thing 1: Introduction to the Framework

Welcome to 23 Framework Things!  This is the first “thing.”  We’ll start out fairly basic on this one.  Start by reading the suggested article, take some time to think about it, and post your reaction below.  Enjoy!

Reading

Foasberg, N. M. (2015). From Standards to Frameworks for IL: How the ACRL Framework addresses critiques of the Standards. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(4), 699-717. http://academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/14/

Activity

Please answer the following questions in the Comments section below:

After reading Nancy Foasberg’s article, what knowledge did you gain about the Framework?  If the article was simply a refresher for you, in what ways does the Framework intrigue you as a basis for instruction?

Remember to include your full name when posting or create a Gravatar.  Thanks!

136 comments

  1. I am also new to information literacy. The side-by-side comparison of Standards versus Framework helped me to appreciate the difference between the two – neither of which I was familiar with. Both still seem relevant, though approaching info literacy from different angles. Standards appeared to be more step-by-step and tangible, while the Framework felt more nimble and contextual. Our academic library uses the AAC&U rubric and Framework in tandem. Without any experience to draw from, it appears that these two would work well together. I think maybe weaving AAC&U rubric with Standards might have been more challenging.

    Like

  2. This is kind of a difficult topic for me to weigh-in on because I wasn’t in the field when libraries used “the standards,” so my only experience is with the framework. The framework is confusing. I do like how the Framework addresses students as learners who can move from novice to expert in a particular area of information literacy. I have previous experience as a teacher and no matter what you are teaching, your students are going to have varying levels of literacy in the subject area. This means that expectations or objectives must be tailored to each student’s abilities. This is helpful for librarians because, just like teachers, we need to be able to diversify our instruction based on students’ abilities.

    Like

  3. “By embracing a different concept of IL,the Framework complicates ACRL’s message”(p.702).

    This article reminded me of the frustration I have with the power some give documents. I think the Framework is a tool that has been added to help the profession. It shouldn’t be the only thing we use to aid us. Both the Standards and the Framework were created in their own context and we too should remember that.

    That being said, I appreciate the nods to critical librarianship and the flexibility of the Framework. We should be engaging with these documents, but shouldn’t allow them to be the only thing we engage with. I don’t believe either of these documents to be THE answer to all of my questions about information literacy instruction. They are part of the puzzle, “the constellation” to look at, but there is the rest of the universe as well.

    I appreciate Foasberg’s eloquent discussion of the Standards and Framework and am always intrigued the most about the idea of critical pedagogy and its application to IL instruction.

    Like

  4. I found this article to be very interesting and really appreciated the side-by-side comparison between the Standards and the Framework. I am new to teaching a 3-credit college research course for community college students, which focuses on information literacy and the research process. The article was helpful in explaining the more theoretical approach of the Framework, which allows for more customization at a local level. However, I do also like the simplicity of the Standards and the clear direction they provide in that there are certain skills that can be taught to students who may just be beginning their academic careers and are doing research for the first time. Working at a community college our students often are not familiar with how to find information they need to complete a research assignment, much less how to evaluate it for authority or analyze the context in which it was created. I find the aspects of information literacy covered by both documents to be important. The Standards offer a set of fairly basic skills we can teach students who are unfamiliar with research, and the Framework offers a way to engage the students in a deeper, more meaningful way with the research process and their role in information literacy.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I am familiar with the Framework, as I have been using it in my 3 credit hour IL class for a couple years now. The more I engage with the Framework, the more I am intrigued in using it as a way to incorporate critical information literacy skills into my course. I really appreciate the flexibility in the Framework as students move from learners to experts.

    Like

  6. Like Foasberg, I have been generally very receptive to the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy. I especially like how the Framework allows for a lot of flexibility in local implementation, a clear distinction to the neat but rigid packages of observable behaviors of the Standards. I think the Foasberg did a great job outlining the distinctions, but in doing so exposed a couple weaknesses within the Framework.

    >With the context-dependency of the framework, we as librarians need to work even more closely with course instructors to understand the information contexts with/in which students are working. This context-dependency may also make a strong case for more disciplinary librarians (i.e. Nursing librarian, Business librarian, etc.). This isn’t possible at small institutions like mine where both time and staff are limited. I’d also like to learn more about how others are teaching social context analysis.
    >I agree with Jessica Hamilton, that the Framework opens the door to validating “alternative facts.” A different interpretation of all information in each different social context seems a step too far.

    Despite these (as well as other) weaknesses in implementation and theory, I still like the direction the Framework has pushed our profession.

    Like

  7. I was familiar with the framework, but as I am new to the profession (I’ve been practice for a year) I was less familiar with the shifts represented by the framework. I like the focus on critical thinking and understanding context as this is something so many students are sorely lacking. I also think it makes it easier to embed ourselves and information literacy into the curriculum as a whole and into specific courses in a more subtle and overall relevant way. These skills are so transferable and so relevant to all students. I think this helps emphasize why we are important in creating well rounded students.

    Like

  8. Foasberg’s article encourages me in how I view information and how I view my students. The Framework’s emphases on context and process are essential in recognizing the complexities involved with the world of information and information literacy.

    I, too, have trouble with the Standards’ positivist approach (which “assumes that information is objective and measurable”), but I cannot help but be concerned that, by extension, the Framework may promote “alternative facts.” Research is messy, perspective is important, and students are not empty vessels waiting to be filled.

    The Framework has influenced my teaching in many ways. Today’s digital-native students certainly don’t need much instruction about search boxes, check boxes, and how to click. I love the process-over-skills approach, and the respect this approach shows to students. Primarily, the Framework informs my teaching so that students can have a big picture, flexible approach to the information-rich world we all inhabit. In other words, it is the background to all my thinking about information literacy lessons and student learning outcomes.

    Like

  9. Reading this article was somewhat of a refresher for me but I think it’s always good to reinforce the concept of how the Framework stresses the idea of students moving from novice to expert. I like the mindset that students aren’t empty vessels waiting to be filled but people who come with experience and that experience is what helps shape their information literacy. I’m reminded that the great thing about the Framework is that it allows us to say there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to research and you have to adapt and change as circumstances require.
    Samantha Martin

    Like

  10. I came to Fosberg’s article having spent the last two years as an instructional librarian in an academic library. Part of my work includes teaching a for-credit research class at my college. Another colleague and I spent a great deal of time developing a syllabus that takes the Framework as it’s guiding structure, so this is by no means a new concept to me. That said, I found Fosberg’s description of the shift from a positivist way of conceiving of information literacy, as a commodity to be measured, to a constructivist approach, which looks at a student as a learner coming to understand information as a “phenomenon” that is a product of the community that produces it, eye-opening. For me, to have the differences so clearly delineated, underscores the incompatibilities between the Standards and Framework.

    What I particularly appreciate about the Framework’s approach is that, rather than simply knowing how to navigate information tools to ethically find and use discrete pieces of information, students will have a much deeper understanding of the information ecology, of how elements in that ecology interconnect, and of how they themselves fit into that environment.

    Like

  11. I have been a fan of the framework since it was in draft form. It seems to provide us with a more meaningful classroom approach and challenges us to think more intentionally about what we would like students to take away from learning experiences with and without us. One of the things I liked most that this article pointed out is the understanding that information is created from and within and for a community. I try to bring this into discussion in my classrooms; “all information is embedded in a social context and cannot be understood outside of that context” (p. 713). I feel challenged to help students understand the strengths and weaknesses of those contexts rather than just examining the background of a single author now. I am hoping this approach will help students feel more adept at battling the onslaught of bad information as they can think more thoroughly not just about the strengths and limitations of the academy but all of the various groups outside that have not had a seat at the table and a voice with which to share information until recently. This article really drove home that the framework can allow for us to think about information in all of its gray forms rather than just black and white.

    Like

  12. What I take away from this article is that the Standards was a document with a different understanding of what information and IL are than the Framework, which informed its pedagogy. Standards were based on a positivist view that expected the student to acquire a list of skills which she can then apply to projects/assignments regardless of disciplinary contexts. This led to a consumer-product approach to IL which is restrictive and non-critical enough. On the other hand the Framework is based on a constructivist point of view, which approaches information and IL as relevant to a community and its context. With an emphasis of how this community produces and gives value to information through debate and power relations (authority is constructed and contextual, information has value frames etc) it gives the opportunity to the student to think critically and if needed, challenge those relations.

    For me this is more a refresher but it made me think again about the different approaches and philosophies that the Framework asks librarians to adopt when teaching IL. It would be useful to incorporate more conversation and critical thinking about information in classes although professors probably expect from us to conduct training on skills, and the philosophy of the Standards was more close to that. It intrigues me to try and find a way to combine expectations somehow.

    Like

  13. I enjoyed reading about the major differences, strengths and weaknesses of both the Standards and the Frameworks. I certainly understand the need for a more constructivist approach to information literacy and think the Frameworks are a useful, much needed addition to the Standards; I find that my thinking about teaching IL is more in line with the Frameworks than with the Standards, although as an instruction librarian I have used the Standards for years as the foundation for my teaching. This article was eye-opening about the need for a more social, contextual approach to teaching IL.

