the application of learning theory to information literacy

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 09:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

College & UndergraduateLibrariesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

The Application of LearningTheory to Information LiteracyWendell G. Johnson aa Social Sciences Librarian, Northern IllinoisUniversity , DeKalb, IL, 60115Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Wendell G. Johnson (2008) The Application of Learning Theoryto Information Literacy, College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14:4, 103-120, DOI:10.1080/10691310802128435

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691310802128435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10691310802128435

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691310802128435

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Application of Learning Theoryto Information Literacy

Wendell G. Johnson

ABSTRACT. Many colleges and universities are advocating informationliteracy within their mission statements. To this end, many librarians areoffering for-credit courses that incorporate the Association of College andResearch Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards intheir instructional programs. In their role as instructors, librarians should befamiliar with learning theory, in particular behaviorism and constructivism.The application of a particular learning theory dictates the structure of thecourse and reinforces the role of librarian as educator.

KEYWORDS. Information literacy, behaviorism, constructivism, learn-ing theory

INTRODUCTION

In many regards, critical thinking and information literacy have a com-mon objective: the ability to locate relevant research material and then toevaluate and make informed judgments regarding its use. Universities andtheir respective libraries have often formed a partnership to foster criti-cal thinking and information literacy within their student bodies. For itspart, the university administration has advocated critical thinking and in-formation literacy within its mission statement, and, in turn, the library has

Wendell G. Johnson, MLS, PhD, is Social Sciences Librarian at NorthernIllinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115 (address e-mail to: [email protected]).

College & Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 14(4), 2007Available online at http://cul.haworthpress.com

C© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/10691310802128435 103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4

104 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

offered bibliographic instruction to accomplish this objective. Often, bib-liographic instruction is comprised of a one-shot session. In other cases,libraries have developed classes that carry academic credit. This articledescribes a one-credit undergraduate level course that is based on the As-sociation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information LiteracyCompetency Standards (American Library Association 2007). The direc-tion of this course, Research Strategies, will be influenced by the learningtheory that underlies it. Therefore, Research Strategies will be analyzedfrom a behaviorist and a constructivist standpoint. By incorporating alearning theory at the instructional design level, the library will maximizethe effectiveness of the course and promote information literacy, a crucialaspect of critical thinking in this day and age.

Traditionally, the digital divide separated those who have access tocomputers and the Internet from those who do not. The issue has nowevolved from access to technology to managing that technology (Huangand Russell 2006). In other words, this secondary digital divide now entailsknowledge-sharing and scholarly communication. According to the Educa-tional Testing Service, college students are becoming more proficient withtechnology; they are not, however, developing the critical thinking skillsnecessary for academic success (Katz 2007). In The Delphi Report, theAmerican Philosophical Association identifies critical thinking as “pur-poseful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis,evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, con-ceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations uponwhich that judgment is based” (Facion 1990, 2). The term “informationliteracy” can be used to describe how a person manages the current ex-ponential increase in information, and the electronic/computerized accessto that information. It is becoming increasingly apparent that colleges anduniversities must enable students to develop information and technologyliteracy skills. At the present time, it is no exaggeration to infer that infor-mation literacy is a vital component in the development of critical thinking.Yet the majority of faculty and administrators have not realized this.

To some degree, information literacy represents a new nomenclaturefor “bibliographic instruction” (BI). Historically, BI did not focus merelyon the mechanics of locating and using a bibliographic item, but alsoincorporated critical thinking, active learning, and the teaching of concepts.Over forty years ago, Knapp (1966) promoted a course-integrated libraryand information resource instruction by advocating a theoretical conceptof the library which resulted in “sophisticated library competence.” In the1970s, BI predominantly emphasized the physical assets owned by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wendell G. Johnson 105

library, such as the card catalog and print reference sources. The 1980ssaw a proliferation of information tools, and librarians concentrated onteaching concepts such as controlled vocabulary, information flow, andsubject-specific research (Grassian 2004). The digital age has ushered inyet new imperatives.

