Digital LIMA Method Building a European Network in Media and Information Literacy Simão Elias Lomba
[email protected]
Technology “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” First Law of Krantzberg Non-neutrality means that technology shapes social behavior in the direction that society chooses.
Prometheus Carrying Fire (Jan Cossiers, Painting) Source: Wikimedia Commons
Universal / EU [Values / stability] The European Union is based on “values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights” (Article I-2, Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, p.11)
● Citizenship ● Participation ● Inclusion Understand the technological, social and political environment
MIL to "survive and develop, make decisions, and solve problems in every facet of life" (IFLA, 2011).
Research Questions ● How do we create, implement and test a model of an MIL Instruction Program? ● How do we engage Headmasters, teachers, school librarians and students in MIL across Europe? ● How important is Media and Information Literacy to the construction of European projects?
Intervention model about MIL Is based on ISP (Kuhlthau, 2004) and on Guided Inquiry (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2007, 2012),
Aims: ● Make curricular integration of digital technologies and MIL, ● Promote collaboration between stakeholders, especially between teachers and school librarians, ● Promote support of management.
Guided Inquiry ● Uses theoretical framework of Information Seek Process (Kuhlthau, 2004) to guide all students in the inquiry process, ● Constructivist view of learning, ● Learning process is based on interdisciplinary projects, ● Teachers are not isolated but work on a team, ● Several strategies to engage students (e.g. 6 Cs) connecting their lives with the curriculum in the so called third space, ● Keywords: Guidance, Cooperation, Critical thinking, Deep Learning, Freedom, visual thinking, self regulated learning. The principles of Freedom (“Freedom is taking his [pupil] own time) and co-operation(interaction of group life) of Dalton Laboratory Plan are still presents on Guided Inquiry (Parkhurst, 2013 [original 1922]) but assignment is but the task is replaced by complex projects where students learn from different sources of information.
(Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2007,2012)
s u c o F
Learning Team Management
Museum
Core Learning Team
Public Library
Learning Team
Extended Team
Inquiry Circles Jobs ●
Questioner
●
Note Taker
●
Connector
●
Messenger
●
Listener
Students prepare themselves before they meet in inquiry circles doing specific tasks (jobs).
Inquiry Tools
Intervention Strategies
Inquiry Community Inquiry Circle (Small group)
Inquiry Journal Inquiry Chart
(individual) Compose
(individual) Choose
(individual) Chart
6Cs
Collaborate Converse
Inquiry Log
Compose Choose
Chart Continue
Intervention Strategies
Phases of LIMA Model 1. Spot - engaging and supporting (training, pr. Community practice) 2. Local irradiation - sharing results, engaging more people, 3. strong connections - creating an MIL project in school, 4. deepening inquiry on MIL - extending the intervention, deepening knowledge and improving investigative action and evidence-based practice, creating an MIL instruction project for that school, holding MIL events at school; 5. bridges - involvement in inter-school projects at the national and European level, strong marketing, and strong engagement in professional communities of practice. 11
Spot
1
Engaging and Supporting
Teacher and librarian teacher through GI ● Sharing practices (and problems) [training course, PCoP], ● Discovering advantages of integrating Digital Technologies and Media and Information Literacy into the Curriculum through Guided Inquiry, ● Collaborating in a team (GI learning team), ● Applying Guided Inquiry (Intervention) and sharing results, ● Improving their own knowledge about GI (training, Professional Community of Practice[PCoP], tutoring), ● Reflecting together (GI, practice, problems, solutions, ...), ● Sharing results in their school and “marketing”.
Local irradiation
2
Sharing Results Engaging More People Make teams
● Engage headmaster (results, continuity, vision), ● Sharing method, processes, results, perceptions of students and teachers, ● Show Results to community (marketing), ● Invite other teachers to participate, ● Challenge successful engaged teachers participants in last intervention to assume more responsibilities (e.g. sharing experiences, monitoring, coordination, training),
Strong connections
3
Creating a MIL project in school
● Gain systematic support, ● Building a collaborative school culture, ● Develop an implementation plan, ● Create a Guided Inquiry network,
(Kuhlthau, Maniotes, Caspari, 2007, 2012)
● Using previous results as a motivator and starting point, ● MIL as a school goal (e.g. School Educative Project), ● Feed partnerships or build new ones with other projects and partnerships with the same or complementary aims and the operate behind the same principles.
Deepening Inquiry
4
Deepening Inquiry on MIL
● Increasing sophistication of Guided Inquiry across the grades (familiarity with method facilitates continuity), ● Teachers are encouraged to deepen their knowledge by participating in training events of various kinds, ● Documentation of processes is important, ● Research is important to improve practice, ● A Profession community of Practice who several stakeholders meet and collaborate enhance community knowledge.
Making Bridges
5
Networking
● Improve partnerships with external specialists, ● Using European Projects as an opportunity to get funds and specially to collaborate with other European Schools in MIL projects, ● to promote collaboration between students from different schools and countries in European Projects, ● Erasmus + European Development Plan could be an opportunity to develop teacher’s competences related to MIL and Guided Inquiry. ● Promote events to disseminate results (research, practice).