    One thing that is especially appealing and intriguing to me is the idea of students not just as consumers of information but as creators of information or as participants in the conversations that ultimately change a body of information in a particular discipline or subject area. Also, I like the idea of an individual being regarded as an expert in one field of knowledge and a novice in another. Both of these concessions or observations about the abilities and/or roles of our students increases their power, credibility and involvement in the process of discovering and making meaning. I like the Frameworks approach to this concept of developing knowledge in an area since it will give our students more chances and confidence to be rigorous in their pursuit of meaning and understanding.

    I do not necessarily think that the Standards and Frameworks cannot coexist. I think both the reductive, positivist approach and the social constructivist approach have merit and can be used in conjunction with one another to some extent. I think I will lean more toward the Frameworks since they, in my opinion, are the future of information literacy and librarianship, i.e. finding information in non-traditional genres such as blogs, social media, etc., questioning and reshaping the future of publishing and copyright laws, recognizing and acknowledging the value of non-peer reviewed information or questioning the peer-reviewed process. Both have a place in helping our students become more proficient users and creators of information.

    Like

  14. Foasberg’s article is a great overview of the differences between the Standards and Framework, and provides a very strong argument in favor of the Framework. It’s an article that I think I’ll come back to every now and then, because the author articulates so well all of the thoughts and feelings about the Framework that I share. One of my biggest challenges as an instruction librarian at an institution that has adopted the Framework is figuring out how to assess program-level information literacy learning in a way that doesn’t contradict everything the Framework stands for. On page 713, Foasberg writes “standardized tests seem a poor fit for assessing the context-specific dispositions championed by the Framework.” I agree with this point but it will be a challenge to find a practical and effective way to assess those “context-specific dispositions.”

    Like

  15. After reading Nancy Foasberg’s article I now have a better understanding of both the standards and the framework and how the implementation of the framework could improve scholarship at all levels and across disciplines. The framework not only builds on the skills outlined in the standards, but it encourages us to be more focused on the idea of information as an evolving and social concept rather than a set of generalized skills.

    The article did a great job of explaining the framework in comparison to the standard, how they compare to each other side by side, and how the framework could potentially compensate for some of the vague or generalized skill sets outlined in the standards.

    As a basis for instruction I like that the framework not only teaches students to evaluate information but that there is a focus on context not just in terms of specific disciplines but audience and the level of information. I also like that it perpetuates the idea of scholarship as a conversation encouraging students to look at information as social and part of a a larger dynamic social concept.

    Like

  16. Foasberg’s article is interesting but I did have to check on the date of when the framework was adopted (2016) as opposed to her statement that it was only “Filed” in 2015. I agree that the new framework puts students more in the picture as “producers” of information. I also like the concept of the “scholarly conversation”. We have always tried to help students to evaluate information but we still need to discuss the types and the hierarchy of peer-reviewed and edited “authoritative” information. Part of the reason for this is at the beginning level (first/ second year of college), we often find students who have no clue at all about gathering information and also have faculty who specifically tell students they must use scholarly sources and some even say peer-reviewed sources.
    The framework seems designed to be adaptive to all levels. Thus, I can start my community college/ state college beginning students off with a basic understanding of some of these vital concepts (framework). I can then hope that as they get into their sophomore year they will have classes that will build on some of these ideas (more advanced searching and evaluation for English Comp II than Comp I). I further hope that when they transfer to a University and have a major and field of study, that the department and subject specific librarians will take those students to the next level — all building on the framework but more specific to their field, task, etc.

    We already have classes which emphasize information production (Public Speaking), so to see more of that in the framework is great. I find I give examples of student produced work from a Public Speaking class when I teach about the “scholarly/ information conversation” and how students are a part of that conversation. I also love that particular frame because I like to point out that sometimes information really is an actual, fact to face conversation: If a group of students are standing around discussing an upcoming exam and one student says “I heard the test was canceled”, what happens then? Usually the first question asked will be something along the lines of “How do you know? Where did you hear that? Really?”. All of those are evaluation questions, trying to determine the source used. If the response is “I just heard some other students saying it,” the information will not have as much weight (authority) as if the answer is “Our instructor just posted an announcement in Canvas [or your learning management system].” Again, this is a great example of context — the community of students will value / give greater authoritative weight to official seeming information (posted by the instructor in the course) verses rumor and hearsay. This is hopefully a way for beginning students to get a better understanding of the scholarly communication in a way that can get because they are already doing it.

    Like

  17. As a basis for instruction, I am intrigued by how the Framework can elevate librarianship as a profession of subject specialists. As a librarian for nearly thirty years, I’ve spent my entire career advocating for libraries. Why is it so hard, I’ve often wondered, for everyone to see the inherent value librarians provide to a free and informed citizenry? I’m interested in exploring the difference between the positivist thinking, which is how I was taught to think throughout my entire academic career, and the constructivist way of thinking, which is radical enough in educational philosophy to perhaps shake up the establishment and finally elevate libraries as places of special importance.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. As someone who isn’t very familiar with the Standards, this article on the Framework was a good introduction to both. It was illustrative of the amount of change that had happened between the two documents. My impressions of the Standards was that they tended to be fairly rigid and straightforward, whereas the Framework is more flexible and open for interpretation. I appreciate how the Framework doesn’t accept all information as the god’s honest truth; it actively encourages interpretation and analysis. Thus it seems to question authority more than the Standards did, at least in my eyes.

    I’m coming at this from a public library’s perspective, and I’m interested to see how exactly I can translate the Framework into something usable in my own domain.

    Like

  19. I have considered the Standards and the Framework to be two documents that complement each other – the Framework providing the theory and the Standards providing the practical application. However, Foasberg’s argument was that the documents “embrace competing theories of information literacy”. Quite an interesting perspective.

    Like

  20. I’ve been somewhat familiar with the Framework for a while, and this article was helpful in getting a stronger grasp on it. In particular, the emphasis that the Framework is based around social constructivism rather than behaviouralism unlike the standards was a useful concept. I think that while the Framework is a better approach for teaching information literacy, it may be harder (especially as a relatively novice instructor/librarian) to teach to it. The standards are clearer about what success means, so it would be easier to say “yes, this student achieved information literacy,” but the realistic nature that it is an iterative process is not demonstrated.

    Like

    • I think this is an inherent problem with the system of education in that the only way we have to assess learning is by performance criteria, which seems much easier to do with the Standards than with the Framework.

      Like

  21. I really appreciated the comparison of the Standards and Framework. This article helped me understand the differences between the two. The Standards treat information literacy as a learned skill acquired through practice or as moving from low information literacy to high information literary. One of the skills is learning to evaluate sources and to prefer the “scholarly” sources. The Framework, on the other hand, positions information literacy as a conversation that happens in a context or community wherein the learner will accept or question sources/power frameworks based on the current context. The Framework’s emphasis on relationships and context creates more space for dialogue.

    Although I understand the value of the Framework, I am curious about how to implement and assess the Framework in instruction sessions.

    Like

  22. While I appreciate that the Framework addresses some of the failings of the Standards, I also don’t consider it necessarily a replacement so much as a supplement. Presenting these two methodologies as separate, competing approaches–as this article seems to be doing–does not take into consideration that each can serve a purpose and complement the other. Presenting information literacy as JUST a set of skills in the Standards or JUST a social phenomenon in the Framework fails to acknowledge that information literacy can be at times either or both.

    In many ways, the Standards seem to focus on the message of information–the surface-level meaning conveyed directly by the words on the paper. Information within the Standards is evaluated on the basis of the message. The Framework seems to be focused conversely on the metamessage of information–the implicit message, made apparent through the context of the information. Information within the Framework is evaluated with an added focus on factors not necessarily addressed within the text. Both of these levels of meaning are important in developing a holistic understanding of information literacy.

    While Foasberg seems to take issue with the idea of information literacy corresponding to reproducible skills, I think that’s very much a strong foundation upon which to build. The Framework has the potential to enhance that set of basic reproducible skills by encouraging information seekers to consider context in evaluating sources, and providing guidelines for the information seeker to become an active participant in the information cycle rather than a passive observer.

    Like

  23. I found this article so full of thoughtful information. I am new to teaching in the college environment, and have struggled not with the locating of sources with the students, but what they do with the list of sources once they find them. To try and talk about evaluating these sources, and using them as part of the conversation that begins their research process proves difficult for me. I understand the theories put forth in the framework, and embrace them, but would love practical advice and ideas for the classroom.

    Like

  24. I enjoyed this article on the Framwork a lot more than I thought I would.. The theory behind the Framework was really helpful in better understanding the differences from the Standards. The main takeaways for me are that the value of information is based on context/discipline, mastering IL is a continuous process for the learning as they move through different discipline, the learning is more involved in learning process with the Framework, and has more agency to explore.

    Like

  25. Alright, this forum doesn’t allow editing of posts, so be it.
    Anyway, this article is very satisfying to me because it pulls together the critique of the thinking behind the standards, particularly the idea that students are consumers of static information that they pluck out of computers and use. No surprise then that we have such trouble with patch-writing!

    I’m not sure which came first, the librarian pushing this idea or the comp teacher assigning students to find 1-5 articles that “support” their view. A colleague calls this ‘shopping’ – a metaphor that literally equates articles with commodities.

