Dept of Library and Information Science
School of Communication, Information
and Library Studies
LIDA
2006
FROM INFORMATION TO KNOWLEDGE:
LEARNING IN DIGITAL AGE SCHOOLS
Ross J. Todd
School of Communication, Information and Library Studies
4 Huntington Street
NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08901
rtodd@scils.rutgers.edu
www.cissl.scils.rutgers.edu
The Key Challenge
LIDA
2006
• Are the early promises of information technology being
realized?: “motivate and stimulate learning”, “motivate
students to try out new ideas and to take risks”,
“encourage analytical and divergent thinking”
• Edward Tenner: NY Times article Searching for
Dummies: “It would be a shame if brilliant technology
were to end up threatening the kind of intellect that
produced it”.
• Do students learn anything in this Googlized world?
• How can instruction and meaningful learning be enabled
in the context of large and complex print and digital
information environments in schools?
•
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26tenner.html?ex=1146715200
&en=888eb440513e968c&ei=5070
How School Libraries
Help Students
LIDA
2006
• Student learning through Ohio School
Libraries (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004) - 13,123
students, 900 faculty.
• Student learning through Australian School
Libraries (Hay, 2005) - 6,718 students, 620
faculty.
• Student learning through Delaware School
Libraries (Todd 2006) - 5,733 students, 468
faculty.
• 48 / 50 statements of “help”; + open ended
critical incident question
7 Constructs of “help”
1. How helpful the school library is with getting
information you need
2. How helpful the school library is in relation to
information literacy skills
3. How helpful the school library is with your school
work in general (knowledge building, knowledge
outcomes)
4. How helpful the school library is with using
computers in the library, at school, and at home
5. How helpful the school library is to you with your
general reading interests
6. How helpful the school library is to you when you
are not at school (independent learning & social
world)
7. General school aspects –Academic Achievement
LIDA
2006
COMPARISON OF
FINDINGS (Delaware)
BLOCK
RANK OF MEAN FROM
HIGHEST TO LOWEST
LIDA
2006
Faculty
Mean
Student
Mean
4
COMPUTERS
4.29
3.69
1
GETTING INFORMATION
4.27
3.6
2
USING INFORMATION - IL
3.94
3.41
3
KNOWLEDGE
3.92
3.38
5
READING
4.09
3.29
7
ACHIEVEMENT
3.79
3.22
6
INDEPENDENT LEARNING
3.49
3.13
Using Computers
(Delaware)
LIDA
2006
4. How helpful the school library is with using
computers in the library, at school, and at
home.
Most
helpful
%
Quite
helpful
%
Some
help
%
A
little
help
%
No
help
%
1.
Computers in the school library help me do my school
work better
47.8
21.9
9.6
9.6
8.2
2.
The school library has gotten me more interested in
computers
32.0
21.6
15.7
14.9
15.8
3.
Computers help me find information inside and outside
of the school library
51.2
21.9
12.6
8.4
6.0
4.
The school library has helped me search the Internet
better
37.0
22.9
15.3
13.5
11.3
5.
The school library has helped me be more careful about
information I find on the Internet
32.6
24.5
16.3
14.2
12.4
6.
Computer programs (like Powerpoint, Word) in the
school library help me do my school work
43.6
22.1
13.4
10.5
10.5
7.
The school library has helped me feel better about using
computers to do my school work
36.0
23.2
14.9
13.4
12.6
“Help” of Information
Technology
LIDA
2006
• Functional, in terms of providing access to and
delivery of essential information resources;
• Technical, enabling the students to develop a range
of technical competencies, such as search skills;
• Evaluative, enabling students to identify and
evaluate accurate and authoritative information amid
a real-world information environment that is
complex, diverse, conflicting, and of variable quality;
• Constructive, providing technical tools for the
students to construct and present representations of
their new knowledge and understanding of their
researched topics
Some Challenges for
Digital Libraries & Schools
But do they learn
anything?
Do we need
libraries?
How do we create
an integrated
information
landscape?
LIDA
2006
New Jersey IMLS Funded
Research 2003 - 2005
LIDA
2006
• What learning outcomes does the school library
enable as students make use of diverse digital and
print information sources?
• How might these learning outcomes be identified,
measured, and embedded into professional
practice?
• Develop a learning impacts measure for use by
school-based teams. (SLIM Toolkit: School Library
Impact Measure)
Central Research Questions
LIDA
2006
• What changes, if any, are evident in students’ knowledge
of a curriculum topic, as they proceed through the stages
of a collaborative inquiry project, and make use of
diverse print and digital sources?
• What changes, if any, are shown in the students’ feelings
as they proceed through the stages of a collaborative
inquiry project?
