LILAC 2014 Poster

1. From how to why:
Critical thinking and academic integrity as key ingredients in
information literacy teaching
Helene N. Andreassen1, Torstein Låg1, Vibeke Flytkjær2, Mariann Løkse1, Mark Stenersen2 & Lars Figenschou1
1University Library & 2Resource Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology, UiT the Arctic University of Norway
INTRODUCTION
- An online resource in information literacy is currently under development at UiT
the Arctic University of Norway.
- To meet the students’ present-day study behaviour and to answer to the
university’s policy on open access and flexible education, the course is developed
as a sMooc on the edX platform.
- To provide students with the necessary tools to handle information we focus on 4
key areas: learning strategies, searching & retrieval of information, evaluation of
sources, and referencing. All 4 modules contain exercises and learn more-sections.
- Our philosophy centres around critical thinking and academic integrity, often given
little priority in information literacy teaching.
- This poster presents our philosophy and how we are building the course to
implement the notions of critical thinking and academic integrity.
/ MODULE 1: LEARNING STRATEGIES / MODULE 2: SEARCHING & RETRIEVAL
PURPOSE: To highlight the fact that
information literacy is about learning, and to
anchor the whole course to this central idea.
ACTIVITY: Students are given the
opportunity to rate themselves on selected
items adapted from extant motivation and
learning strategies questionnaires. e.g. 3,4
TARGET LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Effective planning of study activities.
• Effective monitoring and self-regulation
of learning through the techniques of
practice testing, self-explanation, and
elaborative interrogation. see 5
PURPOSE: To incite curiosity about the vast
number of information resources available
to students at UiT.
ACTIVITY: Students are asked to rank order
four different search tools according to their
relevance and quality for a given academic
writing project. Next, they are asked which
search tool they would actually use
themselves, and to explain any discrepancy
between the two answers.
TARGET LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Simple known-item search and retrieval.
• Basic topic searching using UiT’s
discovery system.
• Thoughtful analysis of information needs.
• Acceptable topic searching using
discipline appropriate databases.
PURPOSE: To incite critical thinking and
provide students with criteria for evaluating
the quality and relevance of information
resources.
ACTIVITY: Students are asked to describe
their perception of an optical illusion. By
analogy, this illustrates that our first reading
of a piece of information is not necessarily
correct. Only a critical treatment of the
information allows us to infer its quality.
TARGET LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Define sources that are appropriate in
terms of quality and relevance.
• Define appropriate information channels.
• Critical evaluation of sources.
PURPOSE: To make students understand
the importance of correct citation of sources
and to provide them with tools helping them
succeed in this task.
ACTIVITY: Students are given 6 scenarios
illustrating citing sources along ”a scale of
acceptability”, and must draw the line
between acceptable vs. unacceptable use of
sources. Based on a revised version of an exercise published
in 6, with reference to 7
TARGET LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Define academic integrity.
• Distinguish acceptable use of sources
from non acceptable one.
• Use sources to improve the overall
quality of the academic paper.
• Citation of different types of sources, in-
text and reference list, in a reference
style used in the student’s discipline.
OUR PHILOSOPHY
• Background: Previous experience teaching information literacy has taught us that
both the students and we as teachers tend to get a little hung up on the
technicalities and details of searching and referencing. The students feel slightly
overwhelmed by details, bored by the lessons, and they tend to miss the big idea:
Why it is important.
• Lofty and slightly unrealistic goal: Make the student want to be information literate.
• How: (1) By emphasising the purpose of information literacy and highlighting the
student’s immediate and long term gains (e.g. better learning, better grades, less
stressful student life, becoming trustworthy and persuasive). (2) By infusing aspects
of critical thinking and academic integrity in every element of the course.
• Difficult balancing act: Enough technical details to be a useful ‘how-to resource’ vs.
enough overall purpose and profundity to make it interesting.
/ PHILOSOPHY: CRITICAL THINKING / PHILOSOPHY: ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Critical thinking has its place in any course
on information literacy. Usually, though, it is
assigned a relatively minor role as part of a
section of source criticism. This may be due
to a common perception of critical thinking
as closely tied to scepticism.
Our conception of critical thinking is much
broader: It involves the goal directed,
judicious application of principles and skills
suited to bring about valid knowledge (true
beliefs), good decisions and sensible
courses of action.e.g. 1
As such critical thinking is a key ingredient
and an important basis of both learning in
general and of all the component skills of
information literacy.
Critical thinking therefore colours the entire
build-up of our course. While naturally
elaborated upon in Module 1 “Learning
Strategies” and Module 3 “Source
Evaluation”, we let critical thinking shine
through as a guiding principle in reading,
searching, evaluating, and using sources.
Academic integrity has its place in any
course on information literacy. Usually,
though, it is assigned a relatively minor role
as part of a section of source referencing.
This may be due to the immediate
importance – from the teacher’s as well as
the student’s viewpoint – of mastering basic
referencing techniques.
We consider academic integrity to be an
essential element of the student’s training: It
involves knowledge about the student’s own
role in Academia, respect for (the work of)
others and honesty and reliability as guiding
principles when writing an academic
paper.cf. 2
As such, academic integrity is a key
ingredient and an important basis of both
learning in general and of all the component
skills of information literacy.
Academic integrity therefore colours the
entire build-up of our course. While
naturally given a separate section in Module
4 “Using Sources”, we let academic integrity
shine through as a guiding principle in
reading, searching, evaluating, and using
sources.
The breadth of competences, experience, and perspectives held by the people involved helps to
ensure the quality and relevance of the course for its intended users.
• 4 (Senior) Academic Librarians, responsible for the development of the course content.
• 1 Senior Adviser (specialist, pedagogical supervision and flexible education), responsible for the
pedagogical and flexible quality of the course.
• 1 Graphic Designer, responsible for development and implementation of the course platform.
• 2 students, from the humanities & health sciences, respectively, hired for continuous evaluation
the course’s content and layout.
• Students and teachers from 5 different departments at UiT, involved for beta testing of the
course, to be carried out in the autumn 2014.
FUNDING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our project is in part supported by Fleksibel utdanning (“Flexible Education”) and Læringsmiljøutvalget (“Learning Environment
Committee”) at UiT the Arctic University of Norway, 2014.
We thank Jude Carroll for her advice and inspiration.
/ MODULE 4: USING SOURCES/ MODULE 3: SOURCE EVALUATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5 ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
2. Gynnild, Vidar (2008). God uten juks. Etiske valg i utdanning og forskning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
3. Pintrich, Paul R., & de Groot, Elisabeth V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
4. Vermunt, J. D. H. M., & Rijswijk, F. A. W. M. (1988). Analysis and development of students' skill in self-regulated learning. Higher
Education, 17(6), 647-682. doi: 10.1007/BF00143780
5. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning
techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266
6. Carroll, Jude (2002). A Handbook of Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.
7. Swales, John M. & Feak, Christine B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
/ MILESTONES
/ THE PEOPLE INVOLVED
• January – May 2014: Production of course content.
• June 2014: Implementation of course on the edX platform.
• August – October 2014: Beta testing.
• November – December 2014: Revision and English translation.
• January 2015: Launch.
For a project status update, visit:
www.colourbox.com