The first five frames are more likely to be
recognisable to readers; we have made brief comments about each of these.
Toohey (1999), or Ramsden (2003) would serve as useful texts for further
exploration of ideas underlying these frames. The relational frame (see for
example, Ramsden, 2003; Prosser and Trigwell; 1999; Bruce, 1997; Edwards and
Bruce, 2004; Lupton, 2004), is explained here in more detail as it likely to be
less familiar. It is also the primary frame through which the applications
described below have been developed.
Of particular interest is the status of the
relational frame as one through which the content, learning to learn, and
experiential frames are mediated, or brought together. Users of the relational
frame are interested in both content (phenomena); and how that content is seen
or experienced. Learning in this frame is understood as coming to discern
things in new or more complex ways. This view of learning has been more
recently formalised and labelled ‘variation theory’ (Marton and Tsui,
2004; Pang and Marton, 2003).
Variation theory proposes that learning
occurs when variation in ways of understanding or experiencing are discerned.
For example, music is learned when different sounds are discerned, reading is
learned when the relationship between written words and spoken sounds is discerned, IL is learned when different ways of
experiencing it are discerned, information searching is learned when different
ways of experiencing that are discerned. In the latter example, a person must
discern the difference in searching based on knowing that a database is
structured, and searching without understanding the structure, to appreciate
the powerful influence of structure on searching. Bringing about learning
through widening experience, and thus revealing variation, is the underlying
principle.
Implementing the relational frame
The basis of a relational frame is that
students experience information literacy in a range of ways that are more or
less complex or powerful. Learning is seen as being able to adopt these more
complex and powerful ways of experiencing. Therefore, teaching
and learning activities should be designed to enable students to develop more
complex understandings.
It should be noted that a relational frame
does not see the student and information literacy as separate entities; rather,
it sees the relationship between the student and information as one entity.
Therefore, information literacy is not a set of skills, competencies and
characteristics. It is a complex of different ways of interacting with
information which might also include:
·
knowledge about the world of
information (content frame)
·
a set of competencies or skills
(competency frame)
·
a way of learning (learning to
learn frame)
·
contextual and situated social
practices (personal relevance frame)
·
power relationships in society
and social responsibility (social impact frame).
Bruce (1997:
60, 174) adapts a number of
Ramsden’s (1988:
26-27) relational principles of
learning (in bold) and relates them to information literacy education:
·
Learning is about changes in conception
– teachers need to assist students in developing new and more complex ways of
experiencing information literacy
·
Learning always has a content as well as a process – students need to learn about discipline content as they seek and
use information
·
Learning is about relations between the learner and the subject
matter – the focus is not on the student or the
teacher or the information, but on the relation between these elements
·
Improving learning is about understanding the learner’s perspective – teachers need to understand the variation in students’
conceptions of information literacy.
Case A: Helping students learn to search the Internet or
bringing about more complex experiences of Internet searching
In this section we discuss some challenges
of applying the relational approach to IL education and describe ROSS (a
Reflective Online Searching System) which has been designed based on the
outcomes of an investigation into how university students experience Internet
searching. In doing so we provide examples of how learning environments can be
designed to bring about awareness of more complex ways of experiencing Internet
searching.
Recent research by
Edwards (in press) identified a relational model of four categories that
capture students’ different ways of searching and learning to search for
Internet information. The four categories are:
- Information searching is seen as looking for a needle in a
haystack.
- Information searching is seen as finding a way through a maze.
- Information searching is seen as using the tools as a filter.
- Information searching is seen as panning for gold.
While these categories are interrelated, each
one is associated with different meanings being assigned to the search
experience. Each is also associated with different awareness structures,
different approaches to learning, and different search outcomes. The awareness
structures are differentiated in terms of different foci, and also in different
ways of seeing the information environment, the information tool structure, and
searchers’ awareness of information quality (see Edwards 2005; Edwards &
Bruce, in press for more details).
Having identified this model of Internet
information searching, the challenge of applying it to educational practice
began. Edwards’ research identified that that the four experiences of searching
are inclusive. We can expect, therefore, that for each of the more complex
categories, the previous category experience has been built upon as the
student’s searching experience progresses.