Recent studies have commented on the research skills, or lack thereof, ofGeneration Y—people born between 1980 and 1994 (Weiler 2005). Manystudents start their research through an Internet search engine, which resultsin the flattening of expertise or the so-called Google effect (Brabazon2006). The problem is not necessarily the accuracy of the search, butthe banality of the information culled from a Google (or other database)search and the lack of literacy skills required to conduct such a search(Cathcart and Roberts 2005). In many instances, the search engine hastaken the place of critical thinking skills (Thompson 2003). With a searchengine, thousands of hits may be returned by a single search. Rather thanuse advanced search techniques to narrow the field, the tendency existsto simply use the first item(s), regardless of its benefit. For any givenWebsite, it can be extremely difficult to differentiate between fact andfiction or personal opinion and substantial research (Frand 2001).

Partially in response to this situation, the Association of College andResearch Libraries (ACRL) of the American Library Association (ALA2007), established five Information Literacy Competency Standards whichprovide a framework for assessing the information literate individual:

1. The information literate student defines and articulates the need forinformation.

2. The information literate student accesses needed information effec-tively and efficiently.

3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sourcescritically and incorporates information into his or her knowledge andvalue system.

4. The information literate student, individually or as a member of agroup, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.

5. The information literate student understands many of the economic,legal, and social issues surrounding information and informationtechnology.

The ACRL standards, originally published in 2000, have gained wideacceptance by librarians in colleges and universities and provide guid-ance for the knowledge (Standard One), access (Standard Two), evaluation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


(Standard Three), use (Standard Four), and ethic (Standard Five) ofinformation sources. Often as part of the assessment and accreditation pro-cess, university, college, and community college libraries seek to promoteinformation literacy among their respective student bodies (Gullicksen2006). Many institutions have introduced information literacy into theircurricula. Accordingly, many libraries have devised classes, often carryingone credit, which introduces students to research skills that not only enablethem to find information effectively in a variety of formats, but also toanalyze, organize, and apply information in their academic, professional,and personal lives (Ward 2006).

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND LEARNING THEORY

In order to make a meaningful contribution to this process, librariansneed to understand the pedagogy of instruction and adopt the principlesof instructional design, theory, and practice (Arp 2006). As they striveto provide an optimal learning experience, librarians, as educators, mustconsider the different ways in which students learn (Mestre 2006). By sodoing, librarians will recognize the relationship between cognitive skillsand information literacy, and be able to tailor their program(s) of biblio-graphic instruction accordingly (Baker 2006). The first step, perhaps, is torecognize the learning characteristics and abilities of prospective students.Instructors often need to be reminded that cognitive ability is a develop-mental process, and students may need extended practice over a periodof time before they can seek information critically and reflectively. ManyGeneration Y students are visual learners, which may conflict with theteaching style of the instructor (Roblyer 1998). Often, a change in presen-tation (changing from a lecture format, or “verbal transfer,” to a hands-onapproach, such as providing students with work stations in the computerlab in the library) helps create student interest and increase informationretention. The hands-on activities should be directed toward the specificassignments of the course.

Research Strategies should be constructed with a learning theory inmind and employ the principles of instructional design (Johnson, Burke,and Evans 2001). Learning on the part of the student actually suffers if theinstructional design is not based on a learning theory (Nilsen and Purao2005). According to Bruner (1976, 40), a theory of instruction must havefour major features that specify:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


1. the experiences that implant within the student a predisposition to-ward learning;

2. the ways in which a body of learning should be understood;3. the most effective sequence in which the material is to be presented

and learned;4. the nature and pacing of rewards and punishments in the process of

learning.

Such pedagogy “is prescriptive in that it sets forth rules concerningthe most effective way of achieving such knowledge or a skill. It is alsonormative in that it sets up criteria and states the conditions for meet-ing them” (Bruner, 1976, 40). Two learning theories—behaviorism andconstructivism—each contribute to a better understanding of the goals ofResearch Strategies—information literacy and critical thinking.

Research Strategies — A Behaviorist Approach

The rise of cognitive psychology has led to the misrepresentation ofbehavioral precepts. Behavioral psychology has provided three major as-sumptions that are directly relevant to instructional technology:

1. the role of the learner who is not merely a passive entity, but an activeparticipant who reacts to environmental stimuli;

2. the nature of learning which may cause a change in behavior due toexperience;

3. the generality of learning principles such as respondent learning, op-erant conditioning, and antecedents, or environmental cues (Burton,Moore, and Magliaro 1996).