    Instead of asking, for example, ‘how do experts address this question?’ or even, “is this actually a question that is interesting and useful to ask?” (for ex: is there evidence that the basis of the question actually even exists, is it in any way controversial or are all the facts settled, is there a debate or question being addressed among experts or scholars?) they just think up something out of their own experience and then attempt, using proper MLA or APA style, to justify their thought by pointing to some article about which they can’t understand any of the scholarly context to which it belongs.

    Standards, and thus comp teachers, librarians and students, treat academic articles as if they were encyclopedia articles: neutral, factual, inherently authoritative. Students are taught that non-scholarly content is inherently ‘poor’ for reasons they don’t understand, and biased, and that in contrast scholarly articles are reliable. I tell students, scholarly articles are never ever neutral, because the authors are trying very hard to make a strong argument. This does not mean any “opinion” is equal to any other. But it does mean that the arguments are not neutral – they are part of a debate, and we all know that debaters can present perfectly true, well-justified info organized to support a strong, positioned argument.

    In contrast, the framework helps students understand that they are not shopping but walking into a complicated new social world. With beginners, I tell them: imagine you are walking into a big reception or party of all the people you want to work with the rest of your life. You don’t just randomly select someone to talk to. You hang back a little, read the room, consider who the show-off blowhards might be, who the weirdos talking to themselves might be. And you notice how they talk about each other. You notice how they are all arguing about one person’s ideas – seems like maybe you’d want to meet that person! And by the way, when they talk about that person’s ideas – in writing, that’s shown with citations! and so on…

    Like

  26. I wrote a long response and it didn’t post, so now I’m irritated, just trying again to see if this will work – will edit later if it does.

    Like

  27. I really appreciate this reading because I always suspected the shift from positivist to postmodern theory in the Framework. Seeing the shift laid out in the reading gave me a true a-ha! moment. The shift has been of particular interest to me because I sense that institutions themselves are only getting more interested in measurement via objectives and outcomes. So while our institutions strengthen their commitment to positivist theory, instruction theory has steadily moved away from objective measurement to postmodern thought. I anticipate being wrong, but I don’t take postmodernism to be as focused on measurement as positivism. Within in the Framework I notice a shift away from measuring behaviors to changing peoples minds. This is where the Threshold concepts come in. The idea that these concepts rely on a change of mind is a measurable thing, but not in the manner in which we have become accustomed. I am indeed surprised and not surprised by the assessment literature that has sprung up around the Framework. In embracing the Framework and designing our outcomes and objectives to be locally and contextually relevant, are we gaining better traction with our students? But losing the ground on which assessment rests?
    This is what I enjoyed about this reading. A confirmation of my initial thinking, and more questions than answers. Thank you.

    Like

  28. The Framework is a very exciting and innovative way to think about library instruction. I am not ready to throw out the “Standards” entirely, but agree that we need an enlarged understanding of what it means to be information literate. I have worked with health sciences students for several decades and have been very frustrated by the excessive reliance on “peer-reviewed articles” in contexts for which they are not the most useful sources of information.

    Like

  29. My major takeaway from this article is that, despite the major philosophical and theoretical differences between the Framework and the Standards, I am very much in the camp of “mapping the Standards to the Framework” that the author mentions very briefly in her conclusion.

    Arguments about whether the full process of information literacy is transferable between disciplines aside, there is a need for there to be some identifiable and particular skills to teach and expect from students prior to them “going down the rabbit hole” of constructing their own opinions and challenging authority. I work with mainly first-generation non-traditional students, and I find that I often have to teach them about recognizing authority before they could ever challenge it. Therefore to have both the Standards as a starting place and the Framework to expand the skills has been wonderful for me. I started teaching just shortly before the Framework was adopted, and coming from a sociology background (with a deep love/understanding for symbolic interactionism), seeing the Framework for me was less about replacing an entire understanding of information literacy and more about allowing it to grow the same way we expect our students to grow.

    Like

  30. I think what I like about the framework approach to information literacy is the more direct application to discipline-specific thinking. I liken it a lot to the Reading Apprenticeship program that I recently participated in, which strives to help teach students to critically think about and understand texts uniquely in different fields. A history text is a lot different than a biological text, and research for a history course is pretty far removed from research in a biology course. Each field thinks about information differently, uses sources differently, and employs different tools to find those sources.

    I still find skills to be an important element within the framework, but I like to think that the way I’ve taught and discussed research skills has always been informed differently depending on the audience and subject – kind of anticipating the larger points made in the framework. This approach, though, seems to allow for a more seamless conversation with a professor, an expert in their field that teaches using a similar premise and understanding of their content, in order to provide the best instruction for their courses. We can start to speak a more similar language.

    Like

  31. This article is the 31st I’ve read about the Framework, and in many ways, it repeats themes from the previous 30 articles. With the Standards, we were given a set of “skills” to teach or at least attempt to teach. Now, with the Framework, we are going to try to teach concepts or ideas. As I read the Framework (and each time I read it, something new pops out at me) I realize that my own style of teaching more closely aligns with the Frames than the Standards. So, this is good, yes?

    Teaching our students to think holistically, to think of the bigger picture, to encourage them to look towards the distant horizon instead of the vista next to them is tricky, particularly in one-shot instructions. This is the catch to the Framework, but it is doable. Several of the Frames and their accompanying Knowledge Practices ad Dispositions overlap, and these intersections will allow for broader concept-teaching (or I’m hoping they will). Ask me in a few months, after I restructure our library instruction program.

    I wrote in the margin of the article, “how do we convince The Academy to embrace information that isn’t peer-reviewed, even if it has been written by an expert?” Experts write a great many wonderful things that are not peer-reviewed, and academicians will not accept those things due to lack of peer-review. I see this as an obstacle – not insurmountable, but still an obstacle.

    Like

  32. As a librarian who has not been teaching for very long, it is an interesting time to come into the field.

    I appreciate the theory and the philosophy that the article provided. I think the standards are very straight forward which I like. However I think it fails to address that students themselves are not simple and research is not always straight forward.

    The Framework for IL seems to try to address this, and thus complicates the question of “What makes a student information literate?”

    I also very much appreciate that the Framework recognizes different types of authority. This is something I struggled with when I was a student. There are times when it seems that academia is so far removed from the communities that we are studying, but the Framework addresses this with “Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority”

    As the article mentions, the Framework gives us the “opportunity to improve our practice”

    Like

  33. I learned a lot from reading this article – not only about the Framework, but the Standards, too. I had never really considered the philosophical underpinnings of the Standards before. The comparison between the Framework and the Standards was also beneficial, and the article serves as a good argument for adopting the Framework. Nevertheless, the article was very theoretical and I am more interested in the nuts and bolts on how libraries are integrating the Framework into one-shot instruction, credit courses, and across the college curriculum. The Standards have worked so well in my student learning outcome focused college, that it is going to be challenging to get everyone on board.

    Like

  34. To be honest, I have resisted giving up the Standards. I like their clarity, and at a college that focuses on student learning outcomes as a way to assess and reflect on student learning, the performance indicators and outcomes associated with each standard gave me language that faculty readily understand. The standards are now embedded in our library orientations and in the college’s GE pattern, and they inform the student learning outcomes we were required to create for our one-unit library research class.

    That said, Foasberg’s articulation of the philosophy underlying the Framework and how it differs from that of the Standards is helping me give up my resistance! Although I have a long way to go to incorporate the threshold concepts in my teaching, I appreciate that the framework addresses the real-world messiness of actual research. For years I’ve wrestled with how to structure the library course when I teach it, and as I read Foasberg’s article, I realized that my struggle was at least partly inherent in my reliance on the standards. Although my goal is to give students practical tools, the standards are “an idealized version of an abstract research process” (p. 707). In the interest of truly helping students become information literate, I’m inspired to embark on this transformation.

    Like

  35. I enjoyed this article. It presented clear distinctions between the Standards and the Framework. My institution had used the standards in the past. We are still adjusting to the new framework. I like that the new framework is more fluid and relies less on checklists. I’m not a big believer in checklists as it depends on the context. I look forward to continuing to explore the new framework.

    Like

  36. As a new librarian in a high school I found this discussion of the Framework gives me pause. How would I measure that what I am teaching my students fits into the framework. The Standards were prescriptive, and make that sort of measurement easy. Having said that I think the social nature of the Framework would connect much better to today’s students. Recognizing the “Scholarship is conversation”, and being able to see themselves as novices, gradually attaining more developed skills strikes me as very much appealing to students. Participating in creating new knowledge, rather than being on the outside and looking in is intensely appealing. It doesn’t help me evaluate how well I am helping them be prepared for college research though.

    Like

  37. I didn’t only learn about the Framework, but I also learned about the Standards. I appreciated the juxtaposition of the two documents– skills vs. social practice, official set in stone document vs. a flexible “filed” document, and information being objective and measurable vs. knowledge being constructed and reconstructed. This article further affirmed my belief that the Framework is much more encompassing and adaptable than the Standards.