Importantly, however, the less complex
categories are not a misconception of the searching process or experience. Nor
do the more complex categories reflect expert versus novice searching
approaches. The four categories are a repertoire of the ways of experiencing
web-based information searching (Limberg, 2000). Individual searchers decide
which lens is the most appropriate to use in each context. The variety of
lenses is necessary in order to be a powerful searcher. If an individual does
not have all of the available four lenses with which to view searching (Figure
9), then the awareness structures of each category suggest how we might
encourage students to learn to use the other available lenses.
_files/image018.jpg)
Figure 9: Ability to use the range of category lenses when searching
The relational model revealed two key
aspects of the searching experience; reflection and planning of the search
process (Figure 10). For example, when using only Category 1 and 2 lenses, the
students lack of reflection and planning hampers their ability to search. The
relational model identified that, in the more advanced categories, students
actively plan and reflect, and this influences the quality of their search
performance. If we want to encourage the development and use of higher order
lenses, then these aspects, search planning and active searching reflection,
need to be built into the learning environment. Furthermore, the myriad of
individual aspects, or dimensions of variation, which people are barely aware
of in the earlier category levels also need
to be built into the learning environment (Edwards, 2005). A Flash animation
explaining each of these individual aspects is available at the website http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~edwardss/WebSearching/hintro.html.
These individual aspects include a focus on the individual searching features
of the various database tools used in the online environment (eg: the search
control features of search engine and/or library databases, such as Boolean
operators, truncation, synonym use, etc.) and the engagement, or lack of it, of
the student in reading their screens for instructions. Library IL programs have
always referred to these matters, and they are often ignored by students
because they are spoken about in abstract terms without
providing the student
with the opportunity to use them and reflect on their
use while they are searching. According to the relational frame, the key is to
design the learning environment to ensure students experience all of these
aspects and reflect upon their use.
Using the
relational model to develop the ROSS environment
The Reflective Online Searching Skills
(ROSS) environment (Figure 11) was specifically developed to be integrated into
the face-to-face delivery of any subject (unit or course), and it focuses on
opening up to students all of the possible variation in searching experiences.
_files/image023.jpg)
Figure 11: ROSS (Beta Version 2005) Welcome Screen
ROSS goes where existing IL tools have not.
It uses the relational model to create a learning environment that reflects
each of the four categories. It allows students to reflect on their IL, where
information literacy is embedded into the assessment tasks of units, enabling
the assessment and the reflection to drive the learning. Existing tools usually
provide only one way to learn (Kasowitz-Scheer &
Pasqualoni, 2002; Kent State University, no date; QUT Library, 2003;
Rensselaer Research Library, 2002). ROSS provides multiple learning methods,
and includes the use of a sandpit site approach, the Reflective Workspace,
and/or a combination of both approaches. The site can also provide timed release of resources, an environment
that adapts to and is contingent on student (inter)actions (eg: using a “submit
before continue” device), is media
rich (including Flash animation, videos, and animated gifs), and gives to
learners opportunities for reflection and feedback.
_files/image025.jpg)
Figure 12 ROSS (Beta Version 2005) Introduction, showing
the Modules and the Searching Model
ROSS works to showcase examples of
web-based information searching to the students; examples that are based on the experiences
identified in the category descriptions. It is interactive in that the
student’s learning experience is conducted in real-time between the user and
the ROSS environment, allowing students to search online and have the opportunity
to perceive a variation from their previous experiences.
The Reflective Online Searching Model (as
seen on the right-hand side of Figure 12) guides the student through this
process in a step-by-step approach. Each of these steps aligns with the identified
individual aspects of variation identified in Edwards’ study (2005); such as
identification of synonyms, search planning and search reflection. Edwards’
study also produced the action research model (Figure 13) for Reflective
Internet Searching (Edwards & Bruce 2002). This model is a much simpler
depiction of the online searching process; a model that shows the emphasis of
online searching should be an action research cycle of continuous planning,
acting, recording and reflecting.