Behaviorism is most often associated with Skinner’s thought. Skinner’sapproach to educational psychology looked for functional relationships be-tween environmental variables and behavior (Skinner 1971). He contendedthat behavior could be understood in terms of environmental cues and re-sults; that is, we can observe behavior and manipulate the environmentalvariable(s) surrounding it in order to change behavior. He emphasized theimportance of the stimulus-response (S→R) nexus: that is, a specific be-havior is more likely to recur if it is rewarded or reinforced. The educatorcan note a change in behavior and examine the environment to see whatwas responsible for the change. A behaviorist approach asks whether thestudents can actually do something after the instruction that they could not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


do before (Skinner 1968). Further, behaviorism is particularly useful whenthe desired outcomes are specified in advance.

Driscoll suggests that the tenets of behaviorism can be employed tocritique a course when the concern is with observable outcomes and notprimarily with the motivation of the students enrolled in the class (Driscoll2000). She outlines a five-step program that can be used to analyze Re-search Strategies in light of behaviorist educational psychology. First, setbehavioral goals. The instructor asks, “What behavior (on the part of thestudent) is to be changed and what is the change?” The answer, of course,is that the students are to do quality research or work and properly citetheir sources. Second, determine appropriate reinforcers. There are two re-inforcers for this class: students get both a quantifiable (credit) and qualita-tive (grade) for completing the class. Third, select procedures for changingbehavior; the students are to select a research topic, gather information,present the research, and properly cite their sources. Fourth, implementprocedures and record results: the students are to keep a chronological log,including an annotated bibliography, of the research process. The guide-lines include: a sufficient number of sources, quality and distribution ofsources, correctness of citation format, and the quality of the annotationitself. Fifth, evaluate progress and revise as necessary. Based on the workthat the students complete in step four, the librarian as instructor can gaugewhether their research skills and their ability to cite the relevant researchhave improved while the student is enrolled in the course. In addition,the librarian-instructor can consult with the teaching faculty as to whetherResearch Strategies has proven to be beneficial to their students.

What Types of S→R Principles Are Used?

Two stimuli are present in Research Strategies: grades (A–F) and onecredit hour. At the outset, the emphasis is on positive reinforcement, whichis the application of a reinforcer contingent upon a response ( = stimulus).The reinforcer, of course, is a grade (based on a sliding scale dependentupon the students’ response). When the student does appropriate researchand properly cites his or her sources, the instructor seeks to increase thelikelihood that this behavior will be repeated. Also, the student who com-pletes the assignments for Research Strategies receives one credit hour.We see here a combination of quantitative (one credit hour) and qualitative(grade) stimuli.

It is also possible to exercise reinforcement removal (weakening thereinforcement) when necessary. Three elements comprise reinforcement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


removal: extinction, response cost, and time-out. Both extinction and re-sponse cost concern the removal of reinforcement contingent upon be-havior. With extinction, the response is withheld, which will particularlycome into play if and when the student fails to turn in the assignments.With response cost, the student’s grade will be lowered if he or she failsto complete the assignment according to the requirements outlined in thesyllabus. The final element, time-out (removing the student from the class-room), will probably be self-imposed by the student, that is, when thestudent cuts classes.

By practicing positive reinforcement and reinforcement removal, thelibrarian as educator has both presented and removed stimuli contingentupon the response of the student. At the college level, the intent is not toexercise punishment, which is the application of an aversive stimulus inorder to weaken the response of the student. If the students themselvesfail to pass a requisite number of courses, the institution will punish thestudents in that they will flunk out and may not be readmitted. Anotheroption is the application of negative reinforcement, which “strengthensa response through the removal of an aversive stimulus contingent uponthat response” (Driscoll 2000, 34). For example, should the student turnin acceptable work ahead of time, the instructor can elect to waive one ofthe assignments. This type of negative reinforcement will encourage thestudents to set a timetable for their work and to stick to it. The instructorin this case is operating under the assumption that the assignments are anaversive stimulus, that is, the student would rather do fewer assignmentsthan more assignments.

What Types of Reinforcer Are Incorporated?

