… at the end …

What do I now know about inquiry based learning?

The nexus of information and learning occurs when one gathers the information required and then applies that information to achieve a set of goals.

Information Gathering requires: The formulation of relevant questions Information-as-process (what you know is changed) Information-as-knowledge (reduces uncertainty but sometimes uncertainty is increased) Information-as-thing (data, documents that have the quality of communicating information) (Buckland, 1991) Skills which include: Search Organisation Time management Reflection Learning does not end, it informs our future inquiries

Learning can be expressed in a myriad of ways Objective opinions Subjective views Mobilisation into action within one’s micro and macro environment Creation of knowledge which is a reflection of the process A change in direction given self-reflection

So what did Einstein mean when he stated, “Information is not knowledge”?  I thought I was being clever in naming my blog this!  I thought he meant having access to information does not automatically give rise to understanding and this I held to be highly relevant today with our unprecedented access to, what appears to be, limitless information.  But this unit has caused me to reflect on this blog’s URL.  Information is that which ‘informs’ and our physical and virtual environment does just that; it informs and this process changes, even disrupts what we know.

What else has disrupted my pre-existing knowledge of inquiry based learning and information literacy?

Inquiry models should include a questioning framework, information literacy/information search process, and an action research cycle.  I formulated a diagram, below, of the three elements Lupton (2012) maintains must be present in an inquiry.

When we inquire, we must ask questions.  This I knew but I now acknowledge that successful inquirers must ask questions first and continue to ask questions throughout the information search process.   Interestingly, I came across an institute which dedicates itself to help teach students not how to answer questions but rather how to pose them.  Click on the image below to be directed to the Right Question Institute.

When you teach within a discipline, one of the first areas students should investigate is what it means to be a scientist, how do scientists think? What does it mean to be a geographer? A historian?  This then informs the questioning framework each discipline applies to their inquiries.

To be successful inquirers, students must be information literate.  Rather than viewing these skills as a generic set, I would prefer to develop an information literacy continuum which is informed by one of the already existing continua, such as the The New Haven Unified School District Library Media Program or The New York City School Library System Information Fluency Program and apply the GeST Windows model which classifies these skills into either Generic, Situated or Transformative as well as the requirements of the inquiry models as proposed by the Australian Curriculum.

The action research cycle applies both within the one inquiry and links inquiries.  Often an inquiry ends but certain questions remain unanswered, ideally these should inform future inquiries.  Students need to understand that following an information search process does not necessarily lead them from one stage to the next but often times students may need to return to previous stages to clarify how they ought to move forward.  As can be seen in the Stripling Model of Inquiry below, there is not a lock-step process, but constant movement back and forward between the stages of the inquiry model, and indeed, it is labelled a cycle.

I have also answered my initial questions identified in At the beginning … but now have more … at the end.

As a teacher this satire makes me think about whether or not I have been the one asking the questions?  Have I given my students enough opportunity to ask their own questions?

How interested am I in this topic and how much do I now know?

I don’t believe I can consider myself a teacher librarian if I were not a great deal interested in this topic.  It is at the very heart of a TL’s practice.  Although they come to an end, inquiries often leave unanswered questions.  Until these are answered I would have to rate my knowledge of the topic as quite a bit but with a great deal left to go.  For example, I would have to collaborate with a variety of teachers in the generation of inquiries for their classes, help to administer, and become a member of the instructional teams to gain this knowledge.  This experience and subsequent reflection will assist with my understanding.

What did I find easy?

I found a number of aspects of this research project easy.  I enjoy using Web 2.0 tools and there are literally hundreds which can be utilised in a project such as this.   I now feel very comfortable with online research, using both Google, Google Scholar and databases.  Yes, I do believe I have become the Googlemaster.

What did I find difficult?