_files/image027.jpg)
Figure 13 Edwards & Bruce (2002) An action research
model for Reflective Internet Searching
These two models form the basis for the
ROSS environment. One ensures the students see the importance of the individual
steps in the searching process, and coupled with the learning environment of
ROSS, also ensures the student experiences the full range of variation in the
online searching process. The other model reduces the overall approach to
online searching into a simpler and easy to remember cycle of continuous
planning and reflection.
ROSS consists
of a series of modules (Figure 12). Its
attention to conscious reflection on learning, and consistent planning of
searching are paramount, because it is these factors which bring about the
adoption of the more complex ways of searching.
Many of the module activities specifically
require the students to
recognise essential aspects identified in the
relational model. For example, in Module 4 (Figure 14), the students are
required to identify differences they have noted in search strategies, or the
results they have retrieved, for each of the search tools they used. They are
also asked to reflect on what they have observed. Thus ROSS stresses that
reflection should be built into searching, and this necessary reflection is
required in the more
complex categories (Category 3 and 4).
Module 4
Activity 2
Run the searches you developed in
Activity 1 for each of the two online resources. Use the notepads below to
record your observations of each search. For example, note down:
·
How
many results you obtained – too many? too few?
·
What
type of results you obtained – are they too broad? too narrow?
·
New
key words or synonyms that you didn’t include in your search
·
Areas
where the search didn’t perform as expected
·
The
bibliographic details of results that meet the information need.
Or
anything else you think is important to record and which may help you in
modifying and refining your search later.
My
notes on the search conducted in the Internet search engine.
My notes on the search conducted in the database
Figure 14 Module 4 Activity 2
example questions
In some of the modules the predict,
observe, explain model (POE) is used (Kearney & Wright, 2002). Students are required to watch a video, or read through a storyboarded script,
predict what they expect to happen and then compare what they have predicted with the actual results by observation. They are then expected to submit their explanation
of what they have seen. This POE model allows students to engage more fully
with the searching experience, encouraging them to reflect more about what they
are attempting, their searching strategies, and the quality of the resources
they have found. This approach is intended to foster a more reflective search
process, encouraging students to see the variation in the searching experience
that is possible.
Whatever learning method is used, each
module is interactive, requiring the students to answer questions, make observations
and complete exercises. A separate
reflective searching space, provided for them to work on their actual
assignments, is also always available and allows the students to keep a
permanent and ongoing record of their thoughts, decisions, and reflections
throughout their assignment searching and preparation periods. After each module
students are reminded of what they have been experiencing in the module, and to
continue these searching techniques in their current and future assignments.
Throughout the entire set of modules, ROSS
encourages students to read their screens and absorb instructions; something we
know from the research findings that a Category 1 searcher does not do. From
the start then, the intention to allow students to see the entire range of
searching experiences is introduced, and this drive to display the variation in
the experience is maintained consistently throughout the site.
Although the evaluation and analysis are
continuing, early indicators are that both staff and students have responded positively to ROSS.
Clearly ROSS contributes to the development of curriculum strategies designed
to both strengthen and evaluate students’ web-searching experience. It also
strengthens student experiences of web searching which, in turn, will
strengthen their capability to learn in an online environment in any unit of study.
The ROSS environment provides immediate and ongoing resources for both students
and for staff development with a focus on the
conceptual change required for learning from a relational perspective.
Assessment is another important aspect to
consider when applying these findings in practice. Based on the findings, the
assessment items in the unit were also mapped against the categories of
description to identify how well the assignments were designed to encourage
learning. The principles upon which the analysis, and later redesign, of the
assessment for the subject undertaken included the relational frame assumption
that learning the generic capability of information searching means coming to
experience that capability differently; that there has been a new discernment
in the worldview of the student (Edwards and Bruce, 2004; Runesson, 1999). In this case, when assessing Internet searching, we must be able
to determine the character of the learning outcomes achieved by the student.
Thus, the assignments need to make it possible for the assessor and the student
to discern the different ways of experiencing information searching.
Case B: Helping students become more information literate
or Bringing about more complex experiences of information literacy.