Behaviorists highlight two types of reinforcers: primary reinforcers(whose value is biologically determined such as food or sex), and sec-ondary reinforcers (those that acquire value through association with aprimary reinforcer) such as money and praise. Since the reinforcementvalue of the course (both the grade and the credit hour) is not biologi-cally determined, primary reinforcers are not used. The instructor is leftwith secondary, conditioned, positive reinforcers, which have proven tobe important for human learning. In addition to giving the students agrade at the end of the course (and therefore a credit hour), the socialreinforcement of periodic praise (in order to emphasize desired behavior)can be extended during class time. In the behavioral model, reward is thekey to learning. Thorndike (1921) assumed that rewards and punishments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


are equal opposites, with an equal effect on learning (the “Law of Effect”in Thorndike’s words, not to be confused with the conditioned reflexesof Pavlov). However, after a series of experiments, Thorndike discov-ered that undesired response tendencies did not appear to decrease afterpunishment. It is vital that the librarian as instructor avoid confusing neg-ative reinforcement (the removal of a negative stimulus such as an as-signment) with punishment (the application of a negative stimulus suchas an additional assignment) (Marr 2006; Sidman 2006). In the contextof Research Strategies, punishment may result in the undesired effect ofhaving students lose interest in the entire process of attaining informationliteracy.

What Strategies Are Used to Teach New Behaviors or ModifyBehaviors?

The entire process of acquiring competence in any field must be dividedinto a large number of small steps. The behaviorist approach incorporatesthree concepts for teaching new behaviors: the learning progressions ofshaping, chaining, and fading. Shaping aims to teach new behaviors thatare relatively simple. The student should master easier skills before movingon to more complex tasks. For example, the student is asked to consult gen-eral reference works before consulting specialized subject encyclopediasor scholarly articles. The students practice chaining once they are able tointegrate the discrete behaviors or activities they mastered during the shap-ing process. Chaining takes the behaviors that the student has learned andcombines them into more complex behaviors. Students exhibit chainingwhen they are able to integrate the steps they have mastered in the shapingprocess (locating information in a database and OPAC, for example) anduse these skills to evaluate information and formulate a research question.In the final step—fading—the reinforcers are slowly eliminated from theinstructional program. Research Strategies incorporates fading, perhaps,only by omission. When the instructor withdraws the discriminant cues,or grades, the learner will still be able to find information, cite sources,and present coherent research. By this time, it is expected that the studentshave developed the habit of better research skills.

What Strategies Are Used to Maintain Learned New or ModifiedBehaviors?

According to behaviorist thought, the instructor can follow one of fourschedules in order to maintain a new behavior: fixed ratio, fixed interval,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


variable ratio, and variable interval, depending on whether the reinforce-ment is dependent upon a given response (ratio schedule) or the passageof time (interval schedule). Variable interval schedules usually producethe most consistent rates of response and are very resistant to extinction.However, due to compressed time constraints, it is probably best to followa combination of fixed ratio (reinforcing every desired response) and fixedinterval (reinforcement is delivered after a specific period of time). Thatis, the student will be rewarded according to the amount of work they do(for example, an A for high-level critiques, a C for average-level critiques).The work should be turned in on time and must be graded promptly by theinstructor.

In the behaviorist theory of instructional design, effective teaching isthat which changes human behavior. Programmed instruction prescribesexplicit educational objectives, and it is the role of the instructor to constructa lesson plan (indeed, an entire course) consistent with those objectives(McDonald, Yanchar, and Osguthorpe 2005). Behaviorism should not bedismissed out of hand. As Halpern and Donaghey (2002, 1462) note,“principles of reinforcement continue to be important for all teachers,particularly in classroom management and in decisions about grade andincentives for learning.”

Research Strategies—A Constructivist Approach

In contrast to the objectivism of the behaviorist learning theory, whichcontends that knowledge of the world exists independently of any par-ticular individual’s experience, constructivism holds that knowledge isconstructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their respectiveexperiences (Duffy and Cunningham 1996). Although there is no singleconstructivist theory, most constructivist approaches recommend the fol-lowing:

� complex and challenging learning environments� social negotiation and shared responsibility� multiple representations of content� the understanding that knowledge is constructed� student-centered instruction.

In September 1959, thirty-five scientists, scholars, and educators con-vened in Woods Hole, MA, to discuss science education in primary andsecondary schools. The result of their deliberations can be found in Bruner’sThe Process of Education (1960), which enunciates a constructivist

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


psychology. We can use this approach to critique the lesson plan(s) forResearch Strategies.