    Like

  38. The standards clearly needed an update, and the Framework brings IL into current times. However, I think we need to take another step backward and see through today’s college kids. I was an Instruction Librarian just after the Framework came out. I worked hard to reach as many students as I could to show them how to do scholarly research for their assignments. So few students had any exposure to very basic knowledge besides googling to get what they thought was equally valid information. I realized that since trained librarians were being eliminated in grade schools and high schools, that students had no idea any more that there even were standards for research. I don’t know how many times I had to tell college students not to pay for articles. They didn’t know that part of their tuition paid for the library to subscribe to scholarly research, and the student had to access the databases through the library website.
    My own children, HS and college aged, thought they were so savvy on the internet, but even they (children of a librarian) had trouble “reading” a website, knowing where to look for information on a website, how to find the info they needed. I guess I feel like students have so much to learn before they even get to what is a good or bad source, and it makes me wonder if that’s what contributed to people believing Fake News.

    Like

  39. I appreciate the emphasis on students in this article’s evaluation of the Framework. Our current students have grown up in the information age, and have their own well-established ways of seeking, using, and creating information. They are often so comfortable with those ways that they resist learning any method of academic research; what they have been doing since childhood works well enough for them, so why should they change? I like Foasberg’s description of the “opportunity to understand as valid the searching practices that students may use outside of an academic environment, while introducing new strategies as additions to the toolbox, not replacements for what they already know” (711). In our work towards information literacy (which my college describes as developing a “Spirit of Inquiry”), we try to start with what they know–Google and Wikipedia–and build from there, while also circling back to those earlier skills as needed for clarity or even comfort. The information environment is so complex that the Standards had become insufficient, and I am glad that we now have these “frames” to work with.

    Like

  40. Though I still see some value in the Standards, the Framework addresses two issues I had with them. This article reminds me of those very issues.

    First of all the Framework takes us beyond the Standards’ “information literate student” (Foasberg, 2015, p. 710). Information literacy is not something achieved once and for all, and learning does not stop at graduation. With the information landscape shifting even those of us in the field keep learning new things.

    Secondly the Framework acknowledges that learners can be novices in one domain, but experts in another (Foasberg, 2015, p. 711). Especially for first generation students, nontraditional students, and other groups new to academia, we can look at their strengths in real-world information use. Perhaps we can build on those strengths in teaching them about the academic realm.

    My use of the term “information use” might be problematic, given the Framework’s shift away from information as a commodity (Foasberg, 2015, p. 706). All the same we deal with artifacts. Also, this language takes nothing away from the discussion of lifelong learning and different domains.

    Like

  41. When I first read the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education, I found myself outlining it as something like a developmental model for scholarly information literacy in which the beginner, a novice scholar, ideally grows to become an expert. In that regard, I see overlap between the Framework and stages of development in various theories of developmental psychology.

    I suspect that my impulse to outline it that way is similar to what compels many of us to lean on the Standards, namely, for the provision of clear guidelines.

    Standardization does have strengths in easing both planning and assessment, but I appreciated this article for pointing out the strength of the Framework in addressing some of the weaknesses of standardization. In the article’s strongest argument, Foasberg demonstrates a social constructionist outlook in the Framework. This acknowledges the socio-political nature of information, the role of communities in the creating authority, and the need for cultural literacy as a point of context for information literacy.

    Importantly, the article points out that the standards were created to define the work of librarians. If psychologists created and adhered to developmental models merely as a way to define their work rather than as a way to understand human psychological development, I would take issue. I believe the Framework broadens our understanding of the development of the information literate student and/or scholar and I hope this averts the enforcement of rigidity.

    Like

  42. This well-written article allowed me to understand why the standards had to be revised, beyond the issue of technological changes. But I believe academic librarians in the early 2000s already well knew that there is a context and social aspect to research assignments and evaluating authority. Each program or faculty member defines the research parameters: topics allowed, length, peer reviewed vs. popular or trade sources, date range, geography, professional qualifications of the author, type of study permitted to be used, etc. This can have consequences when some students get to the writing portfolio stage and find their paper does not receive as high an evaluation. It likely has consequences in graduate programs and employment if the student creates information and evaluates authority differently. So clearly the standards weren’t sufficient for the complexities of academia but I’m not sure the individual libraries’ response to the Framework will help. I do appreciate the idea of scholarship as conversation rather than just taking in information that is just lying around out there to be absorbed. I would even substitute the word debate for conversation! I would think younger students today are used to seeking out a variety of perspectives and use nonlinear approaches: but will they be rewarded for it? Will a culture of “fake information” ensue (some might say it has always existed)? I think some ideas brought up by the Framework merit articles of their own: the copyright issue and the social justice issue.

    Like

  43. Until reading this article, I didn’t understand that the Standards and the Framework were two separate documents and ideas of thought still in use. I thought the Framework had replaced the Standards. Being a black and white, rule follower kind of person, the Standards instantly appeal to me as they are more “concrete” and they seem to offer more of a checklist that one can use to ensure everything is being covered and measured during instruction. The Framework seems more abstract to me…something that will be harder to create learning opportunities for and harder to measure learning outcomes. So, even though I instinctively prefer the Standards, I feel that we need to work toward the Framework. A nice blend of the two would be perfect.

    Like

    • Hi, Kelly!
      I believe the Framework replaced the Standards, but after this article had been written. Things change quickly, don’t they? Since the Framework was not meant to be prescriptive, an institution can still draw from the Standards and–as you put it–blend the two.
      –All my best,
      Maureen

      Like

  44. I’ve been thinking about the framework since it was in draft form. I am also a little familiar with various critiques of the standards and the frames. I did gain more information about the critiques of the standards…

    At my former institution, I had been experimenting with using the frames in my instruction (as well as doing faculty development on the frames). I was focused on straddling the line between practical and big picture when incorporating the frames into instruction. They are definitely more interesting and engaging than the standards…and more challenging to assess. The faculty like them much more than the standards.

    At my current institution, we are just starting to move towards the frames. I’m looking forward to aligning them with institutional goals and collaborating with faculty to incorporate them into instruction inside and outside of the library. I think this will help build partnerships with reluctant departments. I think it will also bring some fresh air into our library classroom by focusing on more than just where to click.

    Like

  45. I found this article very well summed up the tensions between and among the Standards and Framework. I have started to think of the standards as tools to use, and the framework as the philosophy of designing the project upon which to use the tools (a very simplistic metaphor).
    This article also gave me more language to use as the librarians here discuss the Framework.

    Like

  46. I’m a fairly new librarian, and until a couple of months ago, I was primarily a cataloging librarian and not an instruction librarian. I find it interesting to think about the Framework before I discovered critical librarianship and Paulo Freire and then afterward. Thinking about the Framework without knowing any of the theories or scholarship behind the drive to create the Framework makes it a less intriguing – or perhaps engaging – change. As I was reading Foasberg’s article, I recognized Freire’s discussion about the banking model of librarianship and the power imbalance of access to knowledge. It’s been very revealing because I’ve often thought of education as being the bestowing of knowledge from one person to another, and now I see that this is not the case. This does change how I work with students about discussing library resources and how to do research. It’s less prescriptive and more a way to put power into the hands of the students/patron.

    Like

  47. Foasberg’s article is very intriguing and definitely affected the ways that I think about the Framework. I am familiar with the Standards vs. Framework conversation and have read several articles previously. However, this is the first article I have read that has deeply analyzed the theoretical basis for the development of these documents.

    I see several interesting qualities to the documents that have affected how I think about information literacy. I have always thought that there was an element missing to the Standards that was a disconnect between the skills and the information seeker’s need and how they achieved it. Information Literacy as a process that includes students is a much more holistic approach and helps develop critical skills that will benefit students as they become job seekers and workers. I have one concern about the Framework in relation to the work I do at a small community college. It can be difficult for me to guide students to the level of academic work that the Framework concepts are aimed at. The majority of the students I encounter have great difficulty with understanding what research is or even why it is needed (which results from a much more complex problem than just the students’ education level, enthusiasm, or the skill of the librarians). I try to take the mindset of building foundations for these complex I.L. ideas that students who intend on transferring to another institution will encounter while keeping these goals and guidance in mind. I aim mostly to instill the idea that they don’t have to just take what is told to them or what they read as fact or authority and that critical thinking is one of the most important skills an educated person can develop. If nothing else, giving them the tools to ask good questions will be beneficial in some way or another.

    One thing I did notice in this article was that in the development of the Framework, I see a reflection of current societal attitudes, namely librarianship’s philosophical shift towards advocacy and social justice issues in relation to access to and use of information. I didn’t realize that this shift could be another avenue of advocacy for professionals.

    – Katie Shepard

    Like

    • Katie,
      You mentioned your students’ challenges “understanding what research is.” I, too, work with students new to academic research. At the same time I can’t help but think of the research the students do in their nonacademic lives (buying a car, etc.). Your comment reminds me to work on translating those real world examples to what they’re doing in the classroom. Both kinds of research involve, in your words, the ability “to ask good questions.” Thanks!
      –All my best,
      Maureen

      Like

  48. I found the comparisons of the Standards and Framework very interesting. I am always looking for help digesting the Framwork. I am also interested in how to apply it to my IL. Even though the Standards have their flaws (as pointed out in the article), I found them much easier to digest.

