Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 256-262

  Jacobs, Heidi L M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43349106646     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.009     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (2): 192.
2. Ibid., p. 198.
3. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 43 (2): 125.
4. Ibid., p. 125.
5. The terms “instruction” and “pedagogy” are often conflated or used interchangeably. Indeed, the line between the two concepts is in many ways an artificial division but the distinctions between the terms are worth noting. Instruction is, for the most part, primarily practical and is concerned with instructional strategies and classroom practices. Pedagogy is more theoretical and is concerned with the “meta” level questions about teaching, learning, and education. Ideally, the instructional practices and the pedagogical theories inform and are informed by each other to create praxis—a theoretically informed practice and a practice informed theory.
6. Amy Lee, Composing Critical Pedagogies: Teaching Writing as Revision (Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English), p. 9.
7. Heidi Julien Education for Information Literacy Instruction: A Global Perspective Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 46 3 Summer 2005 214
8. Ibid., p. 211.
9. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” p. 193.
10. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” Online. Available: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm (Accessed August 1, 2007).
11. Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, “Information Literacy: Definition.” Online. Available: http://www.cilip.org.uk/professionalguidance/informationliteracy/definition/ (Accessed August 1, 2007).
12. The National Forum on Information Literacy, “What is Information Literacy?” Online. Available: http://www.infolit.org/ (Accessed August 1, 2007).
13. “The Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong” LearningOnline. Available: http://www.ifla.org/III/wsis/BeaconInfSoc.html (Accessed August 1, 2007).
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Rebecca Powell Literacy as a Moral Imperative: Facing the Challenges of a Pluralistic Society 1999 Rowman and Littlefield Lanham, MD 4
18. Ibid., p. 20–21.
19. James Paul Gee What is Literacy? Candace Mitchell Kathleen Weiler Rewriting Literacy 1991 Bergin and Garvey Westport, CT 7
20. Jeff Purdue Stories, Not Information: Transforming Information Literacy portal: Libraries and the Academy 3 4 2003 655
21. Ibid., p. 654.
22. Ibid., p. 655.
23. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept,” 126.
24. For a discussion of the distinction between summative and formative evaluation see Brooke K. Horvath, “The Components of Written Response: A Practical Synthesis of Current Views,” Rhetoric Review 2 (2) (January 1984): 137. Horvath writes: “Determining a paper's grade and writing comments to explain or to justify that grade; deciding how well a paper measures up to one's expectations, fulfills the requirements of an assignment, meets certain criteria of good prose; in short, passing judgment, ranking: this is summative evaluation, which treats a text as a finished product and the student's writing ability as at least momentarily fixed. Formative evaluation, on the other hand, is intent on helping students improve their writing abilities; it approaches a paper ‘not in terms of what has been done, but of what needs to be done, what can be done ... not to judge, but to identify problems and possibilities’ (McDonald 1978). Formative evaluation treats a text as part of an ongoing process of skills acquisition and improvement, recognizing that what is being responded to is not a fixed but a developing entity” (137). Horvath's concern here is responding to student writing but there are useful parallels to be made with information literacy assessments whether on an individual or programmatic basis.
25. Paolo Freire, trans. Donald Macedo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY: Continuum, 2002), p. 72.
26. Ibid.
27. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” 193.
28. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept,” 126.
29. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” 193.
30. Ibid., p. 194.
31. Ibid., p. 195.
32. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed , pp. 83–84.
33. Peter Williams, “Opinion: Against Information Literacy,” Update (July/August 2006). Online. Available: http://www.cilip.org.uk/publications/updatemagazine/archive/archive2006/july/williams.htm (Accessed August 1, 2007).
34. Ibid.
35. New London Group A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures Bill Cope Mary Kalantzis Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures 2000 Routledge London 30
36. Dane Ward Revisioning Information Literacy for Lifelong Meaning Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 July 2006 398
37. Ibid.
38. New London Group, “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures,” p. 33.
39. James Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” 198.
40. Antonia Darder Marta Baltodano Rudolfo D. Torres Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction The Critical Pedagogy Reader 2003 Routledge Falmer New York 15
41. Powell, Literacy as a Moral Imperative: Facing the Challenges of a Pluralistic Society , p. 4.
42. Shari Stenberg Amy Lee Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English College English 64 2002, January 326 347
43. Ibid., p. 328.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid., pp. 328–329.
47. Chris W. Gallagher, Radical Departures: Composition and Progressive Pedagogy (Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2002), quoted in Stenberg and Lee, “Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English,” p. 329.
48. Stenberg and Lee, “Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English,” 329.
49. Ibid.
50. Stenberg and Lee, “Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English,” p. 333 (emphasis mine).
51. Ibid., p. 340.
52. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed , p. 80.
53. Stenberg and Lee, “Developing Pedagogies: Learning the Teaching of English,” p. 338.
54. Ibid.
55. Rolf Norgaard, “Writing Information Literacy: Contributions to a Concept,” 125.
56. Dane Ward, Revisioning Information Literacy, pp. 398–399.
57. Ibid., p. 399.
58. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed , p. 79.
59. The question of how to go about enacting this creative, reflective dialogue is undeniably pressing. In response to this piece, an anonymous reviewer asked a crucial question: “am I simply to include more problem based learning into my teaching of information literacy, or do I need to start from scratch and sit alongside the classes I work with, understanding how they think, and walking with them on their path to critical thinking and information literacy. God please give me the time for this.” The reviewer concludes, “However, this is perhaps the nature of the reflective activity the author is recommending.” Indeed, the answer the reviewer provides to his or her question is the answer I too would offer. The act of asking questions such as the ones quoted above is precisely the kind of reflective activity I am advocating. Pedagogical reflection does not mean we need to dismantle and rebuild our information literacy classes, programs, and initiatives from the ground up (though we may, after reflection, choose to do so). Instead pedagogical reflection means that that we ask questions like the ones quoted above of ourselves and our teaching and that we think critically and creatively about the small and large pedagogical choices we make.
60. For a cogent discussion of Dewey's connections with information literacy see James Elmborg, “The Other Dewey: John Dewey's Democracy and Education And Information Literacy,” in Student Engagement and Information Literacy , edited by Craig Gibson. (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2006): 1–15.
61. Darder, Baltodano, and Torres, Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction, p. 20.
62. The Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong, LearningOnline. Available: http://www.ifla.org/III/wsis/BeaconInfSoc.html (Accessed August 1, 2007).