Bruner discusses four themes: structure, readiness for learning, intu-ition, and motive. The primary importance of the first theme—structure(how things are related)—cannot be overemphasized. The first object oflearning is that it should serve us in the future. The learner must first graspgeneral principles and then develop an attitude toward learning. Under-standing the fundamentals makes a subject more comprehensible. Witha constructivist approach, Research Strategies begins by formulating aresearch question. After doing so, the student will identify appropriate re-search tools: books, magazine and journal indexes, and other tools, such asWeb search engines and audio-visual materials, etc. The instructor wantsthe students to be able to find relevant information regardless of format. Thestudent should also become aware of the difference between popular andscholarly material, as well as primary and secondary sources. In addition,memory plays an important role. The student should be able to place detail(the results of research) into a structured pattern (the research question).One of the assignments is to formulate research questions and find sourcesin support of each topic. This replication is intended to reinforce the indi-vidual student’s memory of the research process. In Bruner’s words (1966,1), understanding the basic principles leads to a transfer of learning whichmeans that “to understand something of a specific instance of a more gen-eral case . . . is to have learned not only a specific thing but also a model forunderstanding other things like it one may encounter.” In our context, this“transfer of learning” enables the students to apply the research skills theydevelop in Research Strategies to other subsequent coursework. For theirpart, the instructors will constantly re-examine the fundamental material,and try to narrow the gap between “advanced” and “elementary” knowl-edge. This situation, of course, touches upon Vygotsky’s (1978) “zones ofproximal development” (or the gap between what a learner already knowsand what the learner can accomplish with the assistance of an instructor orpeer). As an expert model, the instructor must first master the material. Thegoal is to move the students from their beginning “elementary” stage ofonline searching toward the more “advanced” stage of information literacy.

To recapitulate, the emphasis falls on the fundamental principles thatgive structure to the subject under discussion. If material remains tooabstract, it will provide little, if any, intellectual excitement. Therefore,the material must be embedded within the students’ learning environ-ment. Without this contextual background, it will be difficult to generalizethe material and then apply it to other situations, or, in the case of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


undergraduate student, other classes. Without structure, that is, an under-standing of the basic principles of the research process, the material islikely to be forgotten.

Bruner’s second theme is the individual’s readiness for learning: “Webegin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively insome intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development”(Bruner 1960, 33). Three steps comprise Bruner’s discussion. First is theindividual’s intellectual development. It is here that Bruner considers Pi-aget’s four cognitive stages. Although we are beyond the four stages withour learners who are college students, we agree with Piaget and Inhelder(1969) that learning is transformational. The second step is the act of learn-ing itself, which comprises three processes of an instructional episode:acquisition of new knowledge (or the refinement of previous knowledge);transformation (manipulating the knowledge for new tasks); and evalua-tion (determining whether the manipulated knowledge is adequate to thetask). For our part, we must recognize that our students possess vary-ing research skills. Chronologically, college and university students are atPiaget’s fourth stage—formal operations, where they are, at least theoreti-cally, capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. In this case, we aretaking an epistemological, rather than psychological, view of Piaget’s fourstages. Academically, of course, this may not be the case. Some studentsmay have already acquired the knowledge (or in this case, skill) and beready to manipulate the data for a proposed task. An expert can probablyretrieve manipulated data at the outset, and, hence, will move quickly tothe evaluation state. Finally, Bruner discusses his theory of “spiral curricu-lum,” which translates the material into logical forms. Consideration ofthe spiral curriculum permits us to begin with the basic building blocks ofresearch skill(s) and move toward a more advanced level. Key concepts canbe taught in some form to any and every student. Students who claim to becomputer illiterate can still be taught the skills necessary for informationliteracy.

The third theme involves intuitive and analytic thinking, which proceedsfrom a solid understanding of the structure and seeks to promote confi-dence based on a solid foundation. At this stage, we are trying to moveaway from formalism toward the ability to exercise judgment. The goalhere is to instill procedures that will contribute to the improvement of in-tuitive thinking. Still, the learner needs solid knowledge of the subject forintuition to work. Analytic thinking proceeds one step at a time; intuitivethinking is usually less formulaic, and, hence, does not always advancein well-defined steps. The students start their research project deductively.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


They formulate a research question and then try to locate resources in sup-port of that question. By the end of the course, we hope that the studentscan intuitively formulate the research question as a result of their research.The students are then able to reason inductively and experiment with theirresearch skills.

