- Email: [email protected]
Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice
Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice Elizabeth Probert School of Arts, Languages and Literacies, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Auckland 1150, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 June 2008 Received in revised form 18 December 2008 Accepted 19 December 2008
Keywords: Information literacy Lifelong learning Improving classroom practice Pedagogical issues Teaching/learning strategies
a b s t r a c t This article reports on a project, involving three New Zealand schools, which investigated teachers’ understanding of information literacy and their associated classroom practices. Recently published work, while lamenting school students’ lack of information literacy skills, including working with online resources, provides little research investigating classroom teachers’ knowledge of information literacy skills and their related pedagogical practice. The findings of this project indicate that while some of the teachers in this project had a reasonably good understanding of the concept of information literacy, very few reported developing their students’ information literacy skills. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The acknowledgement that students lack information skills is widespread. Many of these skills, such as question formation, brainstorming, categorising, skimming and scanning, use of search engines and databases, evaluation of online and printed material, use of contents pages and indexes, note taking methods, synthesis of information and methods of presentation are generic and can be used across many areas of school curricula at all levels. Others may be more subject specific, such as those used in mathematics or science. There is increasing recognition of the need to teach such skills explicitly, that ‘‘minimal guided instruction is likely to be ineffective” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 76) and that the acquisition of such skills cannot be assumed to happen as some teachers believe (Moore, 2002; Walraven, Brand-Gruwel, & Boshuizen, 2008) but ‘‘must be taught rigorously” (Bruce, 1997; Shenton, 2008, p. 286). Henri. (2004) and Cass (2004), both from Australia, have pointed out that all classroom teachers need professional development in this area. So far though there has been little investigation into how teachers approach the teaching of these skills. 1.1. Information literacy The recent, rapid growth and enthusiastic uptake of the internet in education, with the corresponding avalanche of available information, has seen a much wider understanding of the importance of information literacy in the academic community. Until about ten years ago, journal articles reporting on the levels of information literacy skills in school students were largely written by tertiary librarians or academics in tertiary library and information faculties (Bruce, 1997; Bruce, Candy, & Klaus, 2000; Doyle, 1994; Moore, 1999; Todd, 2000). Information literacy development was not addressed in any other arena. A number of countries such USA, Canada, Australia have traditionally employed trained teacher librarians who as well managing school libraries are also responsible for leading the school-wide development of information literacy. They work with students and with teachers, often providing appropriate professional development. The development of information skills therefore has often, in these countries, been associated with the school library. Today, though, academics from a variety of disciplines, and others from global organisations such as UNESCO. (2006) have joined librarians in writing about the need to improve students’ information literacy development (Combes, 2006; Walraven et al., 2008). 1.2. Defining information literacy Despite this growing interest, defining information literacy can be problematic as there are different ways of understanding the concept (Bruce, 1997). The following definition of information literacy is widely accepted by many educational organisations (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002; Australian School Library Association, 2001; Education Review Office, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2002). E-mail address: [email protected] 0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
25
To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information. Information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. (American Library Association, 1998). For the purposes of this project, the following explanation was used as a basis against which to measure participants’ descriptions of an information literate person. Information literacy is a broad concept that embraces information skills, ICT skills, and library skills along with the problem-solving and cognitive skills, and the attitudes and values, that enable learners to function effectively in the information landscape. (Ministry of Education & National Library of New Zealand, 2002, p. 11). The researcher was not expecting participants to provide a word-perfect definition of information literacy but rather to provide their own descriptions of the attributes of an information literate person. When analysing teachers’ descriptions, therefore, terms associated with several widely used information processing models, Action Learning (Gawith, 1988), Learning for the future (Australian School Library Association, 2001), Big6 (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1996) and skill descriptions from the Essential Skills, New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) (Appendix A) were also taken into account. This has been done to include all terms and phrases which might have been used by the participating teachers. Such terms might also have included references to currently available and evolving technologies and the ethical use of information. Most information processing models, including those mentioned above, break the process down into manageable stages. To complete assignments successfully, students need to define their information needs, formulate key questions and know how to locate, evaluate and use information from many sources including a variety of online resources. They need to be aware also of issues relating to the ethical use of information, such as copyright and plagiarism. Students who have been taught how to use a model or framework encapsulating the above, will almost always be more successful than those not given such guidance (Kuhlthau, 2004; Todd, 2003a). Those who have not been taught the skills or provided with a framework for their research or inquiry often resort to copying or cutting and pasting material (Hipkins, 2005; Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007; Moore, 2002; Todd, 2003b; Walraven et al., 2008). 1.3. Information literacy in New Zealand 1.3.1. Information literacy and lifelong learners The recently revised New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) emphasises the importance of lifelong learning and the vision, (p. 8), lists the attributes of lifelong learners. Such learners are ‘‘literate and numerate, critical and creative thinkers, active seekers, users and creators of knowledge and information decision makers”. By implication, many of the skills underlying these attributes of lifelong learners are information literacy skills. Schools with a focus on lifelong learning should also have a strong focus on information literacy development (Bryce & Withers, 2003). This, as Doyle (1994) points out, ‘‘is central to all successful learning and, by extension, to all successful living” (p. 44). de la Harpe and Radloff (2000) in assessing the characteristics of lifelong learners, described a number of information literacy strategies and skills that students need to develop in order to become effective learners. Bruce (2002) also refers to information literacy as the ‘catalyst’ needed to transform ‘‘the information society of today into the learning society of tomorrow” (p. 4). In Singapore the government sees information skills as important to the Singapore economy, particularly with the growth of lifelong learning and knowledge-based industries (Hepworth, 2000). The New Zealand government, while not explicitly linking information literacy with lifelong learning, does appear to appreciate the need for information literacy development. The digital strategy (Ministry for Economic Development, 2005), for example, aims to provide all ‘‘New Zealanders with . . .the confidence to find and use the information they need” while the Ministry of Education. (2006) Enabling the 21st century learner: an e-learning action plan for schools 2006–2010 states that there will be support for a focus on teacher professional development in information literacy development. While this has yet to eventuate, the statement does acknowledge the need. 1.3.2. Development of information literacy With the 1989 educational reforms (Ministry of Education, 1989), each school in New Zealand became self managing. There are no central bodies organising, for example, the supply of furniture, teaching materials or professional development. Teacher salaries are paid centrally though, as is school operational funding. In 1993, the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) specified seven essential learning areas and eight essential skills areas, ‘‘to be developed by all students across the whole curriculum throughout the years of schooling” (p. 17). For the first time, information skill development was specified in the New Zealand Curriculum but it was not mandatory for teachers to develop these skills with their students. From 1987 (when training started) until 1992, any information literacy skill development in schools had often been carried out by qualified teacher librarians. Central funding for such positions, however, stopped in 1992 and it was left up to each school to decide whether or not to employ and pay a qualified teacher librarian. As a result, schools have tended not to take on this extra spending and few schools now have staff trained to develop information literacy across the curriculum. The latest revision of the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) includes eight key learning areas and five key competencies. Although, based on the OECD key competencies, the New Zealand Curriculum does not include a competency such as ‘The ability to use information interactively’ (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2005a). In the New Zealand Curriculum therefore, the need for students to develop information literacy skills in order to achieve many of the competencies is implied but not stated. 1.4. Teaching information literacy in New Zealand There is evidence that teaching for information literacy, if the teachers have been appropriately trained, can be very effective. Lance (2005; 2006; 2007) and Todd, Kuhlthau, and Tepe (2004), working with schools and teacher librarians in USA, found that explicit teaching of skills in context, and using an information processing model, makes a positive difference to student learning outcomes. A small action research project, carried out at a Wellington, NZ, high school, also demonstrated that careful and planned teaching for information literacy, carried out by a trained teacher librarian and a classroom teacher, does indeed make a difference (Hannah, 2005). Again
26
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
students learned to use an information processing model. There is little research available, however, addressing information literacy teaching by regular classroom teachers who are not associated with teacher librarians. Moore (2002) working with primary teachers in five Wellington, NZ, primary schools found that the teachers were not familiar with the concept of information literacy and most seemed not to be explicitly teaching the skills. Probert’s (2006) findings were similar when working with teachers from several Auckland, NZ, secondary schools. Alongside these findings, that some teachers are not explicitly teaching information literacy skills, is evidence that New Zealand students are not developing information literacy skills. Results from the New Zealand National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) (Flockton, Crooks, & White, 2006) suggest that the principles and goals of information literacy are not‘ widely understood, supported or practised by the teaching profession. This project began in 1993 to assess and report on the achievement of years 4 and 8 primary school students in New Zealand across all areas of the curriculum. Information skills were tested in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and the results show that there was little evidence of any change in the ability of year 4 and year 8 students, between 1997 and 2005, to find and gather information. Concerns listed in the 2006 report included the finding that few year 4 and year 8 students were able to describe a coherent process or strategy for finding and using information for a research or study topic and that more than 50% struggled to ask two or three ‘strong’ questions for an inquiry, even when working collaboratively. Students also lacked skills of discernment and discrimination in their use of internet information. The Education Review Office (ERO) conducted a review, Student learning in the information Landscape (2005) to discover how effectively New Zealand schools were supporting students’ learning in the information landscape. ERO visited almost 400 schools in late 2004 and early 2005 looking at infrastructure, the content of information resources available to students and the skills, attitudes and values related to information literacy, life long reading and learning. The evidence from the evaluation demonstrated that information literacy is not well developed in most schools and particularly not in secondary schools with little evidence that schools were explicitly and systematically implementing an information process model across the curriculum. Very few schools were using a school-wide information processing model and it was found that many students could not articulate a common approach. Investigating research as a student learning activity in six Wellington, New Zealand secondary schools, Hipkins (2005) reported that students felt teachers had not taught them the skills they needed to carry out their own research projects and also noted that much of what was termed research actually consisted merely of ‘‘information retrieval and repackaging” (p. 21). There are few courses in New Zealand available for teachers wishing to undertake information literacy professional development and only one is offered at university level (University of Auckland, 2008). This course is recommended for all teachers teaching any subject at any year level. Teachers who have undertaken this course often report that that they have been supplied with strategies for successfully teaching skills and for implementing an information literacy process into their schools across the curriculum and at all levels. Some also report that their teaching has been transformed. Many principals also enrol new teachers to their schools in the course. Unfortunately though, this evidence is anecdotal and so far there has been no academic evaluation of this or any other course offering information literacy professional development to classroom teachers in New Zealand.