Studying this unit has been difficult.  I have found it difficult, at first, to differentiate between inquiry and information literacy but now I recognise how information literacy is a skill set whilst inquiry is both a pedagogical and learning approach.  I have found it difficult to process the requirements of this blog, yet, I don’t believe I would be enjoying the clarity I have now if I weren’t pushed to engage and re-engage with the course work through a variety of modes which includes this blog, the presentation, involvement in the ILA and membership of a small group devoted to supplying each other with formative feedback on our posts.  I also found it difficult to tape my presentation of my findings and recommendations.  I presented to a group of teachers and rather than taking 20 minutes the presentation went for almost 50 minutes.  It was a tremendous experience and one I will conduct again.  The presentation was more of a conversation and each teacher noted that there should be more discussions of that nature occurring in our school.

What did I learn doing this research project?

With regards to what I learned by doing this research project, I can only add to what I have already identified in the first part of this post.  And to this, I would add that when schools list as one of their aims that students graduate with the characteristics necessary to continue learning, then learning how to inquire must be central to achieving this aim.

Recommendations for Future ILAs

Information Learning Theories Enacted

The Information Learning Activity (ILA) required students to contribute to a travel wiki about a country of their choice.  They were to conduct an inquiry into the customs, rituals, landmarks, accommodation and other useful information travellers are likely to need when touring that country.  Certain concepts identified by Wilson and Cole (in Murphy, 1997), which are inherent in constructivist learning theory, were present in the administration of this ILA.  They are that:

• rather than studying their countries in an academic context, students were given the opportunity to engage in an authentic experience of their country; that is, they were asked to present their knowledge using a real-world web 2.0 tool; and
• they were given a degree of control over their inquiry in that they were given a choice of country.

As such, students were provided with a constructivist environment in which to learn and produce their final product; that is, knowledge was individually constructed and socially co-constructed by learners based on their interpretations of experiences in the world (Jonassen, 1998).

The Inquiry Model l Used

Kuhlthau’s Guided Inquiry Model (2007) was adopted for this ILA.  As reported in a previous post (Library Focus during the ILA – Response to Initial Data Collection), I stepped the students through each of the stages of this model during our library lessons and explained to them the importance of reflection and returning to a stage if required.  Indeed, students had access to an instructional team of teachers comprising their Study of Society and Environment (SOSE) teacher, Information and Technology (IT) teacher and the teacher librarian (TL).

A Critical Evaluation of the ILA

Adoption of the Guided Inquiry Model

As I have shared in a previous post, this was my first semester as a TL at a school I had previously worked at for twelve years.  This semester’s ILA with the Year Sevens coincided with my first-ever Year Seven library lessons.  Each week I would see the four Year Seven classes.  This was a perfect fit for my study into the Information Learning Nexus and so I adopted the Guided Inquiry model and planned to cover each stage in my lessons.

Time was a considerable factor when you only see a class once a week.  The SOSE teacher, who had run this unit for a number of years with the previous TL and the previous IT teacher, was used to a particular approach.  This approach included a TL who had developed a highly structured Research Booklet and an IT teacher who taught the class how to produce an A4 brochure about their country.  This year saw a new TL and a new IT teacher.  I chose to structure my library lessons around the Guided Inquiry Model and the IT teacher decided to use a wiki rather than have the students produce a brochure.  The SOSE teacher’s previous experience included his issuing of the task after the TL had already commenced students on their Research booklet.

I negotiated the issue of the task at the commencement of the semester and then during each lesson I saw them, they would progress through the stages.  Unfortunately, at the same time as I was doing this, the teacher during SOSE lessons was covering content which would be assessed in an examination, administered in Week 4.  Students would see me once a week, we would talk about the week’s inquiry stage, and then for the coming week they would not have another opportunity to progress with their inquiry until they saw me in their next library lesson.  When the SOSE teacher was ready to commence work on the Travel Wiki he was expecting they had covered a good deal of the research but in fact we had only just commenced.  This places a spotlight on the role of the library lesson.  Certainly, this term I have experienced a similar disconnect with what I am trying to achieve in my time with the students and with what is happening for them in their classes.