The final theme taken up by Bruner concerns motives for learning. Here,we need to differentiate among motivation to learn (the internal character-istics of each learner in contact with the external tactics and environmentalfactors that stimulate learning), motivation to work (designing the learningenvironment to match the motivational characteristics of the learner), andself-motivation, which gives the impetus for learning to the student herselfor himself. We desire to promote a positive attitude about intellectual ac-tivity, and we seek to develop within the student an interest in what he orshe is learning. The students should also approach this activity honestly.It is permissible to use other people’s work if and when this work is prop-erly acknowledged—hence, the importance attached to a properly written“Works Cited” page. As instructors, we do not require extensive citationfor the sake of citation, but, rather, to establish an authority record that willenable replication of the research.

Bruner’s conclusion (Aids to Teaching) also applies to Research Strate-gies. In 1960, it was impossible to forecast the role that the computerwould eventually play in society, yet Bruner foresaw the increasing impor-tance of technology in the classroom. While we no longer worry whetherthe computer dehumanizes learning, we are aware that the devices them-selves do not dictate their purpose. That is, we don’t require students toengage in online searching for the purpose of mastering the machine, butto achieve an external goal—the skill necessary to manipulate data to sup-port a research question. As teachers or facilitators, we need to master theknowledge that we want students to learn. In Bruner’s terms, we need to becommunicators, models, and identification figures. Our task as educatorsis to challenge the superior student without destroying the confidence ofthe less academically accomplished learner. By adopting a constructivistlearning theory, the librarian as instructor is able to expand the experienceof the students and give it personal significance.

What do We Hope to Accomplish with Such a Course?

Each of the five information literacy competency standards are accompa-nied by performance indicators (ALA 2007), which can be used to promotecritical thinking skills (Johnson 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


� Standard One outcomes. The student should confer with the instructor,and, where applicable, with peers, to identify a research topic andthen develop both a thesis statement and key concepts that describethe information need. At this stage, the student will consult generalsources to increase personal familiarity with the topic. We expect thatthe student will consult a variety of sources (print and electronic) andbe able to differentiate both between primary and secondary sourcesand between popular and scholarly articles. The student should feelcomfortable that the project is confined to a manageable focus.

� Standard Two outcomes. The student develops a relevant researchplan, and, where necessary, utilizes specialized information sources(interlibrary loan, professional associations, etc.) if the necessary in-formation cannot be found locally. The learner subsequently assessesthe quality and relevance of the search to identify gaps in the processof information retrieval. At this point, the researcher moves beyondgeneral information sources and seeks out more specialized material.The student should be able to organize the information and recordpertinent citations for future reference.

� Standard Three outcomes. At this stage, the student reads the text(s)and selects the main ideas for the research project. The student com-pares information extracted from a variety of sources, and then com-pares the viewpoints contained therein to determine their relevancy.We hope at this point that the individual can recognize the relationshipamong concepts and begin to combine them into useful research. Thestudent also begins to evaluate the usefulness of information, and thusacquire the skill to reject incorrect viewpoints. By now, the studentcan determine whether the original information need has been met oradditional research is required.

� Standard Four outcomes. The student should be able to organize thematerial to support the original thesis statement. In addition, he or sheincorporates new material, for example, quotations, and can manip-ulate digital text and materials and transfer them from their originalformat to this new context. Finally, the student chooses a mediumof communication that best supports the purpose of the research andcommunicates clearly the results of that research.

� Standard Five outcomes. We want the student to be familiar withprivacy and security issues. He/she is familiar with “netiquette” anduses approved passwords and other forms of identification to accessvarious information resources. The student needs to be familiar withissues of intellectual property rights and copyright. He or she selects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


a documentation style and uses it consistently to cite sources. If needbe, the student posts permission notices for the fair use of copyrightmaterial.

The reason “for eventually stating all objectives in terms of learnerperformance (rather than in terms of what the materials present or whatthe teacher does) is to be able to measure that performance to determinewhen the objectives have been reached” (Gagne and Briggs 1974, 31).