2. Method 2.1. Context 200 teachers from three neighboring schools, with the agreement of their principals, were invited to take part in this project and 148 (74%) participated. The principals of the three schools were concerned about the levels of information literacy knowledge and practice of staff after reading the results of the most recent National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) (Flockton et al., 2006). They formed a cluster and hoped to gain information from the project which would demonstrate teachers’ understanding of information literacy and provide some indication of how or if, information literacy skills were being taught. The schools then plan to design and implement appropriate professional development designed to match teachers’ needs (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007b).
2.2. Participants Teachers involved in the project taught at the following schools A. Coeducational intermediate school (Years 7 and 8 with students of 11 and 12 years of age), 25 teachers participated. B. Integrated (Catholic) years 7–13 girls’ school (comprising both intermediate and high school age students from 11 to 17 years of age). 51 teachers participated. C. State girls’ high school years 9–13 (students 13–17 years of age). 72 teachers participated. There were 121 female and 27 male teachers who chose to take part in the project. The gender imbalance is not surprising given that the high schools are girls-only schools. At School A, 52% of participants were aged 30 or under, 32% aged 30–39 years and the remained over 40 years. At School B, 50% were aged 30–39 years and 20% aged 40–49 years. The remainder, 30%, were evenly spread between the ages of 20– 29 years of ages and over 50 years. At School C, 76% of the teachers were aged 50 and over, with few teachers in 20-29 age band. The majority of the teachers participating in the project overall, therefore, were aged 30–49 while a quarter were over 50 years of age and the remainder under 30 years of age. School B had the greatest number of teachers who had been teaching for over 20 years (32%) followed by School C (28%) while 73% of teachers at School A had been teaching for nine years or less. The majority (86%) of the participants had trained in New Zealand while the remainder were trained in UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India or Fiji. Those teaching at high school level represented all subject areas taught at the two secondary schools with the majority teaching subjects such as English (41.4%), mathematics (37%), science (22%) and social sciences (14.4%). Many taught more than one subject. School A teachers also taught subjects in which they specialised, such as English, science, mathematics and social sciences.
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
27
2.3. Design The project comprised a mixed method design with the collection of quantitative data using questionnaires followed by the collection of more qualitative data through interviews (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The term ‘information literacy’ was used in questionnaires and interviews as it is the term found in official documentation (Education Review Office, 2005; Ministry for Economic Development, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2004, 2006; Ministry of Education & National Library of New Zealand, 2002). The explanation given above was expanded, as described, in an effort to help teachers recognise a variety of terms they might use when teaching. It was considered important to take into account the applied knowledge of teachers which can often seem intuitive and not be easily ‘‘translatable into explicit descriptions” (Claxton, 2000, p. 35). Documentation including worksheet templates, policies and departmental planning were requested. 2.4. Procedure 2.4.1. Web based questionnaire The questionnaire, self-administered anonymously by staff using their laptops, was stored on a Faculty of Education IT server. It was felt preferable to use the university services as the data collected would be secure than it might be if using a commercially available service such as surveymonkey.com. The questionnaire was adapted from one used previously when investigating teachers’ understanding of information literacy in an Auckland, New Zealand high school. A number of questions were also adapted from the work of Moore (2002). Much trialing was involved, using teachers not returning to the schools in 2008, to ensure that relevant questions had been asked and also to check for ease of use in an online format. The questionnaire contained 32 questions in three parts. Part 1 gathered demographic information and included one open ended question asking participants to complete the statement ‘‘An information literate person is someone who. . .” Part 2 contained Lickert scale questions designed to explore participants’ attitudes and beliefs about information literacy development. Part 3 contained open ended questions about any information processing models used and nine questions, using a Lickert-frequency response scale, exploring participants’ practices when teaching information literacy skills. Qualitative data were gathered from interviews which provided balance for the more structured nature of quantitative survey data collection (Axinn & Pearce, 2006; Bryman, 2007). Participants included ten heads of departments (HODs in Schools B and C) and five team leaders at School A. As each head of department or team leader was responsible for between four and ten other teachers from all subject areas, it was assumed that they would have information relating to departmental policies and practice. The interview questions, again trialled with staff not returning to the schools in 2008, were designed to explore responses to parts of the questionnaire involving perceptions of information literacy and teaching practices concerning information literacy development. Participants were asked, for example, whether they checked the information literacy skills levels of their students at the start of each year and to describe how they taught note taking or website evaluation. They were also asked about any departmental policies regarding information literacy development. Triangulation was achieved through the collection and analysis of data from different and separate sources of evidence. Teaching staff self-reported through the use of the questionnaires while interviews were held with HODs and team leaders. The documentation supplied examples of teachers’ classroom assignments and current information processing models in use.
3. Results and discussion The response rate to the teacher questionnaire was high, with 148 responses from a total of 200 teachers at the three schools (74%). There were, presumably, teachers who chose not to become involved and others who, under pressures of work, forgot to complete the questionnaire. Anecdotal evidence demonstrated strong support for the use of online questionnaires. Teachers commented on the convenience factor as they all have laptops with wireless connections and so were able to complete the questionnaire whenever and wherever they found time. Other comments included ‘‘I have lost some skills in writing for any time with a pen rather than with a keyboard” and that I ‘‘may have given much shorter answers if completing a conventional hard copy questionnaire”. The findings presented here address those questions in the questionnaires which are most relevant to gauging teachers’ understanding of information literacy and their classroom practice. The interview questions explored these aspects in more depth. 3.1. Understanding of information literacy 3.1.1. How would you describe an information literate person? Responses to this open-ended question were coded according to the definition and terms in Section 1.3. Questionnaire responses: keyword vocabulary and terms relating to the chosen explanation and models were processed using SPSS. Frequency counts were generated for each use of the terms. These were then ranked. The term ‘finding’, for example, occurred with the greatest frequency (29%), followed by ‘ICT’ or ‘computers’ (22.0%). The term ‘use’ occurred in 19% of the responses. Terms such as ‘present’, ‘synthesise’ and ‘form questions’ occurred in 3% of responses. A few responses had nothing to do with information literacy (8%) and there were 10% who did not respond to this question. Responses were also analysed to discover which included more than one of the chosen terms. A response which, for example, included references to identifying an information need, finding, using, evaluating, processing and synthesising information and creating and presenting new knowledge was deemed to demonstrate a good understanding of the concept and rated at level 3. A response such as ‘‘can find and use information’ was rated as limited, at level 2 while a response such as ‘has skills in the information literacy area” was rated at level 1, demonstrating little understanding of information literacy. Another category rated responses concerned only with ICT such as ‘‘can successfully use ICT in a variety of settings”. This was rated at level 1 ICT as demonstrating little understanding.