• How does the students’ study approach influence
knowledge construction of a curriculum topic in
collaborative inquiry projects?
• What interactions exist between knowledge construction,
feelings, and study approach, and what are some of the
explanations for these interactions?
Schools Context
LIDA
2006
• 10 New Jersey public schools chosen by call for
nomination and selected by NJ Expert Panel
• Experienced and expert school librarians
• Diverse schools
• 10 teacher-school librarian teams
• 10 school librarians working on curriculum projects
with 17 classroom teachers
• 574 students in Grades 6 – 12; range of disciplines
• Data collected over four weeks, Spring 2004
• Inquiry Training Institute Feb 24, 2004: overview and
critique of units, use of data collection instruments,
procedures and ethical guidelines
Data Collection Instruments
LIDA
2006
Five data collection instruments were used to collect
the data from the students:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Writing Task 1 (at initiation of inquiry unit)
Writing Task 2 (at midpoint of inquiry unit)
Writing Task 3 (at conclusion of inquiry unit)
Search Journal Log
Research Style
The instruments consisted of a combination of
qualitative and quantitative questions.
Writing Tasks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LIDA
2006
Write the title that best describes your research project at this
time.
Take some time to think about your research topic. Now write
down what you know about this topic.
What interests you about this topic?
How much do you know about this topic? Check () one box
that best matches how much you know. Nothing, Not much,
Some, Quite a bit and A great deal
Write down what you think is EASY about researching your
topic.
Write down what you think is DIFFICULT about researching
your topic.
Write down how you are FEELING now about your project.
Check () only the boxes that apply to you. Confident,
Disappointed, Relieved, Frustrated, Confused, Optimistic,
Uncertain, Satisfied, Anxious or Other.
How did School Librarian and Teacher help you (WT3)
Changes in Knowledge:
5 Approaches to Measurement
LIDA
2006
•
Substance of knowledge. Analysis of changes in the relational
nature of statements by which students described their topical
knowledge.
•
Amount of knowledge. Numerical count of number of
statements they used to describe their topical knowledge, as
well as isolated concepts / terms.
•
Structure of knowledge. Thematic organization and integration
of themes into a meaningful structure
•
Estimate of knowledge. Personal estimate of extent of their
topical knowledge
•
Labeling of knowledge. The students were asked to give a title
for their inquiry project, which was considered to reflect the
degree of focus/specification of topical knowledge.
Substance of knowledge
LIDA
2006
Classification of Statements: based on nature of relationships
between concepts
Graesser & Clark (1985) Structures and procedures of implicit
knowledge. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
• Properties:
• Manner:
• Reason:
• Outcome:
• Causality:
leads
• Set Membership:
• Implication:
• Value judgment:
statements describing characteristics
statements describing processes, styles,
actions
statements of explanations of how and why
statements providing end result
statements showing some event causally
to another
statements about class inclusion
statements showing predictive relations,
inference, implied meaning
statements presenting personal position or
viewpoint
Classification of Statements
•
•
•
•
Properties:
Manner:
Reason:
Outcome:
• Causality:
• Set Membership:
• Implication:
• Value judgment:
LIDA
2006
The color of Valentine’s day is red
People drive aggressively in USA
The wall was constructed to block invaders
(People eat too much) As a result, people
got very sick
Acid rain causes many fish to die
Michelangelo created works such as statue
of David, Cistine Chapel and the famous
Pieta
He was suspected of poisoning him
That’s not right
FACTS: property, manner, set membership
EXPLANATION AND RESULTS: Reason, outcome, causality
SYNTHESIS: conclusions, positions, viewpoints
Affective Dimensions
LIDA
2006
• Constructivist view of knowledge change posits
feelings as an important aspect of information
seeking and sustained integrated learning.
• 9 feelings: confidence, disappointment, relief,
frustration, confusion, optimism, uncertainty,
satisfaction, and anxiety, were tracked at three
stages of the inquiry unit (Kuhlthau).
• Measured by asking the students to mark how they
experienced a particular feeling on a 4-point scale
from: very, fairly, a little to not at all.
Approaches to Study
(Entwistle & Tait, 1996; Heinstrom 2002)
LIDA
2006
• Short version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (ASSIST) (Tait, Entwistle, & McCune, 1998), and
adapted by Heinstrom for use with younger students.
• Deep approach: characterized by students wanting to find out
the deeper meaning in the text. They are critical, logical and
relate what they learn to their previous knowledge
• Surface approach: students concentrate on memorizing lots of
facts without any effort to find a deeper meaning or
understanding of the material
• Strategic approach: students are efficient at organizing their
work, managing their time and work hard in their studies. They
care about their working conditions and have clear goals for
their studies
• Measured by six test items on a four-point scale total of 18
statements.