Which Learning Theory Best Contributes to Information Literacy?

Each of the learning theories can contribute to the instructional designof Research Strategies (Bush 2006). If we are concerned with measurableoutcomes (and if Research Strategies is meant to provide quantifiable datafor the assessment process), the course will be constructed more in linewith behaviorist principles. If the emphasis in Research Strategies is onthe student developing information literacy at his or her own speed, moreattention should be given to the constructivist theory. When designing thecourse, attention must be paid to student motivation (Vosniadou 2007). Ifthe students are self-motivated, the course can be offered on a pass/failbasis (constructivist). If constant reinforcement is needed to encourage thestudents to do the work, the course will have to utilize a grading scale(behaviorist) (Cranton 2000). In actuality, an undergraduate course suchas Research Strategies will be a blended course, incorporating elements ofboth the behaviorist and constructivist learning theories (Hjorland 2002).Behaviorist theory contends that knowledge (or information) exists in theenvironment. This information, of course, consists of particular print mate-rials, databases, Websites, etc. It is the task of the librarian, as instructor, tointroduce the student to these resources. Constructivist theory, on the otherhand, holds that the individual student personally constructs knowledge. Inthis case, the librarian wants the student to work at his or her own individualpace and discover the information sources that are most appropriate to theassignment at hand. A blended module will point the student to specificinformation sources, but that student becomes ultimately responsible forconstructing the use of those sources.

What is the Relationship of Information Literacy to Critical Think-ing?

Information literacy, as expressed in the ACRL standards, serves a vi-tal function in promoting critical thinking in the 21st century. Critical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


thinking and information literacy are hard-earned skills. They both rep-resent what cognitive scientists call higher-order skills; that is, they arecomplex activities which are built up out of other skills that are easierto master (van Gelder 2005). For students to improve, they must prac-tice information literacy and engage in critical thinking. Ericsson (1994)has found that excellence in any field results from what he terms “de-liberate” practice, that is, activity undertaken with the goal of generatingimprovement. Such practice, it is hoped, will permit the learner to trans-fer a skill learned in one context to other situations. To facilitate thisprocess, the librarian as instructor must teach for transfer. The skills astudent masters in developing information literacy will transfer to otherdomains. A skill, once mastered, can be applied spontaneously to other sit-uations (Halpern 1998). A course aimed at developing information literacy,whether based on a behaviorist or constructivist learning theory, can assiststudents in developing such skills that they can transfer to other areas. Sucha class constitutes the library’s contribution to the development of criticalthinking.

CONCLUSION

As an integral component of the academy, libraries are well poisedto play an influential role in fostering critical thinking on college anduniversity campuses. It is of vital importance for academic libraries tolink information literacy with the mission statement of their parent in-stitution. As faculty members, librarians must seek out avenues of col-laboration with teaching faculty. A well-designed instructional programwould encourage horizontal (across disciplines) and vertical (encompass-ing lower- and upper-division undergraduate as well as graduate students)integration of information literacy on campus. In turn, this collaborationshould give librarians a voice in curricular reform. Curricular design andreview can be the single most important factor that favors informationliteracy (Bennett 2007). Participation in the process would bring the li-brarians out of the library and into the virtual classroom. As with anyclassroom instructor, librarians require familiarity with learning theories.Once these are mastered, librarians’ contribution to the academy willnot be limited to the “production” of information for patrons, but ratherthe addition of critical thinking to the ongoing process of informationliteracy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


REFERENCES

American Library Association (ALA). 2007. Information Literacy Competency Standardsfor Higher Education. http://ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompe-tency.htm.

Arp, L. 2006. Faculty-librarian collaboration to achieve integration of information literacy.Reference & User Services Quarterly 46:18–23.

Baker, L. 2006. Library instruction in the rearview mirror: A reflective look at the evolutionof a first year library program using evidence-based practice. College & UndergraduateLibraries 13:1–20.

Bennett, S. 2007. Campus cultures fostering information literacy. Portal: Libraries & theAcademy 7:152–158.

Brabazon, T. 2006. The Google effect: Googling, blogging, wikis and the flattening ofexpertise. Libri: The International Journal of Libraries and Information Sources 56:157–167.