This section reports Lupton’s study of
students’ ways of experiencing information literacy when researching an essay
in a first year environmental studies course (see
Lupton, 2004 for a full account), as
well as the implications of that study. The key outcome of her investigation
was a description of the variation in students’ ways of experiencing
information literacy when researching an essay.
Variation encompassed three categories illustrating increasingly complex
ways of experiencing information literacy.
Category 1 -
Seeking evidence
Information literacy is experienced when
researching an essay as seeking evidence
to backup an existing argument.
Subcategory a)
Seeking statistics
Subcategory b)
Seeking opinions and ideas
Subcategory c)
Seeking contrasting perspectives
Students
searched for information as evidence to backup an existing argument. Their
argument was synonymous with their own viewpoint. Evidence took the form of statistics,
opinions, ideas and perspectives that students used to cite to support their
argument. Students limited their search to sources that they could use as
evidence. Students judged the trustworthiness of information by surface signs
including the presence of statistics and references, author, origin and ‘look
and feel’ of the source. Students’ focus was primarily on the essay task while
their secondary focus was on the information. They experienced the essay as a
product. Information was external to the person, it was out there ready to be
found, and when found it was used for the essay task.
Category 2 - Developing an argument
Information literacy is experienced when
researching an essay as using background
information to develop an argument
Subcategory a) Learning about the topic
Subcategory b) Setting the topic in a context
Subcategory c) Rethinking the argument
Students
searched for background information to ‘fill in the gaps’. Some already had a
knowledge base that they were broadening, while others were building a
knowledge base and learning about the topic. Background information was
important to set the essay topic in a context, to learn about the topic and to
‘get the big picture’. Students did a number of rounds of searching and
developed an argument as they searched. They asked themselves questions about
the topic and issues as they searched. Students used a wide variety of sources
and pursued information for their own interest. They internalised and
personalised information by incorporating it into their knowledge base and
developing an understanding of the topic.
Category 3 - Learning
as a social responsibility
Information
literacy is experienced when researching an essay as applying learning to help
solve environmental problems.
Subcategory a) Helping the community
Subcategory b)
Effecting social and political change
Students were
interested in applying their learning to solving environmental problems. They
felt a social responsibility to help the community and to effect social and
political change. They looked beyond the topic to the field and discipline and
made connections with other disciplines. They regarded the essay as a way of
communicating about the issues. They internalised information in looking for
information for their personal interest and developed their essay argument as
they searched. Information was experienced as transformational, as it was being
used to change people and society.
How can we help students explore variation?
Bowden and Marton (1998: 154) argue that not
only do students need to experience variation in order to learn, but they also
must explore variation by comparing and analysing their experiences. Based on
the research results above, how can we help students explore variation?
First, students
need to be actively engaged in discussion and reflection about finding and
using information in order to uncover variation in conception within the group.
Asking students to reflect on and discuss in class the strategies they use and
why they use them will elicit a range of qualitatively different strategies and
intentions. Strategies and intentions form the basis of a learning approach.
The research results show that the intentions of students are in many ways more
important and illuminating than their strategies. It should be noted that
adopting an approach that uncovers variation will inevitably require more class
time.
Second, students need to confront
variation in their own experience and in the experience of others. The idea is
to make explicit a range of experience so that students can discern what was
previously undiscerned. It is not enough for us
as teachers to simply present
variation, as students need to experience
variation. As Ramsden (1988:
21-22) argues, teachers need to
“arrange situations where students must
confront the discrepancies between their present way of thinking about the
subject matter and the new way desired by the teacher, and where students can
come to realize the personal value of the new way”.
As in the previous case A, reflection is crucial to achieving this.
Third, in designing information
literacy learning activities we need to make fundamental aspects explicit. For
example, searching for evidence to support an argument forms the basis of
students’ experience when researching an essay. We cannot assume that students
understand what we mean by an ‘argument’ and how to present and build an
argument. We also cannot assume that students understand what is meant by
‘evidence’ and how to present evidence. These aspects will also have
disciplinary variation (Neumann 2003: 237; Moore 2004), and we must make this variation
explicit.