GeST Windows

Lupton and Bruce (2010) classify information literacy skills into three windows: the generic, situated and transformative; that is, the GeST Windows.  These windows are in a sense ‘nested’.  You cannot look through the situated window without first looking through the generic.  The skills of the generic window are required to be competent with the situated; similarly the skills of the situated are required to be competent with the transformative (see Figure 1, below).  Students were not directed during their investigations to make

Figure 1 – The Nested GeST Windows (Lupton, 2012)

judgements regarding their country.  Their job was to report facts and to regard information as external and objective; that is, they applied the generic information literacy skills and processes.  However, the nature of their investigations did give them pause to consider whether they themselves would like to travel to their country.  When asked, only two students indicated they would not:

Such reflections could be regarded as internal and subjective; that is, the situated information literacy window.  Without being directed, most students will seek to make meaning of what they are learning and how it impacts on what they already know and their place in the world.  After all, they “are actively involved in making sense of the world around [them] rather than being passive receivers of information” (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 15).

This ILA targeted the skill set contained within the Generic Window.  Although, there were elements which pertained to the Situated.  For example, students were directed to contribute to a wiki.   By its very nature a wiki is a collaborative tool to be used within a community situation.  This would satisfy the use of information for community purposes in the situated context; however, the wiki was used more as a pin board on which students tacked their A4 brochures rather than a space where they could share and reflect on each other’s efforts.  Therefore, the nature of this ILA explains why the students drew from the information literacy skills of the Generic Window rather than from the Situated and Transformative.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy identifies a hierarchy of thinking skills from the low order up to the higher order (see Figure 2, below).  The ILA, when measured against this hierarchy,

Figure 2 – Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Churches, 2009 p. 5)

clearly focuses on the lower order thinking skills of Understanding and Remembering.  However, students were also challenged to Create their wiki page.  This primary focus on lower-order thinking skills does explain why students predominantly provided factual responses rather than explanations or conclusions when asked what they had learned.

Recommendations for Future Practice

Re-designing the activity into a stronger inquiry model

This ILA was run for the final time at the site, therefore, any proposal to improve the nature of this particular ILA would not be worthwhile.  However, I would like to propose the following set of considerations for any ILA run in future Year 7 Geography classes under the Australian Curriculum.

The Adoption of an Inquiry Model

Lupton (2012, August 22) advocates that strong inquiry models contain three elements: a questioning framework, an information literacy/information seeking process and an action research cycle (see Figure 3, below for my representation of such a model).

Figure 3 – Lupton’s (2012) Inquiry Model

The Questioning Framework

Naturally, questions are at the very heart of inquiry.  Both teachers and students ask questions: teachers to guide and direct, students to narrow their field of study and choose areas of interest (Lupton, 2012).  Although the ACARA F-12 Australian Curriculum Geography Draft does supply questions which geographers ought to ask, it is important that students are also given guidelines for formulating questions with which to frame their inquiries; for example, frameworks such as McTighe’s Essential Questions or the Question Formulation Technique.

Inquiry Models

The ACARA F-12 Australian Curriculum:  Geography Draft contains an inquiry model which is designed with the subject discipline in mind.  Units on ‘Environmental resources’ and ‘Why people live where they do’ are the focus in Year 7.  Geographical inquiry and skills are also addressed and detailed in the draft curriculum, the stages of which include:

• Observing and questioning
• Planning, collecting and evaluating
• Processing, analysing, interpreting and concluding
• Communicating
• Reflecting and responding.

Action Research Cycle

In the Draft F-12 Australian Curriculum:  Geography students are also challenged to formulate action plans and there is clear evidence that an action research cycle can be adopted through the Year 7 course ‘Environmental Resources’ and ‘Why people live where they do’ and into Year 8 when students study ‘Landscapes’ and ‘Personal and community geographies’.   Inquiry units developed around each of these units can inform the next.  Further, the inquiry model proposed invites students to use the data and information they collect, analyse and then recommend action to their local and wider community.