28
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
The majority (40%) of the teachers from School A understood information literacy as exclusively concerned with ICT while 20% did not respond. The remainder of the replies showed little or no understanding. School A has had a particular focus on ICT development and this could account for participants’ opinions. Participants from School B had the greatest number of participants demonstrating limited or little understanding of information literacy (60%), although 5% demonstrated a good understanding, a higher response than the other two schools. Of School C participants, again, 60% had limited or little understanding while 18% understood information literacy as concerned only with ICT. The remainder either did not respond or gave incorrect replies. Overall it was found from the questionnaire responses that two thirds of the participants had only limited or little understanding of information literacy with very few, 5%, indicating a good understanding. Of those seven teachers, six taught English and Social Studies while one taught mathematics. Only two had undertaken recognised professional development courses for teaching information literacy. One taught at School A and was aged under 30 years, three taught at School B and were aged 50+ while three taught at School C and were aged 30–49 years. On closer examination of the data, two of the seven teachers who demonstrated a good understanding of information literacy, had also undertaken recognised professional development courses, used a model of information processing with their students and were able to describe the model they used in detail and stated they always or often modelled skills for students. These teachers, both women, taught English and Arts and Languages respectively and both had been teaching for over 20 years. The other five teachers did not use information processing models and did not often model various skills to their students. None of these five had undertaken any professional development in information literacy and did not use information processing models with their students. Overall, participants with little understanding of information literacy taught mathematics, science, technology, health and physical education while those with a limited or good understanding taught English, languages and social studies. Interview responses: Ten heads of larger departments, English, Science, Mathematics, Social sciences and Technology in the secondary schools and five team leaders in School A were interviewed. During the semi-structured interviews they were asked to describe an information literate person, to describe how they went about teaching various skills such as note taking and website searching and about departmental policies relating to the teaching of information skills. It was found during the interviews that several of the heads of departments and team leaders gave more detailed and accurate responses than were apparent from the questionnaire responses. It could be that the interviews provided a necessary opportunity for explicit discussion of practical knowledge (Bryman, 2006; Claxton, 2000; Elbaz, 1981). Two team leaders from School A emphasised the importance of recognising the need for information and ‘articulating what it is they want to find out’ and three others described information literacy as wholly connected with ICT. One head of a large department (School C) gave a very detailed response, describing many skills students would need to have when finding information. Three heads of departments (Mathematics and Science) from Schools B and C understood information literacy as concerned solely with the use of online resources rather than the use of a wide range of resources from all sources, despite prompting from the interviewer. All those interviewed thought information literacy development was very important. ‘‘I think there’s too much information out there and they just don’t know how to access it effectively, otherwise it’s too overwhelming for them”, ‘‘That’s one of the most important skills for the modern age”, ‘‘They’re all vital skills you all need”. 3.1.2. Information literacy is concerned mostly with using ICT Questionnaire responses: There appeared to be some confusion with ICT skills and information literacy skills as 25% agreed overall that ICT skills and information literacy skills were the same while 27% were not sure. It was noticeable that the younger teachers, the majority of whom were at School A, agreed that information literacy was mostly concerned with ICT (55%) while teachers in the older age bands, 40– 50+ years, at schools B and C, disagreed. At School C, for example, 86% of participants in this age band disagreed with the statement. A greater number of participants teaching Arts, Languages, Science and Social sciences disagreed with the statement. Those responding with ‘undecided’ were evenly divided among all subject areas. Interview responses: Team leaders from School A were more emphatic that information literacy was mostly concerned with ICT. Two HODs from School B and three from C started off, when interviewed, describing information literacy as the use of computers and online resources but all five spontaneously changed this view as their descriptions became more detailed. 3.2. Classroom practice Questionnaire responses: The majority of teachers overall indicated that they did not use an information processing model (Appendix A) with their students when they were carrying out research assignments. A number of commonly used models were referred to in the questionnaire to help teachers and students answer the question. When teachers were asked to name (Fig. 2) and describe (Fig. 3) the model they used, two thirds overall (66.8%) did not reply while 3% said they did not know. Some (11.4%) gave answers such ‘Inspiration’, ‘my model’ or ‘dot and jot’. Such responses were considered irrelevant. ‘Inspiration’ for example is the name of a piece of software used for mind mapping, which, while it could well be used in the information literacy process, is not an information processing model. Again ‘dot and jot’ is a note taking method which can be used in the information literacy process but it is not an information processing model. The response of ‘my model’ was considered irrelevant as no other details were given even when given the opportunity to describe ‘my model’ in a later question. Although over 50% of School A teachers said they used a model and were able to name the model, few, as with the other two schools, were able to describe the stages of the model (Figs. 1–3). Interview responses: The questionnaire findings were supported by responses during the interviews. All the teachers interviewed at School A said they used a model and four named the model for inquiry learning that the senior teacher had designed for school-wide use. None, though, could clearly name or describe the stages. Comments included ‘‘Can’t remember the details”, ”The language keeps changing like immersion became ignition” ‘‘I use my own model. Each [school] term I figure out what worked well and what didn’t and discard any, just improve it really”. ‘‘Off the top of my head, it has a whole lot of stages where you go through you know sort of the ignition and I can’t remember all the names of all the steps”.
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
29
Fig. 1. I use an information processing model with my students when they are carrying out research assignments.
Fig. 2. The name of the model I use with my students.
The senior teacher in the school (School A) was surprised that her teachers seemed unaware of this school model, diagrams of which were in every classroom, particularly as teachers had had some training in using the model. It became obvious that, contrary to the senior teacher’s expectations, the model was not being used in the way she had expected and presumably had not been sufficiently embedded in day-to-day classroom teaching. These findings are important as they have serious implications for any planned, cluster-wide professional development. Those carrying out the professional development need to check that teachers really understand the process they are meant to teach (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007a).
30
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
Fig. 3. The stages of the model I use with my students.
The remaining nine questions in this section of the questionnaire used Likert frequency response ratings. The findings from these questions need to be treated with some wariness (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2001; Lewin, 2005; Payne & Payne, 2004) as no common understanding was provided for the terms used in the scale. The term ‘often’, for example, could mean three times a week to one participant and five times a week to another. Nevertheless the questionnaire responses, allied to the interview responses, provides some evidence of teacher practice, or lack of it. 3.2.1. I model methods of finding information using online resources Questionnaire responses: When asked how often they modelled finding information from online sources, half of the participants overall indicated that they did so ‘often’ or ‘always’. Interview responses: These statements were not upheld by interview responses. A team leader at School A said that ‘‘for me pretty generally I just talk about just because something is a website doesn’t mean its providing good information” but then went on ‘‘its just kind of general discussion”. Another at School A stated ‘‘I haven’t thought about that, the websites we use in the science programme I haven’t really done an evaluation to be honest”. Another at the same school replied ‘‘we’ve discussed the validity of the sources that we’re looking at but I wouldn’t say that I’ve taught them explicitly to evaluate websites. I don’t know why I’m not teaching that now’’. One team leader mentioned that his students use Wikipedia and he expressed not problems with that while another team leader at the school was more critical, saying ‘‘Yeah but that can be dubious as well because people add to it and yeah its difficult”. One HOD in School B thought using online sources had been covered in the library but no HOD at any school could describe explicit details for teaching web site evaluation. An HOD at School C did comment that this ‘‘might be a good idea” while another said she ‘‘wouldn’t say that I’ve taught them explicitly to evaluate websites”. Another commented when asked if she taught her students to evaluate website ‘‘No not really, as staff we tend to have a look at the website, has it got the information we require on there, is it pitched at the level we need and if it is then we’ll stick it onto the intranet site”. 3.2.2. I model methods of note taking and skimming and scanning with my students Two lead teachers at School A could describe the methods they used to teach note taking but another from that school responded with ‘‘Um, I’m just trying to think. I haven’t done a lot of that this term. I know a lot of skills like this are worked with my form class you know um and just giving them, I guess I sort of talk about the basics of it and you know obviously you don’t want to write heaps”. An HOD from School B referred to teaching the dot and jot note taking method ‘‘Most of us use the sort of dot and jot” but could provide few details. Two HODs from School B and three from School C complained that students did not know how to take notes. Another HOD in School C thought a teacher in her department did explicitly teach a variety of information literacy skills but was not sure how this was done. One HOD, from School B, gave a lot of detail about teaching skimming and scanning, stressing the importance of key words and described rapid reading techniques although there was no departmental policy in place. ‘‘We’re quite experienced here so I guess everyone has evolved their own techniques but it depends on the class”. No other HODs or team leaders could provide methods for teaching students to skim and scan material. These responses were interesting, particularly as the interviewer, mindful of the observations of Elbaz (1981) and Claxton (2000), tried to give interviewees as many opportunities as possible to describe methods for teaching these skills and reporting on any related school policies. Given the amount of information available to students online, it is crucial that students learn to evaluate and assess the contents effectively and to take useful notes. These skills, of course, are needed for information in any format. 3.2.3. I check the information literacy skills of my students at the start of each year Questionnaire responses: These indicated that 80% overall of the teachers in the survey never or rarely or only sometimes checked students’ skills levels at the start of each year. Interview responses: The interview responses did not support this finding. Four teachers (one from School B and three from School C) who reported responding ‘sometimes’ in the questionnaires, when asked how often they checked the skill levels of their students said,