Designing Training Courses 1. Design Training Course Based on GI, Design
2. Test Training Courses [1st series] (in practice), 3. Redesign Training Courses,
1, 2, 3
4. Test New Training Courses [2nd series], 5. Redesign New Training Course,
Test
6. Test the Third Training Courses [3rd series] 7. Design and Running a Project in School (Training will be embedded in this project).
17
First Training Course Teachers ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Reflected on ICT use and MIL practices, Learned Guided Inquiry doing a Project, Reflected on their own project experiences, Designed a small intervention, Did a small intervention, Reflected on intervention, Designed a second intervention
Duration: 25 hours (together) + 50 hours (autonomous work)
About Methods ● Mixed Method Research ● Quasi experimental Study ● ● ● ●
Mixed Method Research Field Problems Necessity to change Design (Project - “Design Based Research” - …) Increase duration of project / research
Community: teachers and trainers as co-researchers
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Guided Inquiry
4th Year
Testing procedures Validating instruments
Improving Training Model
Training Courses to Teachers
TC 3.0
TC 1.1
TC 1.2
(5 ScT + 5 LT)
(5 ScT + 5 LT)
TC ScT 2.1
TC ScT 2.2
TC LTT 2.1
TC LTT 2.2
Running a Project
Design Intervention
Intervention
TC 3.2
TC ScT 3.3 TC LTT 3.3
TC 3.1 TC L 3.2
TC All T 3.3
School Project
Data Collection Instruments:
1st Year
Testing procedures
Training Courses to Teachers TC 1.1
Intervention TC 1.2
(5 ScT + 5 LT)
(5 ScT + 5 LT)
1
QUAL
QUAL
● Reflexions (written, audio recorded),
● Reflexions (written, audio recorded), ● Products of Students, ● Inquiry Journals (St.).
21
Data Collection Instruments:
2nd Year
Validating instruments
Training Courses to Teachers TC ScT 2.1
TC ScT 2.2
TC LTT 2.1
TC LTT 2.2
QUAL ● ●
Reflexions (written, audio recorded), Case study interviews.
Teachers using students’ instruments and comment on.
2
MIX (QUAL, QUAN) ● ● ● ●
Reflexions (written, audio recorded), Products of Students, Inquiry Journals (St.). Surveys (start., middle, end)
Validation of Surveys
22
Training Courses to Teachers Running a Project
TC 3.1
TC 3.0
Data Collection Instruments:
3rd Year
Guided Inquiry
Teachers “playing a role of students”
Design Intervention
Intervention
TC 3.2
TC ScT 3.3 TC LTT 3.3
TC L 3.2
TC All T 3.3
QUAL ● ●
3
MIX (QUAL, QUAN) ●
Reflexions (written, audio recorded), Case study interviews.
● ● ● ● ● ●
Reflexions of Teachers (written, audio recorded), Products of Students, Inquiry Journals (Students). Surveys (students) (start., middle, end) Assessing student product with rubrics, Assessing IL with surveys (3 moments) Comparing results of IL and curricular evaluation of each student
Trainers (GI Learning Team) ● Guided Inquiry Specialist ● Library Teacher ● Science Teacher / Social Sciences Teacher ● Literacy Specialist (Portuguese Language Teacher) ● Arts Teacher ● Technology Teacher ● Invited Specialists
Principle: Teaching is a way to improve deep learning.
The training team is increasing and improving from course to course. Some trainees with adequate profile and skills, are being recruited to join the team of trainers.
Results ● Teachers and School Librarians that attended training courses reported difficulty in the application of the GI, ○
Lack of time, curriculum is too long, teachers were overloaded with work and there was too much pressure to achieve goals, GI is interesting but too complex.
● At the end all teachers said they felt insecure but some added that they have also positive expectations. ● Those teachers will continue using GI next year. ● The courses of the 2nd year had several improvements ○
Structure, inquiry journal implementation,
● Some of these teachers will participate as co-trainers in the courses of the 3rd year.
Results ● Problems of practical implementation in the field had forced some reformulations of the initial Training Courses Design. ● In the first year (pilot study) some problems had been arising that we solved together: ○ ○ ○ ○
Change practical implementation of Inquiry Journal (simplifying it), Change structure of training courses (confusion of roles by teachers), Do changes in training courses in order to clarify specific aspects of Guided Inquiry, Increase deadlines.
● In the second year there were still problems: ○
Teachers were not able to use Guided Inquiry Chart tools to find a focus (we discussed this problem with teachers and we agreed that resources received by teachers were not adequate for them - we used this incident to highlight the importance of reflexion)
Discussion ● Teachers are strongly motivated, the team of trainers is growing, the problems identified have been addressed and solutions have been emerged, ● Teachers have been steadily gaining consciousness of the importance of MIL, and to recognize the great potential of Guided Inquiry, which has been increasing its interest in the LIMA project, ● Teachers said that students’ learning has been improving, but there is need to use the same rubrics to evaluate students portfolios. ● So far the results seem to be consistent with the LIMA Model and encourage continuation of LIMA project.