My recommendations with regard to the adoption of an inquiry model include:

• Focus on what it means to be a geographer.  Adopt the questioning framework in the Australian Curriculum and use this as a lense through which students view their world.
• Provide students with guidance and direction in the formulation of questions to help frame their inquiries.
• Adopt the inquiry model proposed in the Australian Curriculum to facilitate the structure of geographical inquiry which builds in the essence of a Guided Inquiry model.  This model allows for the necessary scaffolding, with the help of an instructional team, to allow students to perform tasks that would normally be slightly beyond their ability (Murphy, 1997).
• Continue with an instructional team comprising the Geography teacher, IT teacher and the TL.
• Facilitate closer collaboration amongst the instructional team.  Perhaps this warrants the consideration to do away with the discrete library lesson and to involve the TL directly in the Geography and IT classes at significant stages of the inquiry process when students require intervention; that is, during the early stages of observing and questioning, planning and collecting because this is the time during which students often experience confusion and require guided direction and intervention (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 18).
• Develop a school-based approach to information literacy which is based on the GeST Information Literacy Model.  This model should be applied to take “advantage of the technology available to connect, to participate and make a difference in their community” (Jenkins YouTube video, 2010).
• Collaborate with teachers in the planning and preparation of units of work and recognise the need for an action research cycle to permit students to draw on what they have learned, which in turn will shape their search for new information.

Bibliography

Churches, A. (2009, April 1). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from Edorigami: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf

Jenkins, H. (2010, April 13). TEDxNYED – Henry Jenkins [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AFCLKa0XRlw

Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional Theories and Models (2nd Edition ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). The Theory and Research basis for Guided Inquiry. In C. C. Kuhlthau, L. K. Maniotes, & A. K. Caspari, Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century (pp. 13-28). Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Lupton, M. (2012). CLN650 Week 4 GeST Windows [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_84672_1%26url%3D

Lupton, M. (2012, August 22). What is Inquiry Learning? Retrieved October 30, 2012, from Inquiry Learning and Information Literacy: http://inquirylearningblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/what-is-inquiry-learning/

Lupton, M., & Bruce, C. (2010). Windows on Information Literacy Worlds: Generic, Situated and Transformation Perspectives. In A. Lloyd, & S. Talja, Practising Information Literacy: Bringing theories of Learning, Practice and Information Literacy Together (pp. 3-27). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.

McTighe, J. (2008). Essential questions:  Doorways to inquiry and understanding.  Retrieved from http://images.schoolinsites.com/SiSFiles/Schools/TN/GreenevilleCity/GreenevilleHigh/Uploads/DocumentsCategories/Documents/McTighe%20-%20Essential%20Questions.pdf

Murphy, E. (1997). Characteristics of Constructivist Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/cle3.html

Rothstein, D. and Santana, L. (2011). Teaching students to ask their own questions. Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/hel/article/507#home

MOISP: A Personal Reflection

Kuhlthau’s (2007, p. 19) Model of Information Search Process frames the process according to ones emotions, thoughts, and actions as they work through an inquiry (see below).  It’s almost reassuring to note that vagueness and uncertainty feature!  Indeed, I wonder if she was restraining herself when she chose those particular descriptors.

Therefore, at my half-way point I am going to apply this model of ISP to assess My Own Information Search Process.

Initiation

As I have navigated my way through the maze of tasks, the body of which represents the first piece of assessment for this unit, I have to say that ‘vague’ just didn’t cut it for me.  I think a look would do better to represent how I felt during the Initiation stage of My Own Information Search Process … ” … a genuine expression of an agitated mind”.  That is, the Scream by Edvard Munch.  Painted in 1910, how long has this unit been on offer at QUT?  Was Edvard ever enrolled at QUT?  Was he a Teacher Librarian?  Did he finish the course?

Here’s my Initiation funnel:  feelings, thoughts and actions go in, intiation takes place.  How I came through this funnel is anyone’s guess but perseverance and support certainly are factors.  In the bubbles below, each of the first points, in black, have been lifted from Kuhlthau’s  ISP above, below each of these are my actual reflections.

I read the course material, I tried to engage with the tasks but still there was absolutely no clarity.  Am I over-dramatising?  Perhaps but I certainly did feel directionless.  As McKenzie (2000, para. 6) states so eloquently “when students explore truly demanding questions, they rarely know what they don’t know when they first plan their investigations.”  How true, except I knew enough to know I needed more information to gain that sense of clarity.  Although I did identify a series of questions I wanted answered from the outset these really didn’t help me at this early stage.