Search Logs
LIDA
2006
Students were asked to make an entry each time they read some information
that they have found related to their topic.
1. Date
2. Where did you look for this information? (School library catalog/OPAC,
Online, database, Print index, Search engine, Public library, Asked a
person, Website, Other -Choose one of the above and write down its
number.)
3. List all the terms (word or phrases) you used to look for this information.
(These are the words you put into the school library catalog, or a search
engine on the WWW, look up an index, or ask a person.)
4. Give the details of the source of your information (Sources can be books,
journal articles, magazines, websites, CD-Rom and people such as
teacher, librarian or others). Write the author, title, and date; or name of
person
Total Number of Statements
Recorded at Each Stage
Statement Type
LIDA
2006
WT1 N
WT2 N
WT3 N
Number of
statements
Number of
statements
Number of
statements
Properties
1194
1820
2160
Manner
589
1190
1514
Set membership
143
218
343
Number of
statements
Number of
statements
Number of
statements
Reason
152
163
193
Outcome
35
58
89
Causality/consequence
48
105
116
Synthesis
29
70
82
Facts
Explanation and result
Changes in Knowledge
LIDA
2006
• Students represented their knowledge of the topic
predominantly by factual property and manner statements, and
that they used increasingly more factual statements to
represent their knowledge throughout the three stages.
• Overall the number of reason and outcome statements was
lower than property and manner statements, and did not
substantially increase as students progressed, while the
cause/consequence and synthesis statements show a
decreasing though non-significant trend.
• Students appeared to be oriented to gathering facts and
knowing a set of facts throughout their inquiry.
• Two distinctive approaches to knowledge construction:
Additive and Integrative
ADDITIVE APPROACH
LIDA
2006
• Knowledge development seemed to be characterized
by the progressive addition of facts
• Remained on a descriptive level throughout.
• Addition of new facts was typically a listing of
property statements of a generic, superficial kind.
• As the students built knowledge, they continued to
add property and manner statements, and to a lesser
extent, set membership statements.
• Students typically found more facts at each stage of
the research process, and added these to their
stockpile of facts, even though these added facts
were sorted, organized and grouped to some extent
into thematic units by WT3.
ADDITIVE APPROACH
LIDA
2006
WT1: He is very famous for his plays …….(100, 285001)
WT2: He married Anne Hathaway. They had 3 children.
……He wrote 37 plays and 152 sonets. …… (100,
285001)
WT3: He was born on April 23, 1564 in Warichshire,
Stratford-upon-Avon, Britain………Married at
age 18. Had three children; Judith, Hammet and
Susana. He was the first boy in the family, had 3
sister and 1 brother, Joan, Margaret, Gilbert
sibling.(100, 285001)
INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
LIDA
2006
• Some students moved beyond gathering facts at each stage,
rather they manipulated these facts in a number of ways:
- building explanations
- synthesizing facts into more abstract groupings and
consequently reducing the number of statements in their
representations
- organizing facts in more coherent ways
- reflecting on facts to build positional, predictive conclusion
statements.
• At WT1, their representations were similar to the additive
model, with sets of facts statements. However, at WT2, their
representations included more facts, as well as explanations.
• At WT3 they appeared to interpret the found information to
establish personal conclusions and reflect on these. In
addition, some appeared to subsume sets of facts into more
abstract groups.
Immune reactions
LIDA
2006
WT1: It probably has most to do with how the body reacts to certain
problems in the body. Like how a body reacts to a sneeze or a
cough.
WT2: The immune system is what protects you, anybody, from various
outside bacterias, viruses, and germs. …….The immune has I-cells
and other types of cells that help fight the……When you cut
yourself you can see the immune system at work because you can
see the cells that are rebuilding the tissues that were
cut………(long reply)
WT3: (very long reply) The immune system was a big topic. I found out
that there is actually two types of immune systems in the body.
………I learned that if a bacteria enter your body, it could enter a
cell, replicate in a manner of minutes and if there are…..So you
could have millions of bacteria in the body after an hour…….the
body works against such organ degration, mineral deficiency,
mechanical damage and other. What I really enjoy to learn was that
the minute you are born….and when you die your immune system
shuts down letting in all the bad stuff, so now the body is an open
door….
Coding of Structure of
Knowledge
Ideas are discrete and unrelated.
Some –meaning more than one
instantiation- some ideas are joined or
linked (grouped) while others are discrete
or unrelated.
Contiguous ideas are associated; set of
ideas may be somewhat continuous.
Overall, ideas are interrelated and
continuous.
Ideas are integrated and unified; there is
structural centrality.