Students in all categories spoke
of using contrasting perspectives as evidence to support their argument.
However, there was contrast between students’ strategies (to find contrasting
perspectives as evidence) and their intentions (why they wanted to find
contrasting perspectives and how they wanted to use them).
The following figure illustrates
limited versus complex views:
|
Figure
15: Limited versus complex ways of experiencing evidence and argument |
A tutorial activity addressing
argument would canvas students’ views on what an argument is. For instance, in a
recent class with third year business students Lupton asked students to reflect
upon what they meant by an ‘argument’. Responses ranged from ‘a point of view’,
‘an opinion’, a belief’ to ‘a point of view supported by evidence’. Clearly the
latter promotes a more complex understanding. From a teachers’ perspective, one
might describe an argument as ‘a line of reasoning supported by evidence’. This
understanding incorporates the view that the author builds their argument. Students could analyse various forms of
information (e.g. popular and scholarly websites, journal articles, newspaper
articles) in order to identify the authors’ argument and to analyse how the
author builds their argument. They could discuss their personal viewpoint and
beliefs on an issue, and then be asked to create an argument for that viewpoint
and against that viewpoint.
How can we help students be discriminating web users?
Most of us have concerns about the
indiscriminate use of web resources by students. In Lupton’s study, it is of significance
that the most limited experience of using information was confined to an
evaluation of surface signs of the quality of websites in terms of author,
date, provenance, look and feel and the presence of statistics. It is of significance that many of these
elements are present in website evaluation checklists. However, a more complex
experience was that it was important to use a variety of sources for different
purposes and that the quality of written communication was important.
Therefore, we need to go beyond website evaluation checklists.
We need to make explicit the ways
that particular sources could be used for background information and as
evidence to support an argument. For example, students in this study used:
·
government documents for reports,
policy and legislation
·
books for general, broad
information and ideas
·
journal articles for specific
information and scientific information
·
websites for biased information
and different perspectives
·
encyclopaedias and dictionaries
for definitions
·
television, radio, newspapers
and textbooks for background information
·
other subjects to provide
connections between disciplines and fields
·
lectures for a framework upon
which to build a knowledge base and approach.
A tutorial activity might be to
have students discuss the reasons that determine the use of different
sources for assignments.
Evaluation of sources would need to include not only the surface signs of
authority, but also the ideas, opinions and perspectives apparent in the source
and the quality, style and tone of the writing.
Students could write a reflection on the sources they used which is
discussed in class.
How can we help students learn through assessment?
Another important aspect was the way that
students saw the significance of the essay task. A limited view was that the
essay task was used to complete course requirements, while a more complex view
was to use the essay task as a vehicle with which to learn about the topic and
communicate the topic in relation to the field and discipline. Tutorial
activities aimed at moving students to a more complex view would include
discussing how students might apply their learning in a particular assignment
and how they see the links between the topic, field and other disciplines.
Finally, the crucial aspect of actually
experiencing variation would be to design assessment where students are
required to:
·
present
different viewpoints
·
pose
questions to research throughout the information seeking and use process
·
reflect
on and demonstrate the development of their own viewpoint
·
reflect
on and demonstrate the development of the line of reasoning in their essay
argument
·
analyse
bias and the use of statistics
·
use
a variety of sources for different purposes
·
set
their topic in an historical, social, cultural and political context
·
reflect
upon how they have learned about the topic through the process of their
research
·
make
links between the topic, the course, other courses and disciplines
·
reflect
on how learning about the topic may help contribute to social responsibility.
The aim of the relational frame is to
encourage students to adopt more complex strategies and intentions as outlined
above. Being encouraged to experience information literacy in a range of
increasingly complex ways will mean that students have a broader repertoire
upon which to draw with each situation where they are learning through finding
and using information.
How can the Six Frames be used in practice?
In this paper we have described the six
frames and provided two detailed examples to explain the relational frame. Here
we also consider further how the frames may be used to assist the practice of
information literacy education.
Users of the frames may be discipline
academics, librarians, academic developers, instructional designers, individuals
or teams. They may be curriculum designers or implementers or learners.