Selection

And then there came Selection.  I choose to characterise this stage with the determination of my ILA.  It was at this stage that I was trying to squeeze a number of options into my unit timeline.  Some great opportunities were missed because students had started their search process before the end of last term.  So I settled on my own Year 7 library classes.  This made me feel even more unsettled.  You see I’m a newly appointed teacher librarian with 23 years experience in the classroom, the last 12 have been spent with Years 10, 11 and 12 in a Business Studies context.  Teaching four Year 7 classes for one lesson a week, well …

Yes.  That’s me, fish out of water and it appears that I am hanging off some corrugated iron.  Rather than feeling optimism, I actually felt worst.  My selection did not leave me feeling like I had direction but rather, “How can I make this possibly work!”  Here’s my Selection funnel …

Exploration

Kuhlthau proposes that students sink back into a state of confusion, frustration and doubt after the feelings of optimism subside (I’m assuming most people have these feelings of optimism because a) they’ve made their first decision, they’re focused and b) they can get started with their search). I can certainly attest to these feelings; however, for one brief moment I did feel very pleased with myself.  I had engaged with the Google expert search strategies and managed to produce my video.  I felt well satisfied.  But then straight back to those predicted feelings of confusion, frustration and doubt [check].

Formulation

After my brief elation at the completion of my Google video I did sink back into feelings of doubt when I considered what was left to accomplish.  However, my systematic search of each database produced such great results that all proved highly relevant.  I’ve never been so successful with my research.  The strategies I was introduced to during the lectures and my own research into the various databases almost made my searches effortless.  The work I completed on my Annotated Bibliography continued to lend both clarity and focus my processes.

The entire process for me, to this stage, has focused on the development of my own information literacy skills.  That is, those skills that enable me to search, manage and evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of sources found.  Lupton and Bruce (2010) would describe my experiences as looking through the Generic Window.  Their GeST Windows Model of information literacy positions the entire information literacy processes and skills as looking through a series of windows starting with the Generic, Situated and Transformative.  These windows are positioned in such a way that you could look out of the Generic Window but when you look through the Situated Window you are also looking through the Generic and likewise with the Transformative Window; you look through it and through the Situated and the Generic Windows.  In this way the Generic Window represents the most common sets of skills and processes associated with information literacy.

To this point my focus has been on the set of skills listed in the table below; for example, the practice of search strategies.   I expect that my experiences with this unit will take me

behind the Situated Window and it would be my hope that with my final piece of

assessment I might be able to challenge the current practices at my school and take a glimpse through the Transformative Window.

A further model for inquiry is McKenzie’s (2000) Research Cycle (below) which was developed to “support broad-based adoption of effective quetioning and research strategies” (McKenzie, 2000, para. 2).  This model is characterised by the repeated ‘cycling’ through of the questioning, planning, gathering, sorting, synthesising and evaluating stages.  In this way this process is not linear but encourages students to constantly evaluate the material they are collecting and their understanding to determine whether they should move forward in the process or cycle back.

Although Kuhlthau’s model of Guided Inquiry (see below) lacks that ‘cycle’ nature, the process itself builds in the opportunity for students to take their time to engage with their inquiry, develop focus and evaluate their needs.  Further, intervention at crucial stages of the process by the instructional team (teacher librarian and classroom teacher amongst them) should allow for the necessary support to permit students to move forward.

Guided Inquiry

It’s at this point that I will end my reflection on My Own Information Search Process.  I’ll conclude my reflection at the end of my study for this unit.  At that point I’ll reflect on the Collection, Presentation and Assessment stages.  So stay tuned but that’s all folks … for now.

References

Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K. & Caspari, A. K. (2007). The theory and research basis for Guided Inquiry.  In Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K. & Caspari, A. K. Guided Inquiry:  Learning in the 21st century (pp. 13-28).  Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.  Retrieved from Queensland University of Technology Course Materials Database.