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
31
when interviewed, that they actually very rarely checked students’ skill levels. None of those interviewed checked the skills of new students entering their schools although several acknowledged it would be a good idea to have a policy for such a procedure and others seemed surprised at the suggestion. Teachers commented that ‘’You learn pretty quickly, your form teacher does and tells you of any kids with special needs or abilities, yeah, and you sort of just case by case, whatever kid needs help”, ‘‘No formal technique we use and this sounds horribly hit and miss, pretty much by the end of four weeks with those students I could give you a pretty good idea of their ability and what sort of input they’ve had”. It was interesting that most teachers, from all three schools, did not check students’ skills levels at the start of each year but took it for granted that students already had good information literacy skills. Over half the teachers, overall, thought the skills would develop naturally although, apparently in contradiction to this, 82% overall thought that the skills should be explicitly taught but, presumably, at previous schools or in other classes. 3.3. Future developments The majority of teachers from all three schools agreed that it would be helpful to have a common method or model to use when doing research. They also thought it would be helpful to have more strategies for teaching the skills. This was reinforced by interview responses where those interviewed from all schools said they would welcome some sort of school wide planning for information literacy development and would really welcome professional development. Comments included ‘‘Yeah there’s got to be a cohesion in what’s happening across the school” (School A); ‘‘I would really love to have some good PD around this whole doing research thing”; ‘‘It would really help us with the new curriculum and all the lifelong learning stuff” (School B); ‘‘That would be really useful actually” (School C). It would also be informative, in the light of findings reported earlier relating to teachers’ understanding of information literacy as reported in questionnaires and discussed during interviews, to investigate students’ understanding of various information literacy skills. 4. Conclusions and recommendations It appears from this evidence gathered from questionnaire, interviews, discussions and documentation that a number of teachers did have some understanding of the concept of information literacy. Some though, connected it with literacy or with reading or information and communications technology (ICT) whereas it actually embraces both literacy and ICT. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find a better term. It was also evident that a number of teachers in a variety of departments from all three schools, regardless of age or years in teaching, were not explicitly teaching information literacy skills or providing inquiry learning opportunities, using an information process, for students. The majority of teachers at School A for example, where over half the teachers were under 30 years of age and had been teaching for less than 10 years, connected information literacy only with ICT. School B, with the largest single block of teachers who have taught for 20 or more years had more responses in the ‘‘limited” or ‘little understanding’ categories although percentage-wise, fewer teachers in School B connected information literacy mostly with ICT than did School A teachers. Interviewees gave several reasons given for not explicitly teaching information literacy skills, including time factors and that ‘‘research was covered in other subject areas so we don’t need to do it” (School C). Another reason given was that too many students simply ‘‘copied and pasted” but no teacher indicated that this might be because students needed more strategies to help them develop better skills. Even so, it was interesting that so many teachers, from all three schools, were enthusiastic about adopting school-wide methods of information processing and school-wide strategies for developing various skills. Several stated how much they would welcome such training. The documentary evidence presented consisted of the inquiry model referred to above and several social studies units from School B which involved students in research. None of these included methods for carrying out the research assignment. No departments had policies relating to information literacy development. 4.1. Implications of findings for those designing professional development One particularly interesting finding was that many teachers in School A indicated they used an information processing model and yet most knew very little about it, despite having received some in-school professional development and having diagrams of the model in their classrooms. This finding should act as a warning to the three schools, all of which are planning professional development. Those designing and implementing the professional development should pay close attention to appropriate literature such as the recently published report Teacher professional development: Best evidence synthesis [BES] (Timperley et al., 2007a, 2007b). It would also be useful to ensure each school has a teacher on the staff who could oversee ongoing information literacy development across the curriculum after appropriate training. As explained above, trained teacher librarians have this role in several countries and research suggests such a position can have positive effects (Lance, 2005, 2006, 2007; Todd et al., 2004). Policy and planning development for school-wide information literacy development at all year levels should also be carried out at each school. Students’ levels of understand and practice of information literacy should also be part of any future investigation. This would provide very useful information not just about student knowledge and practice but also about teachers’ practice. This investigation should assist not only the cluster of schools involved in this project but schools throughout New Zealand and elsewhere to assist teachers to develop students’ information literacy skills and to achieve the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) goal of creating lifelong learners. Appendix A Action Learning Gawith, G. (1988). Action Learning: Student guide to research and information skills. Wellington: Longman Paul. There are six stages to the Action Learning Framework: Deciding, Finding, Using, Recording, Presenting, Evaluating.
32
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
While appearing to be a linear model, in practice students loop backwards and forwards through the process. There are many skills involved in each stage and these skills need to be explicitly taught. Learning for the futureAustralian School Library Association (2001). Learning for the future: developing information services in schools (2nd ed.). Carlton, South Vic.: Curriculum Corporation. The document Learning for the future is intended to set a context for the development of information services in Australian schools. It includes a six stage model and a matrix for information and ICT literacies development: Stages: Defining, locating, selecting, organising, creating and sharing, evaluating information and the process. Big6Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (1996). Big Six. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from www.big6.org. Big6 is a six stage model: Task definition, Information seeking strategies, Location and access, Use of information, Synthesis, Evaluation.
A.1. The essential skills Ministry of Education, 1993). New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington: Ministry of Education. This document included lists of Essential Skills under the headings: communication skills, numeracy skills, information skills, problemsolving skills, self-management skills, social and co-operative skills, physical skills and work and study skills. These are not included in the latest New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) but are understood as included in the key competencies. Appendix B. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018. References American Library Association. (1998). Introduction to information literacy. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision as a nation goes to college. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from http://www.aacuedu.org/gex/index.cfm. Australian School Library Association. (2001). Learning for the future: Developing information services in schools (2nd ed.). Carlton, South Vic.: Curriculum Corporation. Axinn, W., & Pearce, L. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press. Bruce, C. (2002). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. Retrieved February 20, 2007 from . Bruce, C., Candy, P., & Klaus, H. (2000). Information literacy around the world: Advances in programs and research. Wagga Wagga, N.S.W: Charles Sturt University. Bryce, J., & Withers, G. (2003). Engaging secondary school students in lifelong learning. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22. Cass, J. (2004). Developing an information literacy policy and program. Retrieved February 15, 2007 from . Claxton, G. (2000). The anatomy of intuition. In T. Atkinson & G. Claxton (Eds.), The intuitive practioner: On the value of not always knowing what one is doing. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2001). Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Combes, B. (2006). Techno-savvy and all-knowing or techno-oriented? Information-seeking behaviour and the net generation?. Paper presented at the multiple faces of literacy: Reading, knowing, doing. Proceedings of the 35th annual IASL Conference Lisbon, July 3–7. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. de la Harpe, B., & Radloff, A. (2000). Informed teachers and learners: The importance of assessing the characteristics needed for lifelong learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 169–182. Doyle, C. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: A concept for the information age. Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology Syracuse University. Education Review Office. (2005). Student learning in the information landscape. Wellington, New Zealand: Education Review Office. Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (1996). Big six. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from . Elbaz, F. (1981). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. Beckenham, Kent: Croon Helm Ltd. Flockton, L., Crooks, T., & White, J. (2006). Information skills: Assessment results 2005. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago. Gawith, G. (1988). Action Learning: Student guide to research and information skills. Wellington: Longman Paul. Hannah, A. (2005). Information literacy and evidence-based practice. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 18–22. Henri, J. (2004). Building an information literate school community: Putting teachers first. Paper presented at the online Australian School Library Association (ASLA) conference: Constructing communities of literacy and learning. Hepworth, M. (2000). Developing information literacy programs in Singapore. In C. Bruce & P. Candy (Eds.), Information literacy around the world: Advances in programs and research (pp. 51–66). Wagga Wagga, New South Wales: Charles Sturt University. Hipkins, R. (2005). Students experience of researching in different subjects. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 18–22. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-solving, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4(2), 75–86. Kuhlthau, C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. Lance, K. C. (2005/2006/2007). School library impact studies. Retrieved May 8, 2008 from . Lewin, C. (2005). Elementary quantitative methods. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences. London: SAGE. Ministry for Economic Development. (2005). The digital strategy: Creating our digital future. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for Economic Development. Ministry of Education. (1989). Tomorrow’s schools: Reform of education administration: Kura Kaupapa Maori Working Group. [Wellington, N.Z.: Dept. of Education. Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework = Te anga marautanga o Aotearoa. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2002, 2004). Digital horizons: Learning through ICT. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2006). Enabling the 21st century learner: An e-learning action plan for schools, 2006–2010. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007). New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education and National Library of New Zealand. (2002). The school library and learning in the information landscape: Guidelines for schools. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Moore, Check (1999). Information literate school communities: Beyond teacher librarians. In J. Henri & K. Bonanno (Eds.), The information literate school community: Best practice (pp. 97–118). Wagga Wagga, New South Wales: Charles Sturt University. Moore, P. (2002). Information literacy: What’s it all about? Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