Individuals and teams are likely to consciously or unconsciously bring more
than one frame to any aspect of IL education, and this is a natural part of
applying theory, whether implicit or explicit, to practice.
While not intending to categorise or
classify specific programs (indeed most programs would blend two of more of the
suggested approaches), individuals or groups of educators, the resultant
framework (see Appendix 1) provides a conceptual tool for thinking about the
kinds of IL education that might be fostered within each frame, as well as for
thinking about how different frames might work together in particular contexts.
The frames may serve as an analytical tool for understanding the discourses and
differences in opinion about how IL education might be best progressed.
Challenges which may be understood or
tackled using the frames as lenses, include challenges associated with 1)
consistent and coherent design or implementation within one or more frames, 2)
members of teaching teams consciously or unconsciously working with different
frames, 3) teachers and students working with different frames in the same
context or 4) frames adopted by teachers or teams conflicting with the frames
that underpin institutional values, policy or direction.
For example, concern for measurement of IL
capability in assessment may reflect the primacy of the content or competency
frame for an individual or institution. This may conflict with the assessment
interests of those who prefer the learning-to-learn or social reform frames.
Tensions may also appear when interest in group processes reflect an
orientation towards a learning-to-learn or social reform frame; such interests
in groups may conflict with orientations of those focussed on individual
learning, which usually reflects the adoption of a content, or competency
frame.
All the frames are available to actors in
the IL arena, and evidence of more than one frame will usually be found in any
IL context. We believe that the greatest value of the frames lies in their
power to challenge each of us to identify our primary frame(s) and to inquire
into how our professional practice might develop if we were willing to adopt a
different frame or a wider range of frames.
Biographies
|
_files/image031.jpg)
|
Christine
Bruce is Associate Professor and Director of
Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of Information Technology at QUT,
Brisbane, Australia. She developed the relational model for information
literacy education, and has extensive interests in higher education teaching
and learning.
|
|
_files/image033.jpg)
|
Sylvia
Lauretta Edwards is a Senior Lecturer in the
Faculty of Information Technology at QUT. Sylvia has received nine teaching
awards. Her research interests include higher education, information literacy
and information searching. She has co-developed the Reflective Internet
Searching Model and developed a relational model of the experiences of
students web-based information searching.
|
|
_files/image035.jpg)
|
Mandy
Lupton is a Lecturer in the Griffith Institute
for Higher Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. She is
currently undertaking a PhD investigating students’ ways of experiencing the
relationship between information literacy and learning.
|
References
Barrie, S. (2003) Conceptions of generic graduate attributes. PhD thesis, University
of Technology, Sydney.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997) Reframing organisations: artistry choice and
leadership. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass.
Bowden, J. &
Marton, F. (1998) The university of
learning, beyond quality and
competence in higher education, London: Kogan Page.
Bruce, C.S. (1997) The Seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Bruce, C.S & Candy,
P.C. (eds.) (2000) Information literacy
around the world: advances in programs and research. Charles Sturt
University, Centre for Information Studies.
Bruce
C.S. & Gerber, R. (1995) ‘Towards university lecturers'
conceptions of student learning’, Higher Education, 29(4): 443-458.
Dall’Alba, G. (1991)
‘Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching’, in Research
and Development in Higher Education, Ross, B. (ed.) 13, HERDSA, Sydney:
293-297.
Edwards, S. L. (2005) The Experience of Searching Web-based
Information : Understanding the student's experience to enhance the learning
environment. Available at: http://www.fit.qut.edu.au/~edwardss/WebSearching/websearchinghome.html
(Accessed: 11 October 2005)
Edwards, S. L. (in press) Panning for gold: influencing the experience
of web-based information searching. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Edwards, S. L. & Bruce, C. S. (2002) ‘Reflective Internet
searching: an action research model’, The Learning Organization: an
international journal, 9(3/4):
180-188.
Edwards, S. L. & Bruce, C. S. (In press 2006) ‘Panning for Gold:
Understanding Students’ Information
Searching Experiences’, in Bruce, C.S.
