conceptions of information seeking and use that 'no relationship was found between learning outcomes and the more technical aspects of information searching, such as the formulation of queries, the combination of search terms, or technical skills connected to computer use.' She hypothesised that the approach often taken by librarians in emphasising the technical aspects of searching may actually encourage fact-finding and surface learning. Limberg identified 'fact-finding' as the least complex conception in the range of experiences of Year 12 students:

Table 2
Conceptions of information seeking and use

Adapted from Limberg [22]

A parallel can be drawn here with the study of Ramsden, Beswick and Bowden[23] who examined the effects of 'learning skills' classes. They found that teaching learning skills actually increased students' surface learning approaches, possibly due to students strategically choosing surface techniques in order to satisfy assessment requirements and time pressure.

Marton and Saljo[24] in their seminal phenomenographic study of 1976, described qualitative differences in approaches to learning as 'surface' and 'deep'. Limberg's description of students' experiences appears to be closely linked with surface and deep learning approaches. Surface learning is characterised by passive engagement and using techniques such as memorising and rote learning while deep learning is an active approach and includes theorising, applying and searching for meaning. Booth[25] explains 'the essential quality is that deep approaches are seeking meaning in the task viewed in the overall learning situation, whereas the surface approach is more focused on the task per se'. A common misunderstanding with surface and deep learning is to attribute these approaches to a static characteristic of the individual. As Ramsden observes:

An approach to learning is a description of a relation between a learner and a learning task - the description of an intention and an action. An approach is not something inside a student. It is dynamic: it has the idea of change tied up in it: it only has meaning with reference to a situation and to certain types of content. [26]

The implications of this statement are many: as students' learning approaches are associated with a situation rather than a fixed characteristic, the design of teaching, learning and assessment activities may affect students' learning approaches. Therefore it is our responsibility to design learning environments that develop deep learning. If we concentrate on a lower-order skills approach we are in danger of giving students the implicit message that it is only these skills that are important. As Marcum[27] points out, information literacy has emerged from bibliographic instruction, which is 'grounded in content and the transfer of information'. He goes on to say that this 'tradition compromises the ability of IL to embrace fully the requirements of contemporary learning theory'. This theory incorporates an active learning, student centred focus that is more likely to lead to deep learning.

With the move to embed information literacy into the curriculum comes the need to reform the teaching paradigms of librarians. When studying the interaction between information seeking and learning of disciplinary content, Limberg[28] came to the conclusion that problems could arise in the collaboration between teachers and librarians as 'teachers tend to stress the subject matter of a learning assignment and underestimate the complexities of information seeking for students. Librarians, on the other hand, will prefer to focus on the information search process and disregard subject content or learning outcome'. In order to facilitate student learning, all partners need to see the big picture, not just one part of the puzzle.

Training and teaching paradigms

The education model or paradigm that is used by the teacher-librarian is more desirable than a training model often used by the teaching librarian. Laurillard[29] states that the aim of technical and further education is to give students a 'grounding in the practice of a skill or subject area', while graduates of a university education should be able to 'understand that knowledge is neither static nor discrete... it is relational, context-dependent and complex to transfer from one context to another'. The term 'training' can be understood to refer to instruction involved in 'acquiring very specific skills that they will normally apply almost immediately'. [30] However, Bruce points out that:

Teaching specific skills and knowledge is fundamentally at odds with the very idea of information literacy which suggests that knowledge and skills are quickly outdated, and that information literacy involves being able to learn and relearn in the face of constant change. [31]

This is a challenge for librarians who become information literacy educators, as they may be restricted to work within a training paradigm in their own organisation. If teaching librarians, academics and students view information literacy as 'training', then it is likely that they do not perceive it as a wider educational concept, and therefore do not see the value in embedding information literacy into the curriculum. The relationship between different perceptions of education, instruction and training[32] can be linked with perceptions of 'bibliographic instruction' and 'library skills'. The skills approach could present the danger of the 'tick box' approach that encourages surface learning and lower order skills. [33]

The only way to facilitate information literacy as a wide educational concept rather than the library centred bibliographic instruction is to embed it in the curriculum of individual subjects and entire programs of study. This needs to occur in a number of ways:

• information literacy learning goals and outcomes appear explicitly in subject and course learning outcomes
• information literacy learning outcomes appear as assessment criteria for assignments
• there is a developmental sequence of learning that occurs throughout a program of study, and
• the teaching librarian is able to ascertain learning outcomes and effectiveness of teaching by viewing student's work.