    Like

  49. I had a hard time with this article. I want to be thrilled with the Framework, want to be excited about it because I’m so excited about information literacy as a whole (I don’t work in a college library and haven’t worked with IL before) – but I could tell by reading the article that I would very much prefer the Standards. I like to have a rubric, like to have those check-marks – and I liked these things as a learner as well as an instructor.

    That said, I do like the idea of information as a conversation. I believe students have a lot to contribute and that they should be taken seriously – but within reason. We still need to be able to identify authoritative sources. It’s just interesting to think that the definition of authority can change depending on the scenario. I like that the Framework takes that into account.

    I’m interested to learn more and am looking forward to continuing on to more Things. I’ll have more to say when I understand more, I believe.

    Like

  50. I am fairly new to the realm of Information Literacy instruction so I wasn’t all that familiar with either Standards or Framework though after reading this article I can see how I was taught to research in school reflected in the Standards. I thought that the comparison and contrast between the Standards and Framework presented in Foasberg’s article was a very interesting and informative introduction to these two schools of thought. The idea that I found most intriguing in this comparison and contrast was the difference between how the Standards and Framework view the researcher within those systems, information literate and information illiterate in the Standards vs. novice and expert in Framework. I really appreciated Framework’s approach in this area as it empowers the researcher by validating what they already know as part of the research process while encouraging them to acquire and develop new skills along the way.

    Like

  51. I’m brand new to IL and am trying to absorb both the Standards and the Framework. Reading this article really helped to put the two in context for me. It also made some interesting points, such as students being participants and producers of information, not just consumers of data. I also thought it interesting that Foasberg argued that while she sees Standards as being “common to all disciplines, to all learning environments, and to all levels of education” that some ACRL sections have created their own versions of the Standards to better fit within specific disciplines.
    Still figuring out what IL is and how to do it, I hadn’t gotten to the point of pondering the pedagogy behind instruction. Foasberg’s article was a great way to dive into that thought process. I’m planning to find a rebuttal to round out the conversation.

    Like

  52. I’m late to the party but I’ve enjoyed reading the article and the discussion here. I like both the Framework and the Standards and feel both have their place in instruction. While I appreciate where the Framework would like to go when it comes to information literacy, overall, I think its theory of information literacy is advanced for students. The Standards provide a good first step for students and once they know and understand these skills, that’s when I feel ready to break down some of the black and white beliefs presented.

    In accepting the Framework, I’ve had to challenge my own biases. I used to teach French. Both as a French learner and teacher, I prioritized learning basic grammar and vocabulary before jumping into French conversations. However, the natural approach to language acquisition which focused on communication more than prescriptive grammatical lessons was becoming popular in language instruction.

    That’s where I find myself in regards to the Framework and the Standards. I want to make sure students know the basic skills of information literacy before they move onto the more advanced aspect of really critiquing and challenging the assumptions behind those basic skills. Otherwise, I fear a reliance on bias over critique based on a foundation of understanding. However, maybe, like natural language acquisition, students would get where they needed to go anyway even if bias initially entered into their thought process in the beginning.

    Like

    • I had an interesting experience this morning. I encountered students who I am pretty sure had no idea what call numbers were about. So some students might really be overwhelmed with Framework unless their schools were able to have a true scaffold of information literacy!

      Like

  53. After reading the article, I gained the knowledge that we are leading people to become more active members within the process of information literacy. I also see that the Framework understands that information is created within a social context and that all members of the information process are important within this context.

    In terms of how the Framework intrigues me, I feel that just like the web has transitioned to a Web 2.0 platform of more social interaction and content created by users, it is important for the Framework to successfully reflect that as well. I am looking for ways of incorporating social based interactions and evaluations about content in my instruction, as well as having students learn how to critically assess information for their own use. In learning more about the Framework, I look to find ways of adapting information literacy instruction for my students.

    Like

  54. Context and communities. Communities and context. Foasberg drives home these ideas as the prevailing themes or central considerations of the Framework. This may be true. I do fear that compartmentalizing information in the way the Framework seems to risks losing potentially useful universalizing lessons contained within the concept of information literacy, however. If the Standards are accused of being shortsighted, can the same attack not be waged against the Framework? If encouraging students to become lifelong learners and active and responsible citizens is a goal, how does the Framework contribute? I am not suggesting that it in no way does, but insisting on identity-based formulations seems to detract from this.

    Like

  55. I really love the idea of students engaging in scholarly conversation. I believe this framework assigns more responsibility to the student in responding in an academic context but it also prepares them to engage in discourse in the “real world.” I feel like this framework when taught accurately will enlighten students to the impact of their voice and allow them to respond more thoughtfully and with a mind towards their potential audience/responders.

    The article was very helpful in discussing the Frames and how they take the standards further in terms of preparing people to engage with information in the classroom and beyond in an increasingly information saturated world.

    Just coming out of graduate school in the last two years I wish I had seen myself as a participant in the scholarly discussion around my field. I viewed myself as having opinions but never placed myself on the same plane as the authors I was reading. I felt like I was talking to my instructor, not the author and that may have changed the nature of my writing or how I explained my position. I feel like the Framework definitely opens students up to a deeper understanding of the field we are asking them to explore and respond with a lasting impression on their future studies.

    Like

  56. I found that the article helped me understand the underlying differences between the Standards and the Framework. I agree with Linda that discarding the Standards completely would be a mistake. I think combining the two somehow would be helpful to a lot of students, especially those who do not have a lot of experience using databases.

    Like

  57. I’ve recently moved to academic librarianship after spending a number of years as an archivist. I’ve read a number of articles about the Framework already, so this isn’t new–if anything, I’ve come to the field in the time since the Standards have been supplanted by the Framework, so this is my normal. I’m hoping that by working through the rest of the 23 things I can learn more about creating and delivering effective instruction with the Framework. Aside from trying to learn to be a better teacher, the other part I’m hoping to learn is how to better assess our one-shots.

    Like

  58. I’ve read several things about the Framework and attended a couple of conference sessions about it, so I knew a little going in.

    I thought the Foasberg article was clear, concise, and well written. I understood most of her points and the advantages she sees in the Framework, but I am not entirely convinced that the Framework should completely replace the Standards. Maybe it’s because I am coming to the end of my career in libraries or maybe it’s because of the type of person I am (the only one in my family who actually reads instructions).
    Here’s why I don’t think the Framework alone is enough.

    1. Students are not being taught how to use databases and/or reference tools in primary, middle, and high school. They are just Googling sources.

    How do I know this is true? I am a librarian in a small WV college. From 2010 to 2014, I did informal surveys of high school tours and freshmen orientation classes. I found that only 25% of WV students had heard of the WV statewide databases and only 8% said they had used them in their school projects. It’s rough and ready, but it was borne out by the high school administrator who called to see about forming a consortium to purchase electronic databases. When I asked him why the WV statewide databases weren’t helpful, it turned out he didn’t know about them and was angry about never being told about them. (I also had a student from that school tell me that the school had taken all the books out of their library and put in a huge big-screen TV. He was scathing about the quality of resources in the school library.) I also spoke to a tour of local teachers in our county. When I asked them about their use of the WV statewide databases, most of them didn’t know about them. Additionally, one of my colleagues has a daughter who is a teacher. She did a five-year combined bachelors/masters program. I asked her about her what kind of source restrictions or databases her professors used. She said that she only had two education classes that had required her to use a “library” database. The rest of the classes left it up to students to locate sources. She said, “My mom’s a librarian, so I used databases for all my projects.” There is also the problem of retiring school librarians who are not being replaced.

    I have a theory that there is a “lost” generation(s) of teachers. They grew up around the time of the early Internet, when people loved to say the Internet has/would have everything (and it would all be free). In fact, I heard this again in 2010 in and instructional design and technology masters program class. I was unable to convince my fellow student that he was wrong – even though our textbook written by our professor was not available electronically. Their teachers were not familiar with electronic searching and didn’t prepare them to research online, so they taught themselves and then taught the next generation of teachers. I think I see the pendulum swinging back, but I have to tell you, I spent three years in the IDT program working with teachers and saying to them and my professors, “Where’s the library in all this?” I even had to persuade one professor that the humorous cartoons that he wanted included our sourced essays needed to be sourced as well. I was also surprised at the number of teachers who didn’t know how to cite sources.
    I think academic, public, and school librarians need to band together and work to make sure that students can use the statewide electronic resources, and that adults are aware that we cover their information and entertainment needs from cradle to grave. It’s not easy, but I think we need to get the word out in all venues. BTW, this is not just a WV Info Depot problem. I have students from PA and VA who don’t know about Power Library or Find It Virginia. I don’t know what MD is doing right, but most of their patrons know about Sailor. (FYI – I was in library school in 1989 when it premiered and used it at the Enoch Pratt Public Library one Saturday.)

