Many smart folks have decided to post their survey responses publicly -- a practice I fully support, and have already benefited from (see below for more on this), and so I will follow in kind.
I have a lot more to say about the threshold concepts released in part 2 of the first draft, but those thoughts will have to wait. I'm throwing this post together quickly because this weekend is Pascha (i.e., Easter), and after tonight I'll be gone from the office until next Tuesday, so if I don't post these now, I won't have a chance again until a week from now. Here they are:
*1. Is the feedback you are offering in response to:
First portion of draft one (released February)
Second portion of draft one (released April)
Both
portions of draft one
2. In what ways will the focus on threshold concepts help
you to generate conversations with other campus stakeholders (such as
disciplinary faculty partners, members of the general education curriculum
committee, and academic support services staff)?
The articulation of threshold concepts for information
literacy (IL) situates the work of IL programs and librarians to better
communicate the cross-contextual value of what we do to stakeholders across campus.
Each threshold concept is applicable and realizable within different
disciplinary contexts, such that our colleagues within those disciplines will
likely recognize these concepts as real and accurate portrayals of what it
means to do research well. It is likely, though, that a certain amount of “translation”
between how librarians describe these concepts, and how a disciplinary
researcher would describe the same concept applied, will be necessary, but this
is not a bad thing. Instead, this need for “translation” of these concepts in
the abstract into “threshold-concepts-for-IL-as-practiced” characterizes the
kinds of conversations librarians can and should be having with faculty across
the disciplines. The Framework will provide the catalyst and occasion for these
conversations to finally occur.
3. How do the sections for knowledge practices and
assignments/assessments provide helpful guidance when considering implementing
the new Framework? What else would you want to see in these sections?
The knowledge practices/abilities and dispositions lists are
well-structured to provide IL practitioners a means by which to articulate the
different aspects of what it means to have crossed the threshold for that
concept. They are outcomes-like, without actually being outcomes, and this will
be very helpful as IL programs and instructors begin to articulate local
learning outcomes for their campuses and programs based on this Framework.
Along these lines, I’d love to see the introduction make this connection
between knowledge practices/abilities and dispositions, and their role as
inspiration for the writing of local learning outcomes, more explicit. For
instance, would it be appropriate to borrow language from these lists in the
writing of our local learning outcomes? If so, please suggest this in the
introduction as one way to utilize the Framework in the writing of local
learning outcomes. The more suggestions to the profession for how to
practically use this Framework in local practice, the better, I feel.
You have already implemented suggestions I have made on my
blog related to more deeply integrating metaliteracy into the knowledge
practices/abilities and dispositions lists, and I maintain that this was a
strong revision between parts 1 and 2 of the first draft and look forward to
seeing this work done on all six threshold concepts in the second draft.
In terms of the assignments/assessments sections, I have a
progression of thoughts related to these to offer by way of feedback.
On my initial reading of part 1 of the draft, my first
thought was to respond that the “assignments/assessments” lists are in fact
just assignments; they are not assessments, and to assign that word to them
misrepresents what assessment is within the Framework, which weakens the
document as a whole. They are assignments which can be used as data for
assessment, but assessment would be a separate step after students have
produced work related to local learning outcomes. Along these lines, I suggest
the introduction offer a stronger discussion about assessment, what it is, how
it works in relation to student learning activities, and strategies for how the
Framework might fit within a library’s IL assessment plan.
When I read part two of the draft, I was very happy to see
the coding of the suggested assignments along the lines of “appropriate for a
one-shot” versus “better for an embedded IL project”. I believe these kinds of
signposts should remain, and I thank you for including them.
However, I have just today experienced a third stage in my
progression through thoughts on the assignments/assessments sections, which has
come in response to reading other colleagues’ publicly posted responses to
these survey questions. I am now becoming convinced that both the “self-assessments”
and what I hope will be simply “suggested assignments” no longer belong in the
primary document of the Framework, but instead should be moved to an appendix
or some other supplementary location. They should still be released with the
final version of the Framework, but not within the Framework itself. The reason
for this suggestion is twofold: 1) they will quickly become outdated and are
really very “local” in character, much like the learning outcomes we are all supposed
to write using the Framework as a guide, and, 2) their real purpose is to help
the IL practitioner envision what each threshold concept might look like in
practice within the classroom – this is very valuable to include, but there is
also no guarantee that the assignments you happen to suggest, developed from
the task force’s experiences and background, are going to “actualize” that
threshold concept within the mind of every practitioner who reads the
Framework. By including them you are going to limit the creativity of
practitioners reading the document, albeit unintentionally. They should be
included somewhere, but my suggestion is to move them out of the main document
and into a supplementary location.
4. We plan to include additional materials in a subsequent
phase (described in the welcome message). What other elements would you find
helpful that aren’t mentioned in our plans?
Please include more discussion of assessment (theory and
practice, and how both relate to this new Framework) in the introduction.
The online sandbox is a must, but the technology behind it
must be robust, collaborative, inclusionary, and flexible. It’s worth noting
that sandbox-type conversations are already happening on blogs and Twitter;
rather than create an empty content space for practitioners to visit and add
to, figuring out a way to harvest and link together the conversation that has
already started, and inviting others to join after the Framework is finalized
and put into practice, would be ideal.
5. Is there anything else you would like for us to know?
Just my gratitude for the open, transparent, collaborative
nature of this entire revision process. Thank you for this.
6. Please share any additional information about your work
that would help us in understanding your perspective on the proposed Framework.
Please see www.donnawitek.com
for information about my work.
7. We may want to ask you to clarify an answer. Please list
your name and contact information (optional).
[I included my contact info here.]
*8. Does the feedback you are offering reflect your thoughts
as an individual or the consensus of a group?
Me as
an individual
A group from one library/institution
A group of many libraries (i.e., a consortia, an association, its sections or committees)
***
And here's a random cute picture of my toddler greeting spring last week:
 |
| #springpixie |
No comments:
Post a Comment