Strategies for supporting teaching librarians

If academic libraries are prepared to support information literacy there must be also be a commitment to support and encourage staff in moving from the role of trainer to that of educator. The key to this is formal staff development and the encouragement of reflective practice as proposed by Peacock[34] and Nimon. [35] Staff should be able to obtain education qualifications such as a graduate certificate in higher education. Some libraries run their own programs,[36] but the disadvantage of these programs is that they are usually held in-house with only library staff. The key to understanding the wider context and forming partnerships with academics is to study in the same program on an equal basis. The same applies to academic staff development centres. It is essential that general staff who have a teaching role be actively supported to attend seminars and workshops with academics on teaching and learning.

Critical reflection is a powerful tool for the improvement of teaching practice. Strategies include personal reflection, planning, observing and debriefing with colleagues and workshop debriefing. [37] This debriefing should not only be with library colleagues, but with academic colleagues. For reflective practice to work, the institution must encourage and support the time it takes to design and evaluate educational programs. Teacher-librarians will automatically engage in reflective practice as they naturally assume that teaching is their core business. However, teaching librarians face pressures from administrators who see their core business as service providers.

The getting of wisdom

Our ultimate aim should be to develop students through to the highest levels of information literacy. The 'wisdom' conception is the seventh face in Bruce's study of information literacy. This conception is the most complex of the seven faces as it incorporates the preceding six faces. At the core of the wisdom conception are personal values combining with a knowledge base that results in using information wisely for the benefit of others. [38]

Wise use of information involves placing the information in a larger context, seeing it in the light of broader experience, 'seeing the information historically, temporarily, socioculturally and so on'. [39]

In order to facilitate information literacy, we must engage in critical reflection and view ourselves as educators. This can only involve seeing our role and practice in the larger context rather than the prevalent inward looking, library-centred view.

To continue with Laura's story:

She went out from school with the uncomfortable sense of being a square peg, which fitted into none of the round holes of her world; the wisdom she had got, the experience she was richer by, had, in the process of equipping her for life, merely seemed to disclose her unfitness. She could not then know that, even for the squarest peg, the right hole may ultimately be found; seeming unfitness prove to be only another aspect of a peculiar and special fitness... many a day came and went before she grasped that, oftentimes, just those mortals who feel cramped and unsure in the conduct of everyday life, will find themselves to rights, with astounding ease, in that freer, more spacious world where no practical considerations hamper, and where the creatures that inhabit dance to their tune: the world where are stored up men's best thoughts, the hopes, and fancies; where the shadow is the substance, and the multitude of business pales before the dream. [40]

The changes wrought by embracing information literacy may feel like a 'seeming unfitness' as roles and responsibilities evolve. It is essential to explicitly acknowledge the dual shifts from bibliographic instruction to information literacy and from a teacher-centred approach to a student-centred approach. The sooner we feel at ease with our new roles the better it will be for students' learning. Only then can we facilitate the 'getting of wisdom'.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Clara O'Shea and Dr Linda Hort for assistance and comments on drafts of this article.

