8. SECTORES VISITADOS
9.3. ERGONOMÍA
9.3.1. Informe ergonómico Lesiones músculo-esqueléticas
When considering the second issue of what is effective pedagogy one must acknowledge the absence of empirically tested pedagogy in the literature for information literacy. This is critical, because without formal training this is where school librarians look for guidance. The literature is dominated by definitions of information literacy which express the author’s view of what it is, but do not tell the reader how to go about achieving the outcomes (Marland 1981; American Library Association 1989 in Bawden 2001; Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1990; Kuhlthau 1993; Herring 1996; Lewis and Wray 1997; SCONUL 2003; Chartered Institute for Librarians and Information Professionals 2004; Bawden 2008). Even where these writers provide frameworks, strategies and project ideas they are not accompanied by references to how these have worked in practice (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1990; Kuhlthau 1993; Herring 1996; Wray and Lewis 1997). This gives the reader the impression that with the right technique or rubric the task can be done and no insight is given into the real-life complexities of teaching and learning. Such
frameworks (Wray and Lewis 1997) do not guide one to develop good quality questioning or differentiation practices. There is a danger that without an acknowledgement of the real-life complexity of teaching, librarians cannot develop practice that will help students reach higher levels of information literacy.
Librarians look to the literature to find ‘action images’ (Miles 1987 in Information Management Associates 2009 p.7). If what they mainly find are tools that have not been evaluated or updated to reflect today’s school context, such as summative style assessment rubrics (Eisenberg and Berkowitz 1990 p. 125) then practice will not be improved.
Where empirical work has been published looking at information literacy teaching, the research has often focussed on a model such as the nine steps (Marland 1981) or the Plus model (Herring 1996) and through critique of its implementation and outcomes, pedagogy has been identified (Tabberer 1987). There have been criticisms of information literacy taught in generic, linear and stand-alone forms (Brake 1980; Tabberer 1987; Lincoln 1987; Williams and Wavell 2006), contrasted with practice found to be effective. The following draws together practice that was found to be effective in the literature with findings from the data in this research for points of comparison and contrast:
Assessment
o Assessment is difficult, tests isolate skills from a process, so teacher judgement is essential (Tabberer 1987 p.59) and peer assessment was found to be useful
110
too (Tabberer 1987 p.120). An emphasis on dialogue enables studentunderstanding to be gauged (Williams and Wavell 2006 p.5).
o In my research data the following methods were described: peer assessment is used (Teacher A and Teacher H); teacher judgement based on the quality of the dialogue (Teacher C and D); and teacher assessment of the outcome (Teacher C and G). On the whole their descriptions do not contain assessment specifically of information literacy skills, but of the students’ understanding, as a measure of how far the lesson’s outcome has been accomplished.
Introducing skills
o When skills were introduced students needed time to practice them and to plan their use (Tabberer 1987 p.29 and p.73).
o In the research data time was raised as an issue preventing the teaching of information literacy skills (Teacher C and L) because of the priority given to curriculum content. Teacher E observed that it was not possible to assume they have skills, like visual literacy, so when introduced it needed teaching time. This supports the view that an affinity for technology as promoted by the digital native image (Prensky 2001) should not be confused with skills and a deeper understanding of how to employ them (Wesch 2008).
Learning progress
o An example of creating a path for progression to enable students to be
supported from rote-behaviour responses to a self-questioning of their process is indicated in the form of a ladder of instructions for note-making (Tabberer 1987 p.106).
o Progression for information literacy skills was mentioned in the data because it had been built into a previous scheme of work for Science (Teacher L) and the need for some to be put in place for Year 7 was recognised (Teacher B). In one department, work on information literacy was initiated for Year 7 students but it was felt to not be as good as the quality of the work done with sixth form students because of the constraints on time (Teacher C). Measuring progress in skill development is patchy, even though assessment for learning practices are used because there is no framework to guide thinking about the characteristics of different stages. When the QCA’s Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills Framework (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007) was first produced it was supposed to be followed by an assessment framework, but this was never published. A grid of learning objectives for research and study skills was produced for the national Literacy Across the Curriculum initiative (DfEE 2001) but this treats skills as generic, linear and prescribes according to the year group of the child. As we have seen in this research the contextualising of
111
information literacy is important and so it is perhaps unlikely that this generic approach was found to be relevant. Teacher’s role
o The teacher’s role should be cast as a careful manager of ‘stumbling’ (Tabberer 1987 p.126), so that the experience is not perceived by students as having a pre- determined outcome which would encourage them to fact-find in response (Limberg 2007), rather than explore to create new understanding. Emotional aspects of the experience need to be acknowledged and the teacher role is more meaningful when in the form of interventions made throughout the process (Kuhlthau 1993; Todd, Gordon and Lu 2011).