Bruner, J. 1960. The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Bruner, J. 1966. The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist 19:1–4.Bruner, J. 1976. Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Burton, J. K., D. M. Moore, and S. G. Magliaro. 1996. Behaviorism and instructional

technology. In D.H. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of research for educational communicationsand technology, 46–73. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Bush, G. 2006. Learning about learning: From theories to trends. Teacher Librarian De-cember, 14–18.

Cathcart, R., and A. Roberts. 2005. Evaluating Google Scholar as a tool for informationliteracy. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10:167–176.

Cranton, P. 2000. Planning instruction for adult learners. 2nd ed. Toronto: Wall & Emerson,Inc.

Driscoll, M. P. 2000. Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Duffy, T. M., and D. J. Cunningham. 1996. Constructivism: Implications for the de-sign and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of research for ed-ucational communications and technology, 170–198. New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillan.

Ericsson, K. A., and N. Charness. 1994. Expert performance. American Psychologist49:725–747.

Facion, P. A. 1990. Executive summary of critical thinking; A statement of expert consensusfor purposes of educational assessment and instruction, including all tables, findingsand recommendations of The Delphi Report. Prepared for the American PhilosophicalAssociation. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Frand, J. L. 2001.The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications forhigher education. Educause Review 35:12–24.

Gagne, R. M., and L. J. Briggs. 1974. Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Grassian, E. 2004. Building on bibliographic instruction. American Libraries, October,51–53.

Gullicksen, S. 2006. Faculty perceptions of ACRL’s Literacy Competency Standards forHigher Education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32:583–592.

Halpern, D. F. 1998. Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. AmericanPsychologist 53:449–455.

Halpern, D., and B. Donaghey. 2002. Learning theory: Historical overview. In J. W. Guthrie,ed., Encyclopedia of education, 1462. New York: Macmillan Reference, Inc.

Hjorland, B. 2002. Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information sci-ence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53:257–270.

Huang, J., and S. Russell. 2006. The digital divide and academic achievement. ElectronicLibrary 24:160–173.

Johnson, W., A. Burke, and B. Evans. 2001. Bibliographic instructional design: A casestudy. Community and Junior College Libraries 10:17–37.

Johnson, W. 2005. Information literacy and library instruction. Community and JuniorCollege Libraries 13:25–35.

Katz, I. R. 2007. ETS research finds college students fall short in demonstration IT literacy.College & Research Libraries News 68:35–37.

Knapp, P. 1966. The Monteith College Library experiment. New York: The ScarecrowPress, Inc.

Marr, J. 2006. Through the looking glass: Symmetry in behavioral principles? BehaviorAnalyst 29: 125–128.

McDonald, J. K., S. C. Yanchar, and R. T. Osguthorpe. 2005. Learning from programmedinstruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. EducationalTechnology Research and Development 53:84–98.

Mestre, L. 2006. Accommodating diverse learning styles in an online envnironment,. Ref-erence & User Services Quarterly 4:27–32.

Nilsen, H., and S. Purao. 2005. Balancing objectivist and constructivist pedagogies forteaching emerging technologies: Evidence from a Scandinavian case study. Journal ofInformation Systems Education 16:281–292.

Piaget, J., and B. Inhelder. 1969. The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Roblyer, M. D. 1998. Visual literacy: Seeing a new rationale for teaching with technology.

Learning and Leading with Technology 26:51–54.Sidman, M. 2006. The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: Some

additional considerations. Behavior Analyst 29:135–139.Skinner, B. F. 1971. Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Skinner, B. F. 1968. The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Thompson, C. 2003. Information illiterate or lazy: How college students use the Web for

research. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 3:259–268.Thorndike, E. L. 1921. Educational psychology. New York: Teacher’s College Press.van Gelder, T. 2005. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science.

College Teaching 53:41–46.Vosniadou, S. 2007. Conceptual change and education. Human Development 50:47–54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Ward, D. 2006. Revisioning information literacy for lifelong learning. The Journal of

Academic Librarianship 32:396–402.Weiler, A. 2005. Information-seeking behavior in Generation Y students: motivation, crit-

ical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31:46–53.

Received: 07/09/07Revised/Reviewed: 09/17/07

Accepted: 09/17/07

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:15

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the application of learning theory to information literacy

Documents