It seems from both the McTighe and Wiggins readings, and from Bruce, that what is important in understanding information, that we as teachers should strive for with our students, is getting students to understand what their needs are in understanding information. Are they, as Bruce would classify them, "cyclic," "sequential," or "simultaneous" (63) and how does this affect how they gather and process information? McTighe and Wiggins suggest ways of framing questions that allow students to look within and find answers that will lead to their ultimate understandings. Also, work should be assessed in a non black and white fashion - students shouldn't be led to believe that they are "right" or "wrong" but instead should be given clear analysis of their work that continues to ask them questions.
This idea of essential questions is particularly intriguing to me as it begins to point me in a direction of first of all, how to better engage students with questions that will interest them, but also how to frame lesson plans around essential questions that lead to students' own understandings of materials.
Both Bruce's and McTighe and Wiggins' discussions of understanding through engaging students in their own learning experience supplement the AASL standards well. To me, the AASL standards are a decent launch pad for getting teachers/librarians to understand what is needed to qualify a student as "information literate" but they are also easy to gloss over and in terms of assessment, could easily fall into the traps that McTighe and Wiggins' describe - where students are able to complete work successfully, but don't form a lasting impression/understanding of what they've accomplished. But thinking about how to frame the standards with essential questions, projects that engage them at every turn and form broader understandings, and assessment that makes them reflect on what they've learned can help not just define information literacy, but create information literate students.
I think the hardest part is figuring out how to enable them to transfer their skills and understandings. Even if we can get them to understand their information needs, how can we get them to think beyond their current project and learn skills that will help them throughout the rest of their life, once they're done with their class/project/etc.? McTighe and Wiggins' framing questions are good for getting learners to think, but we have to find ways to broaden their scope of thought so that their understandings are cemented for a lifetime. This seems to be the challenge with all education, though, because we live in a culture that's impatient and just wants to get current tasks done with less thought for the long-term future.
ReplyDeleteone thing I want to comment on regarding the lasting impression is to take a look at the dispositions in the AASL standards - these seem oriented to that. One also interesting note is that one of the interesting/problematic things about using Wiggins and McTighe is that they use language (understanding, knowledge, essential questions) that have disciplinary connotations in LIS and it worth considering the disconnect in conceptualizations - if there is one.
ReplyDelete