Bedding down the embedding : IL reality in a teacher education programme

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is one of Australia's largest universities,enrolling 30,000 students. Our Information Literacy Framework and Syllabus wasendorsed as university policy in Feb 2001. QUT Library uses the AustralianInformation Literacy Standards as the basis and entry point for our syllabus. Theuniversity wide information literacy programme promotes critical thinking and equipsindividuals for lifelong learning (Peacock, 2002a). Information literacy has developedas a premium agenda within the university community; as documented by JudithPeacock, the university’s Information Literacy Coordinator (Peacock, 2002b).The Faculties at QUT have for the last few years, started to work through how theinformation literacy syllabus will be enacted in their curricula, and within theorientations of their subject areas. Attitudinal change is happening alongside arealisation that discipline content must be taught within a broader framework.Curricula and pedagogical reforms are a characteristic of the teaching environment.Phrases such as lifelong learning, generic skills, information revolution, learningoutcomes and information literacy standards are now commonplace in facultydiscussion. Liaison librarians are strategically placed to see the "big picture" ofcurricula across large scale faculties in a large scale university. We work withfaculty in collaborative and consultative partnerships, in order to implement reform. QUT Librarians offer three levels of information literacy curriculum to the university.The generic programme is characterised by free classes, offered around the start ofsemesters. The next level is integrated teaching, developed to answer a specificneeds for classes of students. The third level of information literacy is that ofembedding throughout a programme. This involves liaison librarians working toensure that information literacy is a developmental and assessed part of thecurriculum, sequenced through a programme in a similar way to traditional disciplineknowledge, and utilising the IL syllabus. This paper gives a glimpse of what ishappening as we attempt the process of embedding information literacy into theBachelor of Education programme

What is good practice in the development, assessment and evaluation of digital literacy for graduate employability?

This report seeks to identify the features of good practice in the development, assessment and evaluation of digital literacy for graduate employability.The report forms Stage 2 of a two-stage literature review. The results of the first stage of the review are reported in: Towards an understanding of ‘Digital Literacy(ies)’. The current report draws on some of the same literature to that of the Stage 1 report and covers the same time period – up to the end of 2012. In addition, the current report covers literature that provides discussion and accounts of good practice in digital literacy – particularly practice that is embedded in course curricula.The literature provides numerous examples of standalone digital literacy practices. While such practices may be effective for some purposes, they may be less effective than course-integrated practices in contributing to graduate employability. However, there are few accounts of course-integrated practices in the literature and fewer still that provide a compelling case for their positive contribution to graduate outcomes. Accordingly, the report identifies eight criteria of good practice in digital literacy for the assurance of graduate learning outcomes. It then identifies types of broad teaching and learning practices that appear to best encompass these criteria and which provide meaningful contexts in which to develop the digital literacy competencies of students

Multimodal Composing Across Disciplines: Examining Community College Professors’ Perceptions of Twenty-First Century Literacy Practices

Providing a close examination of how professors approach twenty-first century literacy practices and production of multimodal texts, this project focuses on community college professors’ perceptions and expectations of students’ composing abilities pertaining to academic discourse across disciplines. Participants included 24 professors from a variety of disciplines at a large community college. The project examined survey responses, assignment guidelines, course syllabi, course outcomes, and video interviews of five of the 24 participants. Video interviews provided greater insight into participants’ perceptions and expectations. Additionally, research questions targeted course and assignment design, course outcomes, and assessment practices. Data findings suggest that despite access to technology, increased availability of mobile devices (for both instructors and students), and ample information technology support, student production of multimodal texts is occurring minimally at the site in question. Participants appear to struggle with meeting course outcomes and addressing course content when attempting to integrate modes other than written or alphabetic; therefore, they do not actively pursue a multimodal pedagogy. Recognizing the value of integrating digital technologies into course and assignment designs is often challenging for community college instructors who might struggle with understanding the technologies available to them or who do not possess the skills or time to develop technologically advanced courses. However, literacy practices today include producing texts in written, visual, aural or digital modes, all of which encourage the use of digital technologies and production of multimodal texts. Most recent scholarship has not fully examined whether making meaning of and producing multimodal texts is congruent with academic discourse in a community college setting. Indeed, community colleges enroll “43% (7.5 million credit students) of the postsecondary education student population, yet they continue to be the most understudied” (Kater & Levin, 2013, p. ix). Reporting on faculty perceptions across disciplines, this study provides a valuable analysis of the challenges community college professors confront and confirms an interest in developing a multimodal pedagogy, but recognizes that resistance occurs due to limitations in time and ensuring alignment with course outcomes

What counts as creativity in education? An inquiry into the intersections of public, political, and policy discourses

In this essay, the authors examine the varied public, everyday, and academic discourses of creativity that combine to influence our current educational goals and policies, particularly in North America and Europe. From Sir Ken Robinson’s (2006) cutting remark that “Schools kill creativity!” to the Action Canada Foundation’s (2013) assessment that creativity is one of the seven core learning competencies required in the 21st century, this article portrays the compelling push and pull of creativity in education today. The authors found themselves in search of this seemingly crucial, yet increasingly undersupported aspect of their work in teacher education and research. Coming from literacy and arts education, the authors were called to question what they had always taken for granted. This article contextualizes creativity amid everyday, public, and academic discourses. Through engaging in this inquiry, the extent to which creativity is the recipe for success, as it is so often deemed to be, is assessed and a conceptual framework for creativity in action is proposed