33
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005a). The definition and selection of key competencies. Retrieved May 5, 2007 from. Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. London: SAGE Publications Inc. Probert, E. (2006). Developing information-literate students. Access, 20(1), 20–22. Shenton, A. (2008). The information-seeking problems of English high schoolers responding to academic information need. Library Review, 57(4), 276–288. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007a). Teacher professional learning and development. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007b). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education. Todd, R. (2000). A theory of information literacy: In-formation and outward looking. In C. Bruce & P. Candy (Eds.), Information literacy around the world: Advances in programs and research (pp. 163–175). Wagga Wagga, New South Wales: Charles Sturt University. Todd, R. (2003a). Learning in the information age school: Opportunities, outcomes and options. Paper presented at the paper presented at IASL conference from . Todd, R. (2003b). Student learning through Ohio school libraries: The Ohio research study. Retrieved January 4, 2007 from . Todd, R., Kuhlthau, C., & Tepe, A. (2004). 3,000 students of Ohio tell their story: Yeah, the school library rocks. Paper presented at the International Association of School Librarianship: From Aesop to e-book: the story goes on, Dublin, Ireland. UNESCO. (2006). Information literacy: Key for lifelong learning. From . University of Auckland. (2008). EDPROFST 331 Infolink: Information literacy skills. from . Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. (2008). Information-problem solving: A review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 623–648.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice Elizabeth Probert School of Arts, Languages and Literacies, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Auckland 1150, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 June 2008 Received in revised form 18 December 2008 Accepted 19 December 2008
Keywords: Information literacy Lifelong learning Improving classroom practice Pedagogical issues Teaching/learning strategies
a b s t r a c t This article reports on a project, involving three New Zealand schools, which investigated teachers’ understanding of information literacy and their associated classroom practices. Recently published work, while lamenting school students’ lack of information literacy skills, including working with online resources, provides little research investigating classroom teachers’ knowledge of information literacy skills and their related pedagogical practice. The findings of this project indicate that while some of the teachers in this project had a reasonably good understanding of the concept of information literacy, very few reported developing their students’ information literacy skills. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The acknowledgement that students lack information skills is widespread. Many of these skills, such as question formation, brainstorming, categorising, skimming and scanning, use of search engines and databases, evaluation of online and printed material, use of contents pages and indexes, note taking methods, synthesis of information and methods of presentation are generic and can be used across many areas of school curricula at all levels. Others may be more subject specific, such as those used in mathematics or science. There is increasing recognition of the need to teach such skills explicitly, that ‘‘minimal guided instruction is likely to be ineffective” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 76) and that the acquisition of such skills cannot be assumed to happen as some teachers believe (Moore, 2002; Walraven, Brand-Gruwel, & Boshuizen, 2008) but ‘‘must be taught rigorously” (Bruce, 1997; Shenton, 2008, p. 286). Henri. (2004) and Cass (2004), both from Australia, have pointed out that all classroom teachers need professional development in this area. So far though there has been little investigation into how teachers approach the teaching of these skills. 1.1. Information literacy The recent, rapid growth and enthusiastic uptake of the internet in education, with the corresponding avalanche of available information, has seen a much wider understanding of the importance of information literacy in the academic community. Until about ten years ago, journal articles reporting on the levels of information literacy skills in school students were largely written by tertiary librarians or academics in tertiary library and information faculties (Bruce, 1997; Bruce, Candy, & Klaus, 2000; Doyle, 1994; Moore, 1999; Todd, 2000). Information literacy development was not addressed in any other arena. A number of countries such USA, Canada, Australia have traditionally employed trained teacher librarians who as well managing school libraries are also responsible for leading the school-wide development of information literacy. They work with students and with teachers, often providing appropriate professional development. The development of information skills therefore has often, in these countries, been associated with the school library. Today, though, academics from a variety of disciplines, and others from global organisations such as UNESCO. (2006) have joined librarians in writing about the need to improve students’ information literacy development (Combes, 2006; Walraven et al., 2008). 1.2. Defining information literacy Despite this growing interest, defining information literacy can be problematic as there are different ways of understanding the concept (Bruce, 1997). The following definition of information literacy is widely accepted by many educational organisations (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002; Australian School Library Association, 2001; Education Review Office, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2002). E-mail address: [email protected] 0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
25
To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information. Information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. (American Library Association, 1998). For the purposes of this project, the following explanation was used as a basis against which to measure participants’ descriptions of an information literate person. Information literacy is a broad concept that embraces information skills, ICT skills, and library skills along with the problem-solving and cognitive skills, and the attitudes and values, that enable learners to function effectively in the information landscape. (Ministry of Education & National Library of New Zealand, 2002, p. 11). The researcher was not expecting participants to provide a word-perfect definition of information literacy but rather to provide their own descriptions of the attributes of an information literate person. When analysing teachers’ descriptions, therefore, terms associated with several widely used information processing models, Action Learning (Gawith, 1988), Learning for the future (Australian School Library Association, 2001), Big6 (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1996) and skill descriptions from the Essential Skills, New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) (Appendix A) were also taken into account. This has been done to include all terms and phrases which might have been used by the participating teachers. Such terms might also have included references to currently available and evolving technologies and the ethical use of information. Most information processing models, including those mentioned above, break the process down into manageable stages. To complete assignments successfully, students need to define their information needs, formulate key questions and know how to locate, evaluate and use information from many sources including a variety of online resources. They need to be aware also of issues relating to the ethical use of information, such as copyright and plagiarism. Students who have been taught how to use a model or framework encapsulating the above, will almost always be more successful than those not given such guidance (Kuhlthau, 2004; Todd, 2003a). Those who have not been taught the skills or provided with a framework for their research or inquiry often resort to copying or cutting and pasting material (Hipkins, 2005; Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007; Moore, 2002; Todd, 2003b; Walraven et al., 2008). 1.3. Information literacy in New Zealand 1.3.1. Information literacy and lifelong learners The recently revised New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) emphasises the importance of lifelong learning and the vision, (p. 8), lists the attributes of lifelong learners. Such learners are ‘‘literate and numerate, critical and creative thinkers, active seekers, users and creators of knowledge and information decision makers”. By implication, many of the skills underlying these attributes of lifelong learners are information literacy skills. Schools with a focus on lifelong learning should also have a strong focus on information literacy development (Bryce & Withers, 2003). This, as Doyle (1994) points out, ‘‘is central to all successful learning and, by extension, to all successful living” (p. 44). de la Harpe and Radloff (2000) in assessing the characteristics of lifelong learners, described a number of information literacy strategies and skills that students need to develop in order to become effective learners. Bruce (2002) also refers to information literacy as the ‘catalyst’ needed to transform ‘‘the information society of today into the learning society of tomorrow” (p. 4). In Singapore the government sees information skills as important to the Singapore economy, particularly with the growth of lifelong learning and knowledge-based industries (Hepworth, 2000). The New Zealand government, while not explicitly linking information literacy with lifelong learning, does appear to appreciate the need for information literacy development. The digital strategy (Ministry for Economic Development, 2005), for example, aims to provide all ‘‘New Zealanders with . . .the confidence to find and use the information they need” while the Ministry of Education. (2006) Enabling the 21st century learner: an e-learning action plan for schools 2006–2010 states that there will be support for a focus on teacher professional development in information literacy development. While this has yet to eventuate, the statement does acknowledge the need. 1.3.2. Development of information literacy With the 1989 educational reforms (Ministry of Education, 1989), each school in New Zealand became self managing. There are no central bodies organising, for example, the supply of furniture, teaching materials or professional development. Teacher salaries are paid centrally though, as is school operational funding. In 1993, the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) specified seven essential learning areas and eight essential skills areas, ‘‘to be developed by all students across the whole curriculum throughout the years of schooling” (p. 17). For the first time, information skill development was specified in the New Zealand Curriculum but it was not mandatory for teachers to develop these skills with their students. From 1987 (when training started) until 1992, any information literacy skill development in schools had often been carried out by qualified teacher librarians. Central funding for such positions, however, stopped in 1992 and it was left up to each school to decide whether or not to employ and pay a qualified teacher librarian. As a result, schools have tended not to take on this extra spending and few schools now have staff trained to develop information literacy across the curriculum. The latest revision of the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) includes eight key learning areas and five key competencies. Although, based on the OECD key competencies, the New Zealand Curriculum does not include a competency such as ‘The ability to use information interactively’ (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2005a). In the New Zealand Curriculum therefore, the need for students to develop information literacy skills in order to achieve many of the competencies is implied but not stated. 