Notes

1. Proverbs 4:7
2. J Peacock 'Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 32 no 1 2001 pp26-42
3. J Peacock ALIA Information Literacy Forum Online Debate 2001 http://www.alia.org.au/groups/infolit/debate.topics/2001.08.p1.html [25 October 2001]
4. J Peacock 'From Trainers to Educators: Librarians and the Challenge of Change' paper presented at the Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy conference Adelaide 1999; Peacock 'Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm'
5. M Nimon 'Striking the Right Balance: Information Literacy and Partnerships Between Librarian, Lecturer, and Student' (paper presented at the Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy conference Adelaide 1999) pp157-64; M Nimon 'The Role of Academic Libraries in the Development of the Information Literate Student: The Interface between Librarian, Academic and Other Stakeholders,' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 32 no 1 2001 pp43-52; M Nimon 'Developing Lifelong Learners: Controversy and the Educative Role of the Academic Librarian' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 33 no 1 2002 pp14-24
6. C Blackall 'Rethinking Information Literacy in Higher Education: The Case for Informatics' paper presented at the e-volving Information Futures Victorian Association for Library Automation conference 6-8 February 2002 Melbourne 2002 pp145-58
7. Council of Australian University Librarians Information Literacy Standards University of South Australia Library 2001 http://www.caul.edu.au [4/4/2001]
8. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy 1989
   http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/ilit1st.html [8/3/2001]
9. C Bruce The Seven Faces of Information Literacy Blackwood Auslib 1997
10. Council of Australian University Librarians Information Literacy Standards
11. J W Marcum 'Rethinking Information Literacy' Library Quarterly vol 72 no 1 2002 pp1-26 p20
12. Ibid
13. S Boyce 'Second Thoughts about Information Literacy' paper presented at the Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy conference Adelaide 1999 pp57-65 p57
14. R Cavalier 'Why Worry, I'm not' paper presented at the Information Literacy: the Australian Agenda conference Adelaide 1993 pp19-26 p20
15. Bruce The Seven Faces of Information Literacy
16. R M Young and S Harmony Working with Faculty to Design Undergraduate Information Literacy Programs. A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians New York Neal-Schuman 1999
17. Blackall 'Rethinking Information Literacy in Higher Education: The Case for Informatics' p149
18. S Webber and B Johnston 'Conceptions of Information Literacy: New Perspectives And Implications' Journal of Information Science vol 26 no 6 2000 pp381-97 p394
19. Council of Australian University Librarians Information Literacy Standards
20. Boyce 'Second Thoughts about Information Literacy' p59
21. L Limberg 'Is there a Relationship between Information Seeking and Learning Outcomes?' in C Bruce and P Candy (eds) Information Literacy around the World. Advances in Programs and Research Wagga Wagga Center for Information Studies 2000 pp200-201
22. Ibid
23. P Ramsden et al 'Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on First Year University Students' Learning' Human Learning 5 1986 pp151-64
24. F Marton and R Saljo 'On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I Outcome and Process' British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 1976 pp4-11
25. S Booth 'On Phenomenography, Learning and Teaching' Higher Education Research & Development vol 16 no 2 1997 pp135-58 p145
26. P Ramsden 'Improving Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: The Case for a Relational Perspective' Studies in Higher Education vol 12 no 3 1987 pp275-86 p276
27. Marcum 'Rethinking Information Literacy' p11
28. L Limberg 'Experiencing Information Seeking and Learning: A Study of the Interaction between Two Phenomena' Information Research 5 no 1 1999
    http://InformationR.net/ir/5-1/paper68.html [24/5/2001]
29. D Laurillard 'New Technologies, Students and the Curriculum: The Impact of Communications and Information Technology on Higher Education' in P Scott (ed) Higher Education Re-formed London Falmer 2000 pp133-53
30. P L Smith and T J Ragan Instructional Design 2nd ed Upper Saddle River N J Merrill 1999 p3
31. C Bruce 'The Relational Approach: A New Model for Information Literacy' The New Review of Information and Library Research 3 1997 pp1-22
32. Smith and Ragan Instructional Design
33. Webber and Johnston 'Conceptions of Information Literacy: New Perspectives and Implications' p384
34. Peacock 'From Trainers to Educators: Librarians and the Challenge of Change'; Peacock 'Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm'
35. Nimon 'Developing Lifelong Learners: Controversy and the Educative Role of the Academic Librarian'
36. Peacock 'Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm'
37. A Brockbank and I McGill Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education Buckingham Society for Research into Higher Education 1998 p109
38. Bruce The Seven Faces of Information Literacy pp147-51
39. Ibid p149
40. H H Richardson The Getting of Wisdom London Heinemann 1961 p234 http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/setis/id/P00047 [24/5/2002]