One problem raised almost continually through our readings for this independent study has been defining information literacy, and I think this is where Christine Bruce makes a significant contribution. She does not offer a theory of literacy nor a theory of information, but she does provide a way of describing our object of inquiry, i.e. information literacy. Bruce treats information literacy in terms of experience, i.e. the relationship between a subject (the information user) and an object (information).
Bruce
(1997) draws a contrast between the then dominant behavioral model of
information literacy and her own relational model. She writes that in
the behavior model, literacy is treated as a characteristic of
individuals. Therefore information literacy is described terms of
attributes of individuals (p. 12). In other words, information literacy
is seen as a collection of skills possessed or expressed by a person.
Bruce's relational model, on the other hands, conceives of information
literacy as a practice, that information literacy is an experience
between a subject, i.e. an information user, and an object, i.e.
information (p. 111).
Bruce's relational model is able to encompass a range of activities, including both the more skills-based experiences and the more critical inquiry elements we have stressed this semester. Bruce
(1997) divides her relational model into seven categories of
information literacy experience. The first four experiences - using
technology to access information, finding information based on knowledge
of sources, following a process, and controlling / organizing
information - all treat information as an (useful) object in the
environment. In the last three categories - building up a knowledge
base, creating new insights, using information wisely - the use of
information transforms both the subject and object in the relationship. [These categories reappear in Bruce et. al. (2012).] The
difference between these categories, says Bruce (1997), rests in the
variations in subject / object relations which "constitute information
literacy" (p. 154). In
Bruce et. al. (2012), the makes a further differentiation between functional uses of
information and information literacy - perhaps associated with her
first four categories of information literacy experience - and those
experiences in which information is used "to learn, including
communicating and creating in" a range of contexts, "representing
transformative interpretations of information and information literacy"
(p. 524).
While
Bruce (1997) does not declare any of the various experiences of
information literacy "wrong," she does indicate that there is a
hierarchy among the categories in terms of some categories - i.e. the
last three - being "more complex" and "more powerful" in terms of their
transformational potential (p. 155-156). Bruce (1997) also marks a
difference in "outcome space," which increases as you move through the
categories of experience (p. 156).
Bruce's description of information literacy is attractive because it fits with the way we have talked about literacy as a mastery of the environment. Her approach foregrounds the engagement of an individual and his / her environment. The educational goal Bruce et. al. (2012) put forward, i.e. informed learning, merges well with our existing thoughts about information literacy as an expression of critical consciousness and capacity for critical inquiry. According
to Bruce et. al. (2012), informed learning involves making "explicit
awareness" of "different forms of information and their use, as well as
make explicit the various activities through which information is
interpreted and understood" (p. 527). She notes that informed learning
"builds upon information skills and develops effective, critical,
creative, reflective, and ethical information use for learning in any of
life's paths" (p. 525).
I also appreciate that Bruce et. al. (2012) takes the relational model of information literacy beyond the higher education context to workplace and community contexts.
Bruce (1997) remarks that, at least in the context of higher education, the development of learning opportunities falls on curriculum developers (p. 9). As she sees it, "Developing outcome statements in accordance with the relational approach to teaching and learning will ... result in an emphasis on conceptions and experience" as opposed to "skills and attributes of individuals." Therefore, the outcomes of information literacy, as Bruce conceives of it, are "no longer measurable" (p. 169). I do like her grouping of experiences: 1) "information technology and information sources conception," 2) "information process and information control conceptions," and 3) "knowledge construction, knowledge extension and wisdom conceptions" (p. 173).
A few other useful points I don't want to forget ...
Bruce (1997) provides a useful analysis of why information literacy "took root." She specifically mentions the association of information literacy with the idea of life long learning, the need to describe the "ideal" consumer of information in the information society, and the perception that the increased volume of information would prove a barrier to effective use that information (p. 2-3).
Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Blackwood, South Australia: Auslib Press.
Bruce, C. et. al. (2012). Supporting informed learners in the twenty-first century. Library Trends, 60 (3), pp. 522-545.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Idea Session II
I think the major thing we walked away with on Monday was sketch of the major aspects / dimensions of thinking about information literacy, of making information literacy a problem. These dimensions are:
1) empirical / historical piece
2) theory piece, i.e. how literacy works
3) normative piece, i.e. the "what should be," the end
4) practice piece, i.e. how to make end operational in context, meaning piece #1
In regards to the empirical piece, we discussed communication technologies and the various modes of interaction they support. We noted that technologies open up some literacy practices and close off others, synchronous vs. asynchronous technologies as per Braman, "hot" vs. "cold" technologies as per McLuhan.
We also tried to take up the problem of getting information in the absence of direct experience, i.e. through technology. We considered a number of "moments" when a literacy practice might not "come off." These included a lack of access to technology or an inability to use technology; economy, meaning one does not have the time and energy; intent, meaning one could be participating in the practice for entertainment as opposed to information seeking; or one may not possess the skills necessary to evaluate a particular claim.
1) empirical / historical piece
2) theory piece, i.e. how literacy works
3) normative piece, i.e. the "what should be," the end
4) practice piece, i.e. how to make end operational in context, meaning piece #1
In regards to the empirical piece, we discussed communication technologies and the various modes of interaction they support. We noted that technologies open up some literacy practices and close off others, synchronous vs. asynchronous technologies as per Braman, "hot" vs. "cold" technologies as per McLuhan.