& Mohay, G. & Smith, G. & Stoodley, I. & Tweedale, R. (eds.) Transforming
IT Education: Promoting a culture of
excellence. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science.
Edwards, S. L. & Bruce, C. S. (2004)
‘The assignment that triggered change: assessment and the relational learning
model for generic capabilities’, Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2): 141-
158.
Eisner, E. & Vallance, E. (1974) ‘Five
conceptions of curriculum: their roots and implications for curriculum
planning’, in Eisner, E. and Vallance, E. (eds.) Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. California: Mc Cutchan
Publishing Corp.: 1-18.
Kasowitz-Scheer, A. & Pasqualoni, M.
(2002) ‘Information Literacy
Instruction in Higher Education: Trends and Issues’, ERIC Digest
ED465375. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/information.htm
(Accessed 26 June 2005).
Kearney, M. & Wright, R. (2002) ‘Predict-Observe-Explain eShell’, Learning Designs. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/tools/info/T3/.
(Accessed 20 August, 2005).
Kemmis, S. Cole, P. & Sugget, D. (1983)
Orientations to curriculum and
transition: towards the socially-critical school. Clifton Hill: Victorian
Institute of Secondary Education.
Kent State University (no date) Project
Sails. Available at: http://sails.lms.kent.edu/index.html
(Accessed 22 June 2005).
Limberg, L. (2000) ‘Is there a relationship between information
seeking and learning outcomes?’, in Bruce, C.S & Candy, P.C. (eds.) Information literacy around the world:
advances in programs and research. Charles Sturt University: Centre for
Information Studies.
Lloyd, A. (2003) ‘Information literacy:
meta-competency of the knowledge economy: an exploratory paper’, Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 35(2): 87-92.
Lupton, M. (2004) The learning connection: information literacy and the student
experience. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and awareness, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F. &
Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993) ‘Conceptions of learning’, International Journal of Educational
Research, 19(3): 277-300.
Marton, F. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004) Classroom discourse and the space of
learning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maybee, C. (in press) Undergraduate
perceptions of information use: the basis for creating user-centred student
information literacy instruction. Journal
of Academic Librarianship.
Moore, T. (2004)
'The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills?', Higher Education Research &
Development, 23(1): 3-18.
Neumann, R. (2003) 'A disciplinary
perspective on university teaching and learning', Access and Exclusion, 2:
217-245.
Pang,
M.F. & Marton, F. (2003) ‘Beyond "lesson
study" - Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp of economic
concepts’, Instructional Science,
31(3): 175-194.
Pratt, D.D. & Associates (1998) Five perspectives on teaching in adult and
higher education. Malabar Florida: Krieger Publishing.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the
experience in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into
Higher Education.
QUT Library. (2003) Pilot: your information navigator. Available at: http://www.library.qut.edu.au/pilot/
(Accessed 22 June, 2005).
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge, Falmer.
Ramsden, P. (1988) Studying learning:
Improving teaching, in Ramsden, P. (ed.) Improving
learning. New perspectives. London: Kogan Page: 13-31.
Rensselaer Research Libraries. (2002) TILT
(Texas Information Literacy Tutorial). Available at: http://vcmr-108.server.rpi.edu/TILT/
(Accessed 26 June, 2005).
Runesson, U. (1999) Teaching as
constituting a space of variation. Paper presented at the 8th EARLI Conference, August 24-28, 1999, Göteborg, Sweden.
Available at: http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/graphica/ur.pdf.
(Accessed: 28 September, 2005).
Saljo, R. (1979)
‘Learning about learning’, Higher
Education, 8: 443-451.
Samuelovicz, K. &
Bain, J. (1992) ‘Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers’, Higher Education, 24(1): 93-112.
Toohey, S. (1999) Designing courses for
higher education, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
_files/image002.jpg)
_files/image004.jpg)
_clip_image002_0000.jpg)
_clip_image002_0001.jpg)
_clip_image002_0002.jpg)
_clip_image002_0003.jpg)
_clip_image002_0006.jpg)
_clip_image002_0005.jpg)
Figure 8 The Relational Frame _files/image020.jpg)
_files/image021.gif){kind=small}
_files/image029.jpg)