    2. I don’t think checklists are such a bad thing.

    I have family members who can’t live without them, and I think Atul Gawande’s work shows that checklists can be important even for highly skilled people who know their jobs well. I also think that you can’t go from novice to expert without some kind of structure or scaffolding. (This is a constructivist approach for learning to research.) There are basic skills/strategies/tenets that need to be learned and practiced. You can’t go from novice to expert in a day. It just doesn’t work. This is where I think the Standards and Framework can support one another. We want to get them to critical literacy, but first we need to lay down some basics. My favorite analogy is cooking. You learn to cook using basic cooking techniques and recipes. However, as you become more skilled and expert, you learn when and how to deviate from the prescribed to the daring and creative. Again, it is matter of having expert knowledge.

    3. I have a problem with the novice as peer to the expert.

    I get it. Experts are often wrong. Experts disagree with one another. Knowledge advances with paradigm shifts. But I have a real problem with telling a novice that your voice is as important as the expert. Mainly because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. (For more info, see this Psychology Today article.) But also because of the various “silos” on the Internet where you never have to hear a dissenting voice or confront an uncomfortable truth. Confirmation bias is a big problem.

    While working on one of my IDT class projects, I did a survey of librarians about their expertise and their opinions of a strategy I wanted to use. I had a group of librarians with over 100 years of combined professional service rate their research skills as very good, not excellent. Someone trying to be helpful released the survey to a group of college students. Every single student choose “excellent” when describing their research skills. Sorry, but I don’t think so! Proof that Dunning-Kruger lives!

    Let’s talk confirmation bias. I also have problems with students who don’t think for themselves but simply parrot what they hear their families or their favorite news outlet say. And it’s not just students. I have an aunt and uncle (70s) who tell me I don’t watch enough conservative television. My uncle reads three newspapers a day, including a liberal/democratic one, but the only articles he pays attention to are the ones that support his conservative views.

    4. I very much like scholarship as a conversation.

    I think this is an awesome.

    5. It’s unfair to blame academic librarians for steering students to academic databases and resources.

    The professors tell us they want the students to learn to use databases and peer-reviewed sources in their work. Besides, this is probably their first and only chance to see what scholars do and say about their areas of study. Many of these are pay-walled resources that students will only be able to access via their college libraries.

    6. Intellectual property matters! Copyright matters!

    I also do ILL, so I am a little hard core on the importance of respecting copyright and intellectual property. Not everyone is a scholar with a day job that pays the bill while they publish for fun and tenure. Some people need their royalties to pay the rent and the orthodontist bills. Yes, I think some publishers charge way too much. Yes, I wish access were easier, but I don’t think advocating for the user to decide what is fair or not is the way to go.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for your substantive post, Linda! You bring up some very valid criticisms. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with using checklists as long as we scaffold our instruction in such a way that we are eventually encouraging students to more deeply engage with sources (by evaluating claims for evidence, for example) in their path to developing a critical disposition. Sometimes I wish that the Framework did a better job articulating how to scaffold information literacy instruction, but then I remind myself that the Framework was designed to be flexible so that it can be applied in a variety of settings for a diverse array of learners. One way you could approach scaffolding is to map the knowledge practices & dispositions along a spectrum from novice to expert with your student population in mind. Though I agree with you that we have our work cut out for us in terms of helping students resist confirmation bias, I actually think the Framework does a better job than the Standards in this area by emphasizing a skeptical & multifaceted approach to evaluating authority, “Learners who are developing their information literacy abilities develop awareness of the importance of assessing content with a skeptical stance and with a self-awareness of their own biases and worldview” (Authority is Constructed & Contextual, Disposition 3). I’ll leave it at that for now because I would love to hear what others think of your critique. Thanks for sharing!

      Like

    • I share your reservations whole heartedly, I do not believe this is not an “either/or” situation, the reasonable view is to treat the two documents as complementary.

      Like

    • Linda,
      I agree with you on item 5. Instructors still want students to go to those peer-reviewed journals, before the students know what peer review is or why the instructors want these articles. That’s the context in which we and the students are operating. The skills still matter. Hopefully the Framework can open up conversations with our faculty on these issues.
      –All my best,
      Maureen

      Like

  59. I’m late to this party, but I’m gonna post anyway! I thought this was a great description of the differences between the Standards and the Framework. I think some of the items in the Framework were very slightly mentioned in the Standards, but the Framework really draws them out. And the Standards are really so cookie cutter in nature, and don’t really speak to the rich, internal, and contextual process that can take place in a researcher. Framework feels much more reflective, far less linear, to me.

    Like

  60. This article was most helpful in identifying the differences between the Standards and the Framework, especially in terms of their basic definitions of information literacy and their pedagogical approaches. I’ve often heard the Standards criticized for its one-size-fits-all, checklist approach to learning, so I can now appreciate the Framework more for trying to rectify these weaknesses. The Framework’s notion of the learner as “continuously developing” (710), as opposed to the Standard’s literate-illiterate dichotomy, seems especially relevant in the 21st century, where knowledge is continuously updating and revising itself. One of my university’s learning objectives is lifelong learning, and the Framework’s philosophy fits in nicely here.

    Nevertheless, assessment at my university frequently depends on measurable data, and my biggest hesitancy with implementing the Framework has thus been the difficulty in producing such tangible results. One thing that stood out to me the most after reading this article was the idea that these two documents might work in tandem with each other. I didn’t know before that ACRL had merely “filed” the Framework alongside the Standards, rather than replacing the Standards outright. Like many librarians, I too have considered “mapping the Standards and the Framework together as a cohesive whole”, and after reading this article, I can see ways in which the two documents can compensate for each other. Foasberg seems resistant to such an approach, but its one I’m going to keep in mind going forward.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kellie, thanks for these thoughts! When Foasberg’s article was published, ACRL had only filed the Framework. Since then, they’ve now “adopted” it and voted to rescind the Standards: http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/12126

      Several of our subsequent things relate to using the Framework to develop learning outcomes and assessment measures. Hopefully those will help make assessing student learning using the Framework feel less nebulous! 🙂

      Like

      • Thanks for the clarification, Kim! Its my own fault for not paying closer attention to the publication date.
        Nevertheless, its worth noting that some accreditation agencies, like the AAC&U (http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/information-literacy) still use the Standards as the basis of their information literacy rubrics. Some librarians I’ve spoken to at LOEX and ALA have even said they’ll hold off on adopting the Framework until national and international college accreditation officials say otherwise. I’m not sure how successful this resistance will be, but it is interesting to consider how those outside the library community (even faculty) are using (or not using) the Framework.

        Like

        • You point out a real challenge, Kellie! I wonder if the ACRL Board has plans to reach out to AAC&U. You would think that AAC&U would want to be concurrent with emerging best practices but that would also mean they would have to acknowledge that they based their rubric on the ACRL Standards (something that I have not seen yet and that has always bothered me).

          Like

  61. This article gave insight into how the Standards gave way to the Framework. Through my nine years of experience, I have taught using both tools. They are different but yet the same. I think that the Framework pushes us to be better instructors and librarians. It forces us to examine how and what we teach in a way that only strives to improve the efficiency of our instruction. For many years prior to the Framework, we talked about wanting to create lifelong learners and critical thinkers; the Standards didn’t provide the tools to create them. As we now better understand, simply completing tasks on a checklist does not produce learning and critical thinking. I liken it to standardized testing, they proof the learner can complete the task but not that they learned anything to apply to their careers and beyond. Especially in the world of ‘fake news’, we understand how crucial it is to change how we teach to be more inclusive and to challenge our learners to think outside their box.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. I am relatively new to academic librarianship. My background is as an early childhood teacher and an elementary school librarian. The framework feels like second nature to me. As a teacher, I never wanted to stand and deliver information to my students. I wanted them to learn by doing and by experiencing the world around them. I love the constructivist nature of the framework and the idea that students are active participants in their own learning. Many people throw around the term “life-long learner”, but isn’t that what we really want our students to become? Isn’t this how we have a more informed citizenry? The ideas that the framework holds are more valuable in today’s information overload society than ever. We are all learners in one way or another, and there is never a finish line when it comes to learning. Constructing meaning from evidence is something that must be done daily.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. While I have been following the Framework from pretty early on, this is the first article I have read that closely compares the standards and the framework from an education theory perspective. As I read this article, I found I have many more questions about the Framework than I thought (and I take that to mean I should keep working through these 23 things)! For example, I like the idea (presented around page 708) that the framework is more focused on conceptual things and that therefore context is important. However, the article also goes on to say that this could be modified locally. With that, I wonder how we can do that in a collective and inclusive way. Something to ponder…
    A point that the article re-iterated for me is that incorporating Framework things into instruction is not necessarily going to be easy. It is going to involve further thought into pedagogy, the lesson, and assessment. However, I do appreciate how the pedagogical approach is different when comparing the Framework to the Standards. I think I am willing to do the work, just need to keep learning more!

    Liked by 1 person

  64. I learned a good deal from Foasberg’s article. I came to library school a few months before the Framework was filed, and by the time I found my way into courses that specifically addressed academic library instruction, it had been adopted. I was not taught to teach using the Standards, so they are quite foreign to me. I found the sections on the Standards, therefore, to be very helpful. I have heard people express frustration with the Framework because it is not easy to assess. I agree that the Standards certainly present us with easier assessment and have wished that ACRL had done a better job of providing advice on how to assess the threshold concepts in the Framework, but since the research and learning that are going on are contextual and change constantly, it is difficult to come up with rubrics and consistent outcomes.