o In my research data, work with sixth formers is described by Teacher C in which staff is cast as co-explorers with students, searching and constructing an answer together. Technology was pointed to as freeing the teacher from teaching from the front, to a role where they could move around the room and intervene in a more meaningful way (Teacher A). In terms of emotion the students’ lack of resilience when encountering information (Teacher L) was recognised and in one response (Teacher E) this was given as a possible reason for not introducing these skills too soon. Another teacher works consciously to build relationships as a way of emotionally securing student engagement (Teacher C). The emotional aspect is recognised by some teachers, but not all saw themselves as responsible for securing students emotionally, prior to learning.
Studies which have looked at inquiry approaches to teaching information literacy within subjects (Kuhlthau 1993; Todd, Gordon and Lu 2011) made the following observations about pedagogy:
An inquiry teaching approach
o Is preferred as it supports deeper learning (Limberg 2007; Williams and Wavell 2006).
o In the research data this way of working was felt to be beneficial (Teacher A and C) but took a lot of ground work by the teacher to make it a deeper
experience (Teacher G) and from the outside could look quite noisy and messy (Teacher D) which in a culture of frequent lesson observation by others deterred some teachers (Teacher M) from using this approach.
The locus of control moving from the teacher to the student
o is an important feature of this work because it is seen as empowering the students and moves them away from the sense of a pre-determined outcome to a
112
point where they can question the cognitive knowledge of the teacher and textbook (Hopkins 1984; Limberg 2007). It requires strategies to support activating prior learning and the creation of authentic inquiry questions that engage students and motivate them (Todd, Gordon and Lu 2011).o In my research data authenticity was interpreted by teachers as, not only referring to students constructing their own questions, but also in giving them experience of objects for stimulus that they could relate to in their everyday life (Teacher A ). Encountering real art works and real theatre experiences were felt to be better than any virtual replicas (Teachers E and H). Activating prior learning was mentioned (Teacher H) but as a matter of course, something that is done by teachers in most lessons to initiate engagement. Technology was seen as contributing to moving the locus of control to the student by offering more choices for how they can work with material in virtual learning environments (Teacher D) and in providing choices for how work can be presented (Teacher A and E) but there were also concerns that technology itself should not drive pedagogical choices (Teacher L). An inquiry experience was pointed to as empowering students to work more independently (Teacher A, C and G). o The issue of control was a source of tension where one teacher felt there was
too much control exerted around both students and teachers (Teacher E) to the point where innovation in the classroom felt stifled (Teacher M) and from another point of view where controls were not being sufficiently harnessed over student actions (Teacher J).
When considering effective pedagogy, synthesis must be considered and as observed, in the literature review, this is generally not addressed by published definitions and frameworks. The exception to this is in the EXIT model where students are asked to transform findings into something else, so that they have to process the content in some way (Wray and Lewis 1997). In this empirical research, examples of synthesis activities were given and these have been analysed for the range of low to high levels of information literacy that they will encourage:
113
Students as teachers (Teacher G)Inquiry experience (Teacher C)
Translating a personal response to an artwork into personal art creation (Teacher E)
Discussion and argument (Teacher D)
Card sorting to weigh evidence in making a judgement (Teacher F) Matching textbook text to PowerPoint image (Teacher L)
Matching exercise between website and grid (Teacher B)
Figure 5.2 Analysis of Teaching Activities for Synthesis
This was done using the characteristics identified in the table of information literacy levels. Generally there was a feeling that technology had contributed tremendously in the last four to five years so that the quality and range of resources on offer was tremendously improved and that this not only supported student engagement (Teacher D) but the quality of their synthesis too (Teacher A).
Another feature of pedagogy that emerged in this empirical research, which was not evident in the literature, was the role of collaboration between subject teachers. There were comments about the need for better planning in order to have clear outcome targets (Teacher A), there were also observations from experienced teachers that where work took place it was felt to result in deeper learning for students (Teacher D and G). Without the clear outcome targets Teacher A felt the topic learning was superficial which is reminiscent of criticisms made of project-based learning (Tabberer 1987). Published research (Kuhlthau 2007; Tabberer 1987) also observed that such projects have poorly signposted processes and these lack assessment, with much of the evaluation placed on the end product. This would make it hard to judge progress between information literacy levels.
High Level
Low Level