1.4. Teaching information literacy in New Zealand There is evidence that teaching for information literacy, if the teachers have been appropriately trained, can be very effective. Lance (2005; 2006; 2007) and Todd, Kuhlthau, and Tepe (2004), working with schools and teacher librarians in USA, found that explicit teaching of skills in context, and using an information processing model, makes a positive difference to student learning outcomes. A small action research project, carried out at a Wellington, NZ, high school, also demonstrated that careful and planned teaching for information literacy, carried out by a trained teacher librarian and a classroom teacher, does indeed make a difference (Hannah, 2005). Again
26
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
students learned to use an information processing model. There is little research available, however, addressing information literacy teaching by regular classroom teachers who are not associated with teacher librarians. Moore (2002) working with primary teachers in five Wellington, NZ, primary schools found that the teachers were not familiar with the concept of information literacy and most seemed not to be explicitly teaching the skills. Probert’s (2006) findings were similar when working with teachers from several Auckland, NZ, secondary schools. Alongside these findings, that some teachers are not explicitly teaching information literacy skills, is evidence that New Zealand students are not developing information literacy skills. Results from the New Zealand National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) (Flockton, Crooks, & White, 2006) suggest that the principles and goals of information literacy are not‘ widely understood, supported or practised by the teaching profession. This project began in 1993 to assess and report on the achievement of years 4 and 8 primary school students in New Zealand across all areas of the curriculum. Information skills were tested in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and the results show that there was little evidence of any change in the ability of year 4 and year 8 students, between 1997 and 2005, to find and gather information. Concerns listed in the 2006 report included the finding that few year 4 and year 8 students were able to describe a coherent process or strategy for finding and using information for a research or study topic and that more than 50% struggled to ask two or three ‘strong’ questions for an inquiry, even when working collaboratively. Students also lacked skills of discernment and discrimination in their use of internet information. The Education Review Office (ERO) conducted a review, Student learning in the information Landscape (2005) to discover how effectively New Zealand schools were supporting students’ learning in the information landscape. ERO visited almost 400 schools in late 2004 and early 2005 looking at infrastructure, the content of information resources available to students and the skills, attitudes and values related to information literacy, life long reading and learning. The evidence from the evaluation demonstrated that information literacy is not well developed in most schools and particularly not in secondary schools with little evidence that schools were explicitly and systematically implementing an information process model across the curriculum. Very few schools were using a school-wide information processing model and it was found that many students could not articulate a common approach. Investigating research as a student learning activity in six Wellington, New Zealand secondary schools, Hipkins (2005) reported that students felt teachers had not taught them the skills they needed to carry out their own research projects and also noted that much of what was termed research actually consisted merely of ‘‘information retrieval and repackaging” (p. 21). There are few courses in New Zealand available for teachers wishing to undertake information literacy professional development and only one is offered at university level (University of Auckland, 2008). This course is recommended for all teachers teaching any subject at any year level. Teachers who have undertaken this course often report that that they have been supplied with strategies for successfully teaching skills and for implementing an information literacy process into their schools across the curriculum and at all levels. Some also report that their teaching has been transformed. Many principals also enrol new teachers to their schools in the course. Unfortunately though, this evidence is anecdotal and so far there has been no academic evaluation of this or any other course offering information literacy professional development to classroom teachers in New Zealand.
2. Method 2.1. Context 200 teachers from three neighboring schools, with the agreement of their principals, were invited to take part in this project and 148 (74%) participated. The principals of the three schools were concerned about the levels of information literacy knowledge and practice of staff after reading the results of the most recent National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) (Flockton et al., 2006). They formed a cluster and hoped to gain information from the project which would demonstrate teachers’ understanding of information literacy and provide some indication of how or if, information literacy skills were being taught. The schools then plan to design and implement appropriate professional development designed to match teachers’ needs (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007b).
2.2. Participants Teachers involved in the project taught at the following schools A. Coeducational intermediate school (Years 7 and 8 with students of 11 and 12 years of age), 25 teachers participated. B. Integrated (Catholic) years 7–13 girls’ school (comprising both intermediate and high school age students from 11 to 17 years of age). 51 teachers participated. C. State girls’ high school years 9–13 (students 13–17 years of age). 72 teachers participated. There were 121 female and 27 male teachers who chose to take part in the project. The gender imbalance is not surprising given that the high schools are girls-only schools. At School A, 52% of participants were aged 30 or under, 32% aged 30–39 years and the remained over 40 years. At School B, 50% were aged 30–39 years and 20% aged 40–49 years. The remainder, 30%, were evenly spread between the ages of 20– 29 years of ages and over 50 years. At School C, 76% of the teachers were aged 50 and over, with few teachers in 20-29 age band. The majority of the teachers participating in the project overall, therefore, were aged 30–49 while a quarter were over 50 years of age and the remainder under 30 years of age. School B had the greatest number of teachers who had been teaching for over 20 years (32%) followed by School C (28%) while 73% of teachers at School A had been teaching for nine years or less. The majority (86%) of the participants had trained in New Zealand while the remainder were trained in UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India or Fiji. Those teaching at high school level represented all subject areas taught at the two secondary schools with the majority teaching subjects such as English (41.4%), mathematics (37%), science (22%) and social sciences (14.4%). Many taught more than one subject. School A teachers also taught subjects in which they specialised, such as English, science, mathematics and social sciences.
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
27
2.3. Design The project comprised a mixed method design with the collection of quantitative data using questionnaires followed by the collection of more qualitative data through interviews (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The term ‘information literacy’ was used in questionnaires and interviews as it is the term found in official documentation (Education Review Office, 2005; Ministry for Economic Development, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2004, 2006; Ministry of Education & National Library of New Zealand, 2002). The explanation given above was expanded, as described, in an effort to help teachers recognise a variety of terms they might use when teaching. It was considered important to take into account the applied knowledge of teachers which can often seem intuitive and not be easily ‘‘translatable into explicit descriptions” (Claxton, 2000, p. 35). Documentation including worksheet templates, policies and departmental planning were requested. 2.4. Procedure 2.4.1. Web based questionnaire The questionnaire, self-administered anonymously by staff using their laptops, was stored on a Faculty of Education IT server. It was felt preferable to use the university services as the data collected would be secure than it might be if using a commercially available service such as surveymonkey.com. The questionnaire was adapted from one used previously when investigating teachers’ understanding of information literacy in an Auckland, New Zealand high school. A number of questions were also adapted from the work of Moore (2002). Much trialing was involved, using teachers not returning to the schools in 2008, to ensure that relevant questions had been asked and also to check for ease of use in an online format. The questionnaire contained 32 questions in three parts. Part 1 gathered demographic information and included one open ended question asking participants to complete the statement ‘‘An information literate person is someone who. . .” Part 2 contained Lickert scale questions designed to explore participants’ attitudes and beliefs about information literacy development. Part 3 contained open ended questions about any information processing models used and nine questions, using a Lickert-frequency response scale, exploring participants’ practices when teaching information literacy skills. Qualitative data were gathered from interviews which provided balance for the more structured nature of quantitative survey data collection (Axinn & Pearce, 2006; Bryman, 2007). Participants included ten heads of departments (HODs in Schools B and C) and five team leaders at School A. As each head of department or team leader was responsible for between four and ten other teachers from all subject areas, it was assumed that they would have information relating to departmental policies and practice. The interview questions, again trialled with staff not returning to the schools in 2008, were designed to explore responses to parts of the questionnaire involving perceptions of information literacy and teaching practices concerning information literacy development. Participants were asked, for example, whether they checked the information literacy skills levels of their students at the start of each year and to describe how they taught note taking or website evaluation. They were also asked about any departmental policies regarding information literacy development. Triangulation was achieved through the collection and analysis of data from different and separate sources of evidence. Teaching staff self-reported through the use of the questionnaires while interviews were held with HODs and team leaders. The documentation supplied examples of teachers’ classroom assignments and current information processing models in use.