    Like

  65. Foasberg’s article helps to clarify the difference between the Standards and the Framework for me. As I reflect on how to put into practice the more theoretical aspects of the Standards and the Framework, I recognize that my interactions with students at the research desk vacillate between meeting one or more of the Standards and using techniques outlined by the Framework. The difference in my approach mainly reflects the level of research expertise the student brings to the table, their maturity, and the reality of due dates. For example, a first-year student with a research paper due in two days who needs 5 peer-reviewed sources barely meets Standard One: “The information literature student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.” However, my hope is that I am modeling good research habits and that in the process, some aspects of the Framework are conveyed to the student. With students who have more research experience, especially if they say they cannot find anything “exactly” on their topic, I present research and writing as an opportunity for them to enter into the on-going academic conversation. As I begin teaching one-shot, 50-minute sessions this Fall, I look forward to using aspects of the Framework to frame my approach and instruction.

    Like

  66. After reading Nancy Foasberg’s article, what knowledge did you gain about the Framework? If the article was simply a refresher for you, in what ways does the Framework intrigue you as a basis for instruction?

    The first take away for me is that the Framework is still a work on progress and sits in the ‘filed’ status. I believe this is important as information, IL and discussions are still shaping the direction of this work. Before reading this article I did not realize this.

    Another thing that jumped out at me when looking at the Standards and Framework side by side is that perhaps in the goal to make the Framework more inclusive the opposite may have happened. One of the first things I do with students in class is review the syllabus and the Student Learning Outcomes(SLO’s). I have the students read the SLO’s and work together to discuss what the SLO’s mean and how they relate to the class they have decided to take and the knowledge they are seeking in the course. The more complex and jargon filled the SLO’s the harder it is for the students to understand what they are even supposed to be learning in the course. I like the simplicity of the Standards and the goal of the Framework and hope there is a way to blend the strengths of each.

    The aspect of information creation in the Framework is great and also highlighting social construction of information is important. Giving students the agency as information creators instead of just consumers is empowering. It also allows for more dialogue in the classroom about who created the information and why if students are given the opportunity to see the larger picture of ‘just writing a paper for a grade’ can shift to authorship of scholarly work.

    As far as the basis for instruction the use of both the Standards and the Framework will continue in my lessons. IL is skills based in my experience and lays the foundation for the further inquiry and deeper work that the Framework encourages. In my work with students, checklists and simplicity are important and they continue to give this feedback in the surveys and class evaluations.

    Like

  67. The biggest takeaway for me is that the Framework focuses less on the information itself, but on how the information is created and used. I love that the Framework uses the social constructivism theory because I really relate to constructivism’s emphasis on context and usability. I’ve never been a big theory person as I often struggle to translate theory into practice. In that regard, the Standards were much easier for me to digest and accept, but much more constricting.

    Like

    • Ian,

      Excellent points! I always try to look at things through the eyes of my students and I think the strength of the Standards is the are easily digested.

      Shelly

      Like

  68. This article mentions the possibility of finding similarities and mapping the Standards to the Framework, which is true to a certain extent. But if I had to choose one Frame that sets differentiates the Framework from the Standards, it would be the ‘Scholarship as Conversation’ frame. This frame opens the possibility that students can produce information, as well as consume it, and I think this is the great benefit of the Framework.

    A large portion of Foasberg’s article describes this shift. Foasberg sums it up concisely on pg. 711: “It is through participation that information literacy becomes meaningful.” The Standards were helpful, but participation was lacking and if the Framework doesn’t do anything else, at least it introduces the prospect of participation.

    Like

    • I concur that the ACRL Framework introduces a nuanced approach to information literacy. Here at the University of the Western Cape Library, Cape Town, South Africa, we have worked extensively with the Framework in an effort to embed critical and information literacies in teaching and learning across campus.
      The Framework comprises of crucial 21st Century literacies which are valuable for LifeLong Learning. In my opinion, the Framework alleviates or responds to issues such as the difficulty of moving beyond the instrumental idea of information literacy as “library skills”. Our students require a different set of proficiencies to be able to work with information in the 21st Century. The Standards did not prove to be an instrument which could sucessfully be used to incorporate other forms of literacy into teaching programmes. The Framework, however, offers pedagogical approaches such as inquiry based learning and authentic learning which could facilitate teaching content using multi-literacies.

      Like

  69. In the simplest terms i would say that the Framework is just a less-structured and more flexible approach than the standards, which, those terms (“standards” and “framework”) suggest that this would be the case any how. We largely go from skills in the standards and people either having the skills or not having the skills, to situational and contextual approaches in the framework, and people always working towards mastery of different pieces of the framework. There is more room for individuality in the framework. That is the biggest take away I take from it.

    Like

  70. I have been pretty interested in the Framework concept since it started. I really like the flexibility of the Framework over the Standards, in that information today is created in so many different ways and that expertise is definitely contextual. I also like that the Framework talks about the changing nature of information, and that it allows us to show students that information can change over time, or take on differing aspects. I also like the idea of introducing research as something that is explored, evaluated, and provides learning opportunity, rather than just finding “an answer”–the idea that there can be a range of answers, many of which can be correct depending on the topic, context, questions,etc.

    I liked this article for laying out the different philosophies and providing more to think about between the Standards and Framework.

    Like

  71. This article did help me gain a clearer understanding of the Framework. However, I continue to have many objections to the Framework. While I like its flexibility and its acknowledgement that learning takes place in different ways–depending on the context, the person, etc.–I don’t know that I accept its underlying principles, as I understand them, or as Foasberg presents them.

    Not every act of learning is contextual and there are some things students simply don’t know and need to know. There are truths out there, and these truths don’t depend on context. I also object greatly to students being called scholars. They’re not. A scholar–if the word is to mean anything–is someone who has reached a certain level of expertise in a subject, who has an understanding of the subject that most people do not. Scholars can still be students, but I think it is the rare student who can be called a scholar. I also object greatly to students being called writers. Students write, it is true, but, again, few of them can be called writers. A writer is someone who makes his or her living in the profession, or someone who otherwise has great experience with writing, whether they’ve been able to make a living out of it or not. I wouldn’t even say that most professors are writers, even though many do write. I write, I have published things, but I don’t think I’m a writer.

    These aren’t minor issues. They are of fundamental importance to how we think about students, and how we teach them.

    But, please let me know what you think about what I had to say. I’m willing and able to see other points of view. Maybe there’s something I’m missing, or blind to.

    Like

    • Hey, Derek! The way I interpreted the Framework was not that it is trying to make the argument that there is no objective truth, but rather, that authority is contextual and that we need to go beyond the “scholarly vs popular” dichotomy. Someone with a PhD in History has expertise in their disciplinary context but for a student who is doing research for a biology paper, they would not be the best authority. Likewise, someone who participated in the Civil Rights Movement has a different type of authority than a historian studying it. Personally, I think Framework’s approach to authority is more nuanced and because of that, more authentic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I too, would be interested to hear other folks’ perspectives.

      Like

  72. I learned how the Framework compared to the Standards. It was interesting to see them compared side by side in a table. I also learned that the Framework acknowledges that the research process can be non-linear and that it emphasizes context. This was the first formal article I have read about the Framework. Thanks!

    Like

  73. * I think it’s important to consider the context of the IL itself. Is this teaching and learning occurring in situation where the librarian is the primary classroom instructor (i.e. a for-credit IL class)? Or is the librarian asked in by a primary classroom instructor (i.e. a one-shot). With the former, the librarian leads/designs content plus has additional time,; incorporating the Framework feels exciting and doable. With the later, the librarian is somewhat in support of/in service to the primary classroom instructor’s content; incorporating the Framework feels impractical and unrealistic.
    * 99.9% of my library’s instructional activity is one-shots. Students are given research assignments; classroom instructors bring students to library so they can connect with sources and complete research assignments. With only 90-minutes to work with, shouldn’t my top priority be – helping students help themselves to complete these assignments? How do I introduce the frames, when students have never seen the library website and/or don’t know what a database is?
    * I’d be curious to learn more about classroom instructors’ perspective on IL and IL instruction. Did they know we had Standards? Do they know we now have a Framework? Does any of this have an impact on what they want/need/expect, when they book an IL class?
    * If colleges and universities move toward assessments such as exit exams by majors, are we moving away from academy at large – if we disparage the idea of “‘the information literate student’ … who engages in these various activities” (p. 710)?

    Like

    • Susan,

      Thank you for raising the question of how to best to incorporate the Framework when the content, teaching, and/or learning objectives are primarily provided by faculty other than the librarian conducting what is usually a 50 minute one-shot session. At least where I am teaching. It is challenging to meet both the professor’s instruction requests and insert some part of the Framework that will help the students.

      This article has given me some ideas that maybe I can do both, at a very small scale. Perhaps at some level just by asking a few questions about the process of information creation and the value of information I can start to test the waters and see what happens. If anything works I can share.

      Like

    • Susan, I think you’ve raised some really interesting questions! I hope others will jump in and discuss some of these.

