This post is inspired by Ray Maxwell’s post for #rhizo15, along with recent in-person and virtual library conferences, listserv messages, Twitter conversations, and all the sources linked below, peer-reviewed and otherwise.
Academic librarians are discussing, in many such venues, how to teach the threshold concepts from the new ACRL Framework for Information Literacy. The examples that currently intrigue me the most address the frame of Information Creation as a Process.
I’m inspired by Char Booth’s application of critical pedagogy to collaborating with faculty on an assignment for groups of students at Pomona College to research, critically source, and write new Wikipedia articles.
Studies have shown that Wikipedia’s editor community is predominantly young, white, and male. Information on Wikipedia often describes the world from that perspective.
Wikipedia content quality is weakest when it doesn’t catch the interest of those editors. Articles on female novelists, or places in Africa, are alarmingly underrepresented….
68% of our student editors are women. And many of the articles our students write fill content gaps related to women. That helps Wikipedia provide knowledge relevant to more people, while reflecting a broader range of perspectives.
And this week in the online Library 2.0 conference (archived recording), Sara Gillsepie Swanson described teaching students at Davidson College to follow the threads of scholarly discourse across Twitter hashtags and blogs as well as scholarly databases. Of course this builds on the frame of Scholarship as Conversation as well as Information Creation as a Process.
For example: I began to follow the scholarship of Bonnie Stewart, who is new to me through #Rhizo15, across tweets about her recent talk at #et4online, through her blog post about finishing her dissertation, to an open-access journal article summarizing her research on Twitter use by academics. Serendipitously, I discovered that her scholarly research speaks to issues that have been on my mind as I develop a more visible online presence.
I could think of that chain of sources just as going down a rabbit hole in my Personal Learning Network. Characterizing it that way might keep my own process separate from orienting students to searching scholarly databases for the more traditional peer-reviewed resources they are expected to cite in most of their assignments. But that would be so 20th-century.
Peter Morville, 3-7. Marcia Bates’ Berrypicking, Evolving Search (CC BY-NC 2.0)
As I recognize Marcia Bates’ iterative berrypicking model of information seeking, I should also acknowledge that the content which sparks a new thought can be found in many different kinds of containers (such as all of those listed in my first paragraph above).
I want to share with students the ways that 21st-century scholars stay up-to-date on the “good stuff”. Yes, this may sometimes lead students to less conventional sources that they may have to ask whether their professors will accept. It may even suggest new search terms that haven’t made it through traditional journal publishing cycles yet. But not sharing the tools that I use to find (and potentially contribute to) relevant research would be hiding the processes of information creation and scholarly conversation.