We also tried to take up the problem of getting information in the absence of direct experience, i.e. through technology. We considered a number of "moments" when a literacy practice might not "come off." These included a lack of access to technology or an inability to use technology; economy, meaning one does not have the time and energy; intent, meaning one could be participating in the practice for entertainment as opposed to information seeking; or one may not possess the skills necessary to evaluate a particular claim.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Gee on Discourses and Literacies
[draft]
These appear to be the main points:
Discourses, as described by Gee (2012), are structures of recognizable practices and values. He writes that Discourses are "socially recognizable identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities" (p. 152). Gee qualifies the "structured" element of Discourses by noting that there are "multiple ways" and "partial ways," "contradictory ways" and "disputed ways" of getting recognized; what matters, however, is "enactment and recognition" (p. 153).
Gee makes a distinction between primary and secondary Discourses. Primary Discourses are acquired through socialization in early life. This socialization provides one's "initial and often enduring sense of self" (p. 153). Gee further notes that one's primary Discourse is "biologically and historically rooted" in "face-to-face communications and interactions" (p. 174). While one's primary Discourse is foundational, it is also capable of change (p. 153). Secondary Discourses are "acquired within institutions that are part and parcel of wider communities," e.g. voluntary associations, schools, work environments, etc. (p. 154). Gee notes differences in types of secondary Discourses: "local community-based" Discourses and more public sphere Discourses existing on a continuum (p. 172). Part of what defines secondary Discourses is that "they involve by definition interaction with people with whom one is either not 'intimate' ... or they involve interactions" that require a person to "take on an identity that transcends" one's "primary socializing group" (p. 172).
Gee defines literacy as "mastery of a secondary Discourse." Therefore, literacies are always plural (p. 173). Because there are community-based and public sphere secondary Discourses - and everything in between - there are community-based literacies and public sphere literacies (p. 173). Gee, however, sets aside "liberating literacies" as something distinct from others, defined not as mastery over a secondary Discourses but rather as the use of a Discourse, namely to critique other Discourses (p. 174). Secondary Discourses are acquired through modeling and practice; "liberating discourses" are learned through rational thought (p. 174-175).
There are a number of problems with Gee's approach to literacies as rooted in Discourses. I am troubled by Gee's use of the term Discourse to talk about how human beings engage with their social environment. (And it is their social environment as opposed to their physical environment ... and their informational environment?) The use of the term Discourse leads to a focus on structured ways of being in the world, to a focus on roles and performance in various contexts. He writes:
"It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, give voice and body to a Discourse every time he or she acts or speaks, and thus carries it, and ultimately changes it, through time" (p. 159).
The way Gee approaches Discourse, it is difficult to see a role for human agency and the potential for change, though Gee does assert an ability to alter our way of being in the world and to negotiate the performance of a discourse. What is missing is the bodily, the material.
These appear to be the main points:
Discourses, as described by Gee (2012), are structures of recognizable practices and values. He writes that Discourses are "socially recognizable identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities" (p. 152). Gee qualifies the "structured" element of Discourses by noting that there are "multiple ways" and "partial ways," "contradictory ways" and "disputed ways" of getting recognized; what matters, however, is "enactment and recognition" (p. 153).
Gee makes a distinction between primary and secondary Discourses. Primary Discourses are acquired through socialization in early life. This socialization provides one's "initial and often enduring sense of self" (p. 153). Gee further notes that one's primary Discourse is "biologically and historically rooted" in "face-to-face communications and interactions" (p. 174). While one's primary Discourse is foundational, it is also capable of change (p. 153). Secondary Discourses are "acquired within institutions that are part and parcel of wider communities," e.g. voluntary associations, schools, work environments, etc. (p. 154). Gee notes differences in types of secondary Discourses: "local community-based" Discourses and more public sphere Discourses existing on a continuum (p. 172). Part of what defines secondary Discourses is that "they involve by definition interaction with people with whom one is either not 'intimate' ... or they involve interactions" that require a person to "take on an identity that transcends" one's "primary socializing group" (p. 172).
Gee defines literacy as "mastery of a secondary Discourse." Therefore, literacies are always plural (p. 173). Because there are community-based and public sphere secondary Discourses - and everything in between - there are community-based literacies and public sphere literacies (p. 173). Gee, however, sets aside "liberating literacies" as something distinct from others, defined not as mastery over a secondary Discourses but rather as the use of a Discourse, namely to critique other Discourses (p. 174). Secondary Discourses are acquired through modeling and practice; "liberating discourses" are learned through rational thought (p. 174-175).
There are a number of problems with Gee's approach to literacies as rooted in Discourses. I am troubled by Gee's use of the term Discourse to talk about how human beings engage with their social environment. (And it is their social environment as opposed to their physical environment ... and their informational environment?) The use of the term Discourse leads to a focus on structured ways of being in the world, to a focus on roles and performance in various contexts. He writes:
"It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, give voice and body to a Discourse every time he or she acts or speaks, and thus carries it, and ultimately changes it, through time" (p. 159).
The way Gee approaches Discourse, it is difficult to see a role for human agency and the potential for change, though Gee does assert an ability to alter our way of being in the world and to negotiate the performance of a discourse. What is missing is the bodily, the material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)