LIDA
2006
Structure and Level of
Knowledge
LIDA
2006
• Typical change was from unstructured and random listing of
facts (properties, manner and set member lists) towards
organization of facts into thematic groupings, with a smaller
number of students linking the thematic groupings into larger
more coherent and more conceptual units.
• For some students, particularly those showing an additive
model, WT1 showed more structure than WT2. This is
consistent with the pervasive viewpoint that people’s existing
knowledge is structured.
• Gathering of facts rather than sequencing and organizing these
facts seemed to take over, as evident in WT2 representations
being less structured. By WT3, some organization of
statements into conceptually coherent and linked groups had
taken place. We also found a higher level of structure at WT1
for those students who indicated from the start that they knew
something about their topic.
LIDA
2006
Estimate of Knowledge
How much do you know about this
topic?
WT 1
n
WT 2
n
WT 3
n
Nothing
35 (10 %)
6 (2%)
1 (.3 %)
Not much
142 (40%)
14 (4 %)
6 (2 %)
Some
125 (35 %)
111 (33 %)
29 (9 %)
Quite a bit
41 (12 %)
156 (47 %)
148 (48 %)
A great deal
10 (3 %)
47 (14 %)
126 (41 %)
Knowledge increase (mean)
1.26 (.91)
2.6 (.83)
3.2 (.76)
Perceptions of
Knowledge Gained
LIDA
2006
• Not much more
• Know “heaps” more
• Know lots more, and surprised at breadth and depth
of knowledge
• Know lots more, but still could learn more
• Know lots, but dissatisfaction about not knowing
enough
Approach to studying
• The three study approaches were quite
evenly distributed within the sample as a
whole.
• Study approaches were only explored in
relation to other aspects of the inquiry
project.
LIDA
2006
The influence of approach
to studying: Deep learners
LIDA
2006
• Typically deep students demonstrated their
knowledge change by synthesized replies
• They were confident and optimistic throughout the
process.
• Seemed more relieved and satisfied at the end than
students on average.
• Conveyed a specific interest for their topics, and
interest was a key basis for in learning more about
the topic
• Eagerness to learn -> run the risk of becoming
particularly vulnerable to information overload
• Strong awareness of information quality.
Students with the most
surface study approach
LIDA
2006
• Knowledge seemed to remain on a rather factual
level throughout their projects.
• Estimates of knowledge did not change as much as
on average.
• Little increase in level of their topical knowledge.
• The aspect of the search process that these
students predominantly mentioned as easy was
availability of information.
• Information seeking foremost is seen as a process
of collecting facts.
• Seemed particularly relieved when the projects
ended.
• Low levels of interest and engagement.
Students with the most
strategic study approach
LIDA
2006
• Similar to deep, increased their topical knowledge
regarding content, amount.
• Driven by achievement rather than inherent interest to
learn more about the topic.
• When asked to state what they had learned through
their projects the strategic students described their
topics, rather than reflecting on them as the deep
ones did, also mentioned that they had developed
their skills in organizing their work, and managing
their time.
• The strategic students felt confident throughout the
inquiry projects. They also experienced satisfaction
and relief at the end of the projects.
What learnings took
place?
LIDA
2006
• Increase in knowledge about a topic
• Skills in using specific online sources (online databases,
Internet, OPACs)
• For some, development of research skills, especially
“combining” information (viewed as highly important)
• Widened information horizon and changed conceptions of
information seeking – “The Transformed Googlians” –
recognition of beneficial information sources beyond Google
• More realistic conceptions of efficient information seeking
• Heightened awareness of quality aspects of information
• Dealing with information conflict
Factors contributing to
differences across Schools
LIDA
2006
• Yes there were variations in the schools
• Changes in knowledge (knowledge growth) did not
occur evenly in the schools
• No significant variations across the age, grade, and
gender groups; the disciplinary field does not seem
to be an explanatory factor
• Nature of task: imposed task or negotiated task
• Engagement and ownership
• Nature of Interventions: Development of skills to
construct knowledge rather than finding information
So What?
LIDA
2006
• What constitutes the development of deep knowledge?
Deep understanding?
• How can IT be more effectively harnessed to foster the
development of deep knowledge and deep
understanding?
• What instructional interventions help students move from
the “transport” of text to the “transformation” of text?
• How do we guide students in the process of their
inquiry? GUIDED INQUIRY
• What is the nature of the intervention in terms of
intellectual and affective scaffolds for enabling inquiry?
• How do we enable students to stay focused and not be
detracted from the learning task at hand?
• How do we motivate and engage students who may
perceive task of searching as primarily one of gathering
information to a task of forming a focused perspective
from the information encountered?