3. Results and discussion The response rate to the teacher questionnaire was high, with 148 responses from a total of 200 teachers at the three schools (74%). There were, presumably, teachers who chose not to become involved and others who, under pressures of work, forgot to complete the questionnaire. Anecdotal evidence demonstrated strong support for the use of online questionnaires. Teachers commented on the convenience factor as they all have laptops with wireless connections and so were able to complete the questionnaire whenever and wherever they found time. Other comments included ‘‘I have lost some skills in writing for any time with a pen rather than with a keyboard” and that I ‘‘may have given much shorter answers if completing a conventional hard copy questionnaire”. The findings presented here address those questions in the questionnaires which are most relevant to gauging teachers’ understanding of information literacy and their classroom practice. The interview questions explored these aspects in more depth. 3.1. Understanding of information literacy 3.1.1. How would you describe an information literate person? Responses to this open-ended question were coded according to the definition and terms in Section 1.3. Questionnaire responses: keyword vocabulary and terms relating to the chosen explanation and models were processed using SPSS. Frequency counts were generated for each use of the terms. These were then ranked. The term ‘finding’, for example, occurred with the greatest frequency (29%), followed by ‘ICT’ or ‘computers’ (22.0%). The term ‘use’ occurred in 19% of the responses. Terms such as ‘present’, ‘synthesise’ and ‘form questions’ occurred in 3% of responses. A few responses had nothing to do with information literacy (8%) and there were 10% who did not respond to this question. Responses were also analysed to discover which included more than one of the chosen terms. A response which, for example, included references to identifying an information need, finding, using, evaluating, processing and synthesising information and creating and presenting new knowledge was deemed to demonstrate a good understanding of the concept and rated at level 3. A response such as ‘‘can find and use information’ was rated as limited, at level 2 while a response such as ‘has skills in the information literacy area” was rated at level 1, demonstrating little understanding of information literacy. Another category rated responses concerned only with ICT such as ‘‘can successfully use ICT in a variety of settings”. This was rated at level 1 ICT as demonstrating little understanding.
28
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
The majority (40%) of the teachers from School A understood information literacy as exclusively concerned with ICT while 20% did not respond. The remainder of the replies showed little or no understanding. School A has had a particular focus on ICT development and this could account for participants’ opinions. Participants from School B had the greatest number of participants demonstrating limited or little understanding of information literacy (60%), although 5% demonstrated a good understanding, a higher response than the other two schools. Of School C participants, again, 60% had limited or little understanding while 18% understood information literacy as concerned only with ICT. The remainder either did not respond or gave incorrect replies. Overall it was found from the questionnaire responses that two thirds of the participants had only limited or little understanding of information literacy with very few, 5%, indicating a good understanding. Of those seven teachers, six taught English and Social Studies while one taught mathematics. Only two had undertaken recognised professional development courses for teaching information literacy. One taught at School A and was aged under 30 years, three taught at School B and were aged 50+ while three taught at School C and were aged 30–49 years. On closer examination of the data, two of the seven teachers who demonstrated a good understanding of information literacy, had also undertaken recognised professional development courses, used a model of information processing with their students and were able to describe the model they used in detail and stated they always or often modelled skills for students. These teachers, both women, taught English and Arts and Languages respectively and both had been teaching for over 20 years. The other five teachers did not use information processing models and did not often model various skills to their students. None of these five had undertaken any professional development in information literacy and did not use information processing models with their students. Overall, participants with little understanding of information literacy taught mathematics, science, technology, health and physical education while those with a limited or good understanding taught English, languages and social studies. Interview responses: Ten heads of larger departments, English, Science, Mathematics, Social sciences and Technology in the secondary schools and five team leaders in School A were interviewed. During the semi-structured interviews they were asked to describe an information literate person, to describe how they went about teaching various skills such as note taking and website searching and about departmental policies relating to the teaching of information skills. It was found during the interviews that several of the heads of departments and team leaders gave more detailed and accurate responses than were apparent from the questionnaire responses. It could be that the interviews provided a necessary opportunity for explicit discussion of practical knowledge (Bryman, 2006; Claxton, 2000; Elbaz, 1981). Two team leaders from School A emphasised the importance of recognising the need for information and ‘articulating what it is they want to find out’ and three others described information literacy as wholly connected with ICT. One head of a large department (School C) gave a very detailed response, describing many skills students would need to have when finding information. Three heads of departments (Mathematics and Science) from Schools B and C understood information literacy as concerned solely with the use of online resources rather than the use of a wide range of resources from all sources, despite prompting from the interviewer. All those interviewed thought information literacy development was very important. ‘‘I think there’s too much information out there and they just don’t know how to access it effectively, otherwise it’s too overwhelming for them”, ‘‘That’s one of the most important skills for the modern age”, ‘‘They’re all vital skills you all need”. 3.1.2. Information literacy is concerned mostly with using ICT Questionnaire responses: There appeared to be some confusion with ICT skills and information literacy skills as 25% agreed overall that ICT skills and information literacy skills were the same while 27% were not sure. It was noticeable that the younger teachers, the majority of whom were at School A, agreed that information literacy was mostly concerned with ICT (55%) while teachers in the older age bands, 40– 50+ years, at schools B and C, disagreed. At School C, for example, 86% of participants in this age band disagreed with the statement. A greater number of participants teaching Arts, Languages, Science and Social sciences disagreed with the statement. Those responding with ‘undecided’ were evenly divided among all subject areas. Interview responses: Team leaders from School A were more emphatic that information literacy was mostly concerned with ICT. Two HODs from School B and three from C started off, when interviewed, describing information literacy as the use of computers and online resources but all five spontaneously changed this view as their descriptions became more detailed. 3.2. Classroom practice Questionnaire responses: The majority of teachers overall indicated that they did not use an information processing model (Appendix A) with their students when they were carrying out research assignments. A number of commonly used models were referred to in the questionnaire to help teachers and students answer the question. When teachers were asked to name (Fig. 2) and describe (Fig. 3) the model they used, two thirds overall (66.8%) did not reply while 3% said they did not know. Some (11.4%) gave answers such ‘Inspiration’, ‘my model’ or ‘dot and jot’. Such responses were considered irrelevant. ‘Inspiration’ for example is the name of a piece of software used for mind mapping, which, while it could well be used in the information literacy process, is not an information processing model. Again ‘dot and jot’ is a note taking method which can be used in the information literacy process but it is not an information processing model. The response of ‘my model’ was considered irrelevant as no other details were given even when given the opportunity to describe ‘my model’ in a later question. Although over 50% of School A teachers said they used a model and were able to name the model, few, as with the other two schools, were able to describe the stages of the model (Figs. 1–3). Interview responses: The questionnaire findings were supported by responses during the interviews. All the teachers interviewed at School A said they used a model and four named the model for inquiry learning that the senior teacher had designed for school-wide use. None, though, could clearly name or describe the stages. Comments included ‘‘Can’t remember the details”, ”The language keeps changing like immersion became ignition” ‘‘I use my own model. Each [school] term I figure out what worked well and what didn’t and discard any, just improve it really”. ‘‘Off the top of my head, it has a whole lot of stages where you go through you know sort of the ignition and I can’t remember all the names of all the steps”.
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
29
Fig. 1. I use an information processing model with my students when they are carrying out research assignments.
Fig. 2. The name of the model I use with my students.
The senior teacher in the school (School A) was surprised that her teachers seemed unaware of this school model, diagrams of which were in every classroom, particularly as teachers had had some training in using the model. It became obvious that, contrary to the senior teacher’s expectations, the model was not being used in the way she had expected and presumably had not been sufficiently embedded in day-to-day classroom teaching. These findings are important as they have serious implications for any planned, cluster-wide professional development. Those carrying out the professional development need to check that teachers really understand the process they are meant to teach (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007a).
30
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
Fig. 3. The stages of the model I use with my students.