Lupton, M. & Bruce, C. (2010). Windows on information literacy worlds:  Generic, situated and transformative perspectives.  In Lloyd, A. & Talja, S. Practising information literacy:  Bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy together (pp. 3-27). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies. Retrieved from Queensland University of Technology Course Materials Database.

McKenzie, J. (2000). The research cycle. Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/dec99/rcycle.html

Inquiry Based Learning in Geography and the Teacher Librarian

A relevant body of research into Guided Inquiry can inform the practice of constructing an Information Learning Activity (ILA).  This nexus of theory and practice situates the author’s role as a Teacher Librarian information specialist who is collaborating with a classroom teacher to guide students through the inquiry process focused on a Year Seven multiculturalism unit which is part of the curriculum area, Study of Society and Environment.

The importance of integrating inquiry skills with information literacy is further supported internationally by the work of Miller, Keller and Yore (2005, p. 256) who report that a clear message, which emerged from their geographic information literacy survey, was that “knowing how to access, evaluate, and use Geographic information found on the internet are abilities very important to essential.”

The focus unit for this Year 7 ILA is consistent with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) Geography unit, “People” (ACARA, 2011).  Indeed, ACARA identifies among its key aims for the Geography curriculum the development of a sense of wonder and curiosity and the empowering of students to pose, plan and conduct inquiries.  Further, Hutchinson and Kriewaldt (2010) report that emerging from their involvement in an Australian Research Council project, the facilitation of inquiry was a key component of “accomplished” Geography teaching.

Inquiry lies at the very heart of Geography.  Indeed, Purnell and Harrison (2011) see it as critical.  Hutchinson and Kriewaldt (2010, p. 36) specify that the geographic inquiry process can be delivered in a variety of ways ranging from structured to open-ended investigations and fieldwork.  Further, Lupton (2012, p. 14) rates “geographical inquiry in the Australian Curriculum [as] the most sophisticated and comprehensive … [as] seen in the range of sources used, the range of perspectives employed, the consideration of different types of audience and the inclusion of action as an outcome of inquiry.”

Geographical inquiry is dependent upon the formulation of questions at key stages of the inquiry. McInerney, Berg, Hutchinson, Maude & Sorensen (2009, p. 17) stipulate that geographical knowledge is divided into substantive and procedural knowledge; substantive representing the content and procedural as represented by perspectives, questions, methods and skills.  Teaching procedural knowledge effectively involves the application of inquiry-based methods.  McInerney et al. (2009, p. 21) detail the typical stages of a geographical inquiry as:  selecting the object of study; data collection; data analysis; understanding and explaining; evaluating; applying geographical understanding; and presenting.  At most stages of the geographical inquiry the following questions should be posed:

 

 

It can be argued that teacher librarians are well placed to facilitate the constructivist pedagogy underpinning such inquiry learning.  Lupton (2012) argues that the whole-of-curriculum responsibility of teacher librarians places them in an opportune position to collaborate with classroom teachers in order to bridge the gap between inquiry skills and the requisite suite of information literacy including both searching for and gathering information.  Fontichiaro (2010) argues that inquiry-based learning activities by their very nature invite librarians into all stages thereof in that inquiry does not replace information literacy but rather entails it.

Kuhlthau (2010) goes so far as to identify inquiry as the foundation of the information age school and vital  to this process is the collaborative work of librarians and classroom teachers.  Kuhlthau (2010) identifies five kinds of learning that can be accomplished through inquiry; namely, information literacy, learning how to learn, curriculum content, literacy and social skills.

Purnell and Harrison (2011) warn that one of the key obstacles to Guided Inquiry in the classroom is teachers’ lack of expertise in elaborating and implementing the process of inquiry.  Given this caution, it seems even more essential for the classroom teacher to harness the support of one who has expertise in the research process; namely, teacher librarians.  Here, the scaffolding of the School Library Impact Measure (SLIM) (Fitzgerald, 2011 and Todd, 2011) may inform this partnership as these two groups of professionals work together to help students navigate through inquiry phases and develop their capacity for metacognition about information processes.  Indeed, one of the reflection tasks is to have students respond to the question, “How did the school librarian help you?”  The SLIM consists of three reflective tasks integrated into the Guided Inquiry sequence:  initiation, midway and at the assessment stage.  This SLIM toolkit facilitates a systematic approach to inquiry in that it helps classroom teachers and teacher librarians to chart the information-to-knowledge journey of students and thereby help these professionals to collaborate about useful, task-specific interventions along the way.