The remaining nine questions in this section of the questionnaire used Likert frequency response ratings. The findings from these questions need to be treated with some wariness (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2001; Lewin, 2005; Payne & Payne, 2004) as no common understanding was provided for the terms used in the scale. The term ‘often’, for example, could mean three times a week to one participant and five times a week to another. Nevertheless the questionnaire responses, allied to the interview responses, provides some evidence of teacher practice, or lack of it. 3.2.1. I model methods of finding information using online resources Questionnaire responses: When asked how often they modelled finding information from online sources, half of the participants overall indicated that they did so ‘often’ or ‘always’. Interview responses: These statements were not upheld by interview responses. A team leader at School A said that ‘‘for me pretty generally I just talk about just because something is a website doesn’t mean its providing good information” but then went on ‘‘its just kind of general discussion”. Another at School A stated ‘‘I haven’t thought about that, the websites we use in the science programme I haven’t really done an evaluation to be honest”. Another at the same school replied ‘‘we’ve discussed the validity of the sources that we’re looking at but I wouldn’t say that I’ve taught them explicitly to evaluate websites. I don’t know why I’m not teaching that now’’. One team leader mentioned that his students use Wikipedia and he expressed not problems with that while another team leader at the school was more critical, saying ‘‘Yeah but that can be dubious as well because people add to it and yeah its difficult”. One HOD in School B thought using online sources had been covered in the library but no HOD at any school could describe explicit details for teaching web site evaluation. An HOD at School C did comment that this ‘‘might be a good idea” while another said she ‘‘wouldn’t say that I’ve taught them explicitly to evaluate websites”. Another commented when asked if she taught her students to evaluate website ‘‘No not really, as staff we tend to have a look at the website, has it got the information we require on there, is it pitched at the level we need and if it is then we’ll stick it onto the intranet site”. 3.2.2. I model methods of note taking and skimming and scanning with my students Two lead teachers at School A could describe the methods they used to teach note taking but another from that school responded with ‘‘Um, I’m just trying to think. I haven’t done a lot of that this term. I know a lot of skills like this are worked with my form class you know um and just giving them, I guess I sort of talk about the basics of it and you know obviously you don’t want to write heaps”. An HOD from School B referred to teaching the dot and jot note taking method ‘‘Most of us use the sort of dot and jot” but could provide few details. Two HODs from School B and three from School C complained that students did not know how to take notes. Another HOD in School C thought a teacher in her department did explicitly teach a variety of information literacy skills but was not sure how this was done. One HOD, from School B, gave a lot of detail about teaching skimming and scanning, stressing the importance of key words and described rapid reading techniques although there was no departmental policy in place. ‘‘We’re quite experienced here so I guess everyone has evolved their own techniques but it depends on the class”. No other HODs or team leaders could provide methods for teaching students to skim and scan material. These responses were interesting, particularly as the interviewer, mindful of the observations of Elbaz (1981) and Claxton (2000), tried to give interviewees as many opportunities as possible to describe methods for teaching these skills and reporting on any related school policies. Given the amount of information available to students online, it is crucial that students learn to evaluate and assess the contents effectively and to take useful notes. These skills, of course, are needed for information in any format. 3.2.3. I check the information literacy skills of my students at the start of each year Questionnaire responses: These indicated that 80% overall of the teachers in the survey never or rarely or only sometimes checked students’ skills levels at the start of each year. Interview responses: The interview responses did not support this finding. Four teachers (one from School B and three from School C) who reported responding ‘sometimes’ in the questionnaires, when asked how often they checked the skill levels of their students said,
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
31
when interviewed, that they actually very rarely checked students’ skill levels. None of those interviewed checked the skills of new students entering their schools although several acknowledged it would be a good idea to have a policy for such a procedure and others seemed surprised at the suggestion. Teachers commented that ‘’You learn pretty quickly, your form teacher does and tells you of any kids with special needs or abilities, yeah, and you sort of just case by case, whatever kid needs help”, ‘‘No formal technique we use and this sounds horribly hit and miss, pretty much by the end of four weeks with those students I could give you a pretty good idea of their ability and what sort of input they’ve had”. It was interesting that most teachers, from all three schools, did not check students’ skills levels at the start of each year but took it for granted that students already had good information literacy skills. Over half the teachers, overall, thought the skills would develop naturally although, apparently in contradiction to this, 82% overall thought that the skills should be explicitly taught but, presumably, at previous schools or in other classes. 3.3. Future developments The majority of teachers from all three schools agreed that it would be helpful to have a common method or model to use when doing research. They also thought it would be helpful to have more strategies for teaching the skills. This was reinforced by interview responses where those interviewed from all schools said they would welcome some sort of school wide planning for information literacy development and would really welcome professional development. Comments included ‘‘Yeah there’s got to be a cohesion in what’s happening across the school” (School A); ‘‘I would really love to have some good PD around this whole doing research thing”; ‘‘It would really help us with the new curriculum and all the lifelong learning stuff” (School B); ‘‘That would be really useful actually” (School C). It would also be informative, in the light of findings reported earlier relating to teachers’ understanding of information literacy as reported in questionnaires and discussed during interviews, to investigate students’ understanding of various information literacy skills. 4. Conclusions and recommendations It appears from this evidence gathered from questionnaire, interviews, discussions and documentation that a number of teachers did have some understanding of the concept of information literacy. Some though, connected it with literacy or with reading or information and communications technology (ICT) whereas it actually embraces both literacy and ICT. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find a better term. It was also evident that a number of teachers in a variety of departments from all three schools, regardless of age or years in teaching, were not explicitly teaching information literacy skills or providing inquiry learning opportunities, using an information process, for students. The majority of teachers at School A for example, where over half the teachers were under 30 years of age and had been teaching for less than 10 years, connected information literacy only with ICT. School B, with the largest single block of teachers who have taught for 20 or more years had more responses in the ‘‘limited” or ‘little understanding’ categories although percentage-wise, fewer teachers in School B connected information literacy mostly with ICT than did School A teachers. Interviewees gave several reasons given for not explicitly teaching information literacy skills, including time factors and that ‘‘research was covered in other subject areas so we don’t need to do it” (School C). Another reason given was that too many students simply ‘‘copied and pasted” but no teacher indicated that this might be because students needed more strategies to help them develop better skills. Even so, it was interesting that so many teachers, from all three schools, were enthusiastic about adopting school-wide methods of information processing and school-wide strategies for developing various skills. Several stated how much they would welcome such training. The documentary evidence presented consisted of the inquiry model referred to above and several social studies units from School B which involved students in research. None of these included methods for carrying out the research assignment. No departments had policies relating to information literacy development. 4.1. Implications of findings for those designing professional development One particularly interesting finding was that many teachers in School A indicated they used an information processing model and yet most knew very little about it, despite having received some in-school professional development and having diagrams of the model in their classrooms. This finding should act as a warning to the three schools, all of which are planning professional development. Those designing and implementing the professional development should pay close attention to appropriate literature such as the recently published report Teacher professional development: Best evidence synthesis [BES] (Timperley et al., 2007a, 2007b). It would also be useful to ensure each school has a teacher on the staff who could oversee ongoing information literacy development across the curriculum after appropriate training. As explained above, trained teacher librarians have this role in several countries and research suggests such a position can have positive effects (Lance, 2005, 2006, 2007; Todd et al., 2004). Policy and planning development for school-wide information literacy development at all year levels should also be carried out at each school. Students’ levels of understand and practice of information literacy should also be part of any future investigation. This would provide very useful information not just about student knowledge and practice but also about teachers’ practice. This investigation should assist not only the cluster of schools involved in this project but schools throughout New Zealand and elsewhere to assist teachers to develop students’ information literacy skills and to achieve the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) goal of creating lifelong learners. Appendix A Action Learning Gawith, G. (1988). Action Learning: Student guide to research and information skills. Wellington: Longman Paul. There are six stages to the Action Learning Framework: Deciding, Finding, Using, Recording, Presenting, Evaluating.
32
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
While appearing to be a linear model, in practice students loop backwards and forwards through the process. There are many skills involved in each stage and these skills need to be explicitly taught. Learning for the futureAustralian School Library Association (2001). Learning for the future: developing information services in schools (2nd ed.). Carlton, South Vic.: Curriculum Corporation. The document Learning for the future is intended to set a context for the development of information services in Australian schools. It includes a six stage model and a matrix for information and ICT literacies development: Stages: Defining, locating, selecting, organising, creating and sharing, evaluating information and the process. Big6Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (1996). Big Six. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from www.big6.org. Big6 is a six stage model: Task definition, Information seeking strategies, Location and access, Use of information, Synthesis, Evaluation.
A.1. The essential skills Ministry of Education, 1993). New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington: Ministry of Education. This document included lists of Essential Skills under the headings: communication skills, numeracy skills, information skills, problemsolving skills, self-management skills, social and co-operative skills, physical skills and work and study skills. These are not included in the latest New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) but are understood as included in the key competencies. Appendix B. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.018. References American Library Association. (1998). Introduction to information literacy. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from
E. Probert / Computers & Education 53 (2009) 24–33
33
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005a). The definition and selection of key competencies. Retrieved May 5, 2007 from