Hauf (2010) foregrounds a strategy which may help students to engage with a genuine need for embarking on the rigours of an inquiry.  Hauf (2010) advocates an artifact-based geographic inquiry as a vehicle for teaching and learning in a middle years Geography classroom.  The strengths of this starting point are that artifacts act as concrete manifestations of abstract cultural phenomena and they can act to naturally spark interest and genuine curiosity to seek the answers to questions.   In this light, the author plans to engage the motivation of future Year 7 classes with a set of such artifacts which can act as a springboard into a sequence of inquiry tasks.

In summary, Purnell (2010) welcomes Geography in the new national curriculum for Australia but warns that there will be a pressing need for Australia’s primary and lower secondary teachers to develop a capacity to teach the discipline.  Here, there is an important role for Guided Inquiry and collaboration with teacher librarians.  An appreciation for the particular needs of Geography inquiry, which includes both the substantive and procedural knowledge, is required along with an understanding that inquiry-based learning does not rely upon a teacher being the source of all knowledge, rather the journey of inquiry begins with a curiosity and uncertainty about the outcome.  The teacher librarian as information literacy specialist can play a significant collaborative role as an educational pilot in an age of data explosion and change.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). Shape of the Australian Curriculum:  Geography. Retrieved from ACARA website http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_Geography.pdf

FitzGerald, L. (2011). The twin purposes of Guided Inquiry:  guiding student inquiry and evidence based practice. Scan 30(1). Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/schoollibraries/assets/pdf/guidedenquiry.pdf

Fontichiaro, K. (2010). Nudging toward inquiry: strategies for searching for and finding great information. School Library Monthly, XXVII(3), 12-13. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/822507650?accountid=13380

Hauf, J. E. (2010). Teaching world cultures through artifacts. Journal of Geography, 109, 113-123. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221341.2010.485261

Hutchinson, N. & Kriewaldt, J. (2010). Developing geography standards:  Articulating the complexity of accomplished geography teaching. Geographical Education 23, 32-41. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=770343911876122;res=IELHSS

Kuhlthau, C. C. (2010). Guided Inquiry:  School libraries in the 21st century. School Libraries Worldwide, 16(1), 17-28. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/217762150?accountid=13380

Lupton, M. (2012, June). Inquiry skills in the Australian Curriculum. Access, 12-18.

McInerney, M., Berg, K., Hutchinson, N., Maude, A., & Sorensen, L. (2009). Towards a National Geography Curriculum for Australia.  Retrieved from http://www.ngc.org.au/report/Towards_a_nat_geog_curric_Final.pdf

Miller, J., Keller, C. P. & Yore, L. D. (2005). Suggested geographic information literacy for K-12. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14(4), 243-250. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10382040508668358

Purnell, K. (2010). Geography teaching:  sharing the expertise. Geographical Education, 23, 41-46. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=770399810789896;res=IELHSS

Purnell, K., & Harrison, A. (2011). Inquiry in geography and science:  Can it work? Geographical Education, 24, 34-40. Retrieved from http://acquire.cqu.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/cqu:8042

Todd, R. J. (2011). Charting student learning through inquiry. School Library Monthly. 28(3), 5-21. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1018179923?accountid=13380

Saving North Stradbroke Island

The following represents a proposed Information Learning Activity appropriate for middle school students, based on the Saving Black Mountain inquiry, which demands a level of critical literacy.

A Community Cabinet is planned on North Stradbroke Island at the end of the year.  You are required to undertake a preliminary investigation into the position each of the following parties would hold on the issue of sand mining on North Stradbroke Island.  After this initial investigation, you will be divided into the various groups and will need to develop a deeper understanding of your position.  We will hold our own Community Cabinet and you will each be required to state and argue your position.  The various stakeholder groups will include the:

• State Government;
• Greens;
• Environmentalists – Friends of Stradbroke Island;
• Employees of the Mining Companies;
• Mining Companies – eg Sibelco; and
• Local community including businesses and residents.

A Basic Search into Critical Literacy

Powell et al (2001) stipulates that there are three underlying assumptions of critical literacy:

1. teaching literacy is never neutral but reflects a particular ideology or perspective;
2. it supports a strong democratic system that should be grounded in equity and shared decision-making; and
3. it assumes that such instruction can empower and lead to transformative action.

In 1998 a class of fourth graders from Kentucky in the United States began a study into their state’s highest peak:  Black Mountain.  Their study led to their active involvement in the saving of the Mountain from strip mining.

Now, let’s try to find the article in Google, written by Powell, Cantrell and Adams called:  Saving Black Mountain:  The promise of critical literacy in a multicultural democracy.

Searching Google, the arguably number one search engine, will return results.  At times overwhelming results but with one simple strategy you can reduce return results from 14,700,000 down to 7,490.

Although the initial search was successful, an alternative method to narrow the search results would be to search for the exact phrase.

Google Scholar provides an alternative to searching Google.  Rather than searching the world wide web, Google Scholar searches scholarly literature effectively eliminating personal content and commercial sites.

At the Beginning …

I think inquiry learning is learning which has been initiated by the learner.  It involves their active engagement in the generation of questions, the answers to which bring about learning.  “I want to learn about V8 Super Cars.  I think I need to know what the V8 stands for first!”

On the other hand, information literacy relates to the knowledge of the process of obtaining information.  “So, I know what I need to find out … how do I go about finding the answers?”  It goes further than this.  Once this information has been selected it contributes to the formulation of new knowledge.

As a recently appointed Teacher Librarian, I am greatly interested in this topic.  I acknowledge that both inquiry-based learning and information literacy are central to the practice of a teacher librarian.  The Australian School Libraries Association stipulates policy regarding the implementation of guided inquiry in Australian school libraries.  Further, the Australian Curriculum stipulates the use of inquiry-based learning in their curriculum documents.  For example: “Geography will use inquiry-based learning to develop students’ capacity for self-management.  This gives students a role in directing their own learning and in planning and carrying out investigations, and enables them to become independent learners who can apply geographical understanding and skills to decisions they will have to make in the future.”

At what point can you say that you know a great deal about information literacy and inquiry learning?  I suppose because I am asking such a question suggests that I do not know anywhere near as much as I ought.  I can acknowledge that I can take fairly effective notes and I use an electronic notebook which allows me to search my notes.  This is particularly useful when I am planning a response.  Sometimes I cannot quite remember the name of the article in which I read information that I want to retrieve.  Remembering a term or key word is all I need to find the exact quote I am after.  My electronic notebook’s software also allows me to easily cite and generate a bibliography.  On the other hand, I am frustrated by those people [my husband!!] who can walk up to Google and simply ask the question directly to the “Googleiser” and in a matter of seconds … BANG … the answer they are after is delivered.

         So here we go …

A search of Google on “inquiry learning” reveals 62,200,000 results in 0.25 seconds!  Here are the top three results:

• Inquiry Learning | Developing Units of Work | Curriculum Planning …
• Inquiry Learning
• Inquiry-based Learning:  Explanation

… Will a six-month unit be enough?

I do have a number of questions I would like resolved by the end of this unit.

Firstly, how do all these concepts (below) fit together?  How are they related?  I want to tease this jumbled mass apart and bring order (in my own mind) to these concepts/approaches/ideals/models.

I have been inspired by reports of how students can produce meaningful products which make a difference; not only to themselves but also to their community.  What does that really look like?  What are the most effective processes for making that happen in our classrooms?

How do I go about orchestrating an information/inquiry continuum from Year 5 to 12?  What would such a continuum look like?