      I agree that it can be hard to balance helping students learn what they need to know in order to complete an assignment AND addressing the big ideas and underlying concepts in the frames. I think that we can address those skills and assignments while still doing it in a Framework-inspired way. I like to think of the Frames as a lens that we can use to develop new ways to approach some of the topics we’ve always addressed in instruction. For example, you can still help students learn how to use a database they need to use for an assignment, but the Searching is Strategic Exploration frame might help you develop activities that focus on creativity, serendipity, or persistence in the search process.

      I used to think that the majority of faculty would not be especially interested in hearing about the Framework. Since then, I’ve seen some really great recent examples of libraries using the Framework for outreach to faculty about information literacy instruction, and it’s changed my view on this. Watch for a future thing on outreach and marketing using the Framework!

      Like

    • You are not alone in your frustrations, Susan! Thing #14: One-Shots & IL Courses might address some of the questions you raised. It might be worth checking out if you haven’t already.

      Like

  74. When the Standards came out, I was thrilled because they offered the list of skills that I had been looking for as a teacher. They also fit my idea, at the time, of how instructional activities could be framed and assessed. Over the years, however, I have grown disillusioned for various reasons. For one thing, I realized that it was almost impossible to cover even a fraction of the skills in the typical one-shot sessions that I taught. I also realized that I kept seeing the same students from year to year who didn’t seem to retain much of what I had taught them. In spite of all that, I’ve struggled with the switch from the Standards to the Frameworks. I can see the benefits of the Frameworks and on a certain level I know that they are an improvement. It’s been difficult for me to make the shift, but I am doing so in small ways here and there. This article has helped in that process.

    There are two other things related to the article that I would like to note. The first is the link between IL and composition. I never saw the connection between the two until recently when a friend explained it to me. Now I can see it and it’s my understanding that we something to learn from that discipline in terms of how we teach students. I hope to learn more. The other thing that struck me about this article was the discussion of students as “literate” or “illiterate”. I’d never thought much about this before, but I’ve certainly experienced it a great deal. I work with a lot of what we would refer to as “nontraditional” students and I learned a long time ago that they bring a great deal of experience into the classroom. They are certainly more “literate” than I am in many aspects.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I also found the use of the terms “novice” and “expert” a better choice than “literate” and “illiterate” and agree that experience can bring much to the understanding of information. I like the idea that we are opening up room for flexibility, rather than thinking that this work in information literacy is as easy as “checking off a box” that that behavior is complete.

      Liked by 1 person

  75. I graduated from my LIS program in May of 2015, so some of my classes did address the Framework and its implementation, but none did it in the easily-understandable way this article did. I had never really thought of comparing the Standards and the Framework in such a way and I found it very helpful. I’m a huge fan of the Framework and its attempts to address the needed shift from concrete and not-really-universal Standards to a more nuanced view of information literacy as information itself changes. When I was done reading this article, I looked back and saw that I had been highlighting nearly every sentence, and my only notes in the margins are “yaaaassss” with varying numbers of As and Ss. I especially loved the emphasis on trusting students to be able to understand, with time, a much more subtle concept of the information landscape. I often think that we don’t give students enough credit in nearly all aspects of their scholarship, and particularly that we generally don’t think of information literacy as a lifelong skill so much as something they will only use so long as they’re in school and perhaps if they go on to be researchers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I felt the same way when I was reading this article, Emily! It really made things click. You could say this article helped me cross the “threshold” of understanding the Framework. Sorry about the pun, I couldn’t help myself 😉

      Like

  76. I found this article informative due to the comparison between the pedagogy. What I thought about most though is that we already do much of the Framework in tasks like teaching the CRAP test – currency, reliability, authority and purpose. We teach information assessment and not just the steps along the way to creating the research. We ask questions like, “if you are using a website, who is the intended audience?” which addresses much of the authority portion of the Framework. I do agree we need some way to measure success for the students. And I also think many of the students coming in to the college level cannot make the judgments or assessments and back them with factual or learned opinions that the Framework seemingly expects them to be able to make.

    Like

  77. This was probably one of the most helpful articles I’ve read about this topic. I’ve struggled in the past, because the Framework (and articles about it) can seem really theoretical and abstract. Foasberg’s comparison of the Standards with the Framework illuminated for me the ways in which the Framework contributes to a view of IL that is less about process and more about construction of understanding. That makes sense to me as a librarian and a teacher, but I admit that I find it more challenging to engage with the Framework! I liked the Standards in part because having concrete skills made it easier to write and assess objectives. My hope is that, by going through the 23 Framework Things, I’ll be able to better understand the Framework and how to apply it effectively in my teaching.

    Liked by 1 person

  78. The article depicted the debate within the library community where I work. We have a small information literacy crew basically 2-4 librarians who do the majority of the instruction. One is old school and very concerned about can we determine if these students know how to do specific steps in researching the standard student created research paper. Others want students to at least have awareness that other factors are at play. Can we meet in the middle? Faculty might be shocked because many don’t have a clue I think that philosophical debates can play a part in library instruction. They may simply assume we comfortably show students how to use databases and don’t think about how these data systems are created, who benefits, how/why authority is assumed to be valid, and why some groups definitely suspect the standard notions of authority,etc… Maybe if faculty realized the background noise they might show more respect in what we are capable of doing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great point, Andrea! I do think that many faculty members would find this kind of debate and discussion interesting. I saw a great presentation at LOEX by Rachel Stott on hosting “casual conversations” around the Framework with faculty. Her library hosted a series of open-ended discussions about each frame that faculty and library staff participated in. She’s shared all of her discussion questions, prompts, and activities here: http://tinyurl.com/stott-LOEX2017 and her slides are here: http://www.loexconference.org/presentations/LOEX2017_Stott_Presentation.pptx

      I’d love to hear more about how other libraries are initiating discussions about these ideas with their campus partners!

      Like

    • You make some good points about the idea that librarians aren’t just here to show students how to “point and click” or even just how to do keywords, but that we are concerned with the total package of thinking about information, and how that plays out over time in the course of a student’s education. We want them to THINK about information and which are the best resources to use, rather than just FIND, which nearly anyone can do today. The skills we teach, and the ideas of thinking about information go beyond just show and tell.

      Like

  79. The article helped me to better understand the differences between the Standards and the Framework as well as the rationale behind them. I appreciate the fact that the author “frames” the argument in the context of pedagogy. What I distill from this is that the Standards are more focused on measurable learning outcomes through acquisition and practice of specific skills and that the Framework is more engaged in the communities of practice (disciplines) and the context within which information is interpreted and applied.

    Like

  80. When I first encountered the Framework while I was in grad school, I didn’t get it. But now I see that I needed more context about teaching and that the ideas contained in the Framework were ahead of their time. It’s a really useful tool for improving instruction. I do wish more people would spend time working on neat ways to apply it and less time arguing about it on list-servs! I think the new Framework Sandbox is useful for getting practical ideas. I’d read the article before, but it’s a good refresher.

    Like

  81. I think the Framework has the potential to encourage more meaningful collaborations between librarians and faculty in the disciplines. As an instruction librarian and a liaison to 9 departments at a community college, I’m looking forward to having new conversations about how information is produced and used in all those different contexts. And, of course, thinking of all the ways to bring students into those conversations.

    Like

  82. This article helped me better understand the differences between the Standards and the Frames beyond simply the former being skills-driven and the latter more process-oriented. It also helped me discover the philosophy behind each, and so gave me a greater appreciation for what the Frames are intended to accomplish. I now see students as engaged participants in the research process and on individual journeys, rather than passive spectators who must eventually seek and secure a piece of information needed to complete an assignment. This drastically changes my role as library instructor from someone who’s expected to model the correct behavior to a co-participant in the research journey, and someone who may be equally surprised by it! The article also greatly challenged my notion of information literacy as something that’s predictable enough to expect the same results from everyone I teach it to. It’s far more fluid, individual, and situational that I assumed!

    Like

  83. This article had been recommended to me previously as a great introduction to the different philosophies between the Standards and the Framework–and I agree. Definitely worth the time to re-read it. It does a great job of providing more depth to the contextualization aspects of the framework and the need to involve students at a higher level, allow critiques of authority, etc.

    Like

  84. I appreciate that the Framework provides for a deeper understanding of information literacy over the Standards that serve as a checklist more or less. Through incorporating the Framework into my instruction (primarily one-shots), I have started asking students to think more and critically about the information they come in contact with. I see them struggling with some aspects: in identifying and interacting with bias and the idea that an authority isn’t always going to be someone in academia and recognizing that becoming information literate and accessing information isn’t a linear process.

    While the standards make information literacy seem more attainable in its process (though we’ve come to find out this isn’t necessarily accurate), the Framework seems to encourage more true learning that goes beyond memorizing skills.

    Liked by 2 people

  85. Foasberg’s work provided me context for the Framework. Summing up how it fits into teaching philosophies, ACRL’s previous work, the standards, library instruction. The article especially helped me understand it in the context of critical pedagogy and critical information literacy, or at least gave me a start.
    A couple points resonated with me. What the Framework may owe to discussions of teaching writing, she draws on Rolf Norgaard. I’ve been reading a bit and thinking about the implications of the Framework for collaboration with Composition instructors. Regarding that, I found this article cf. Threshold concepts in IL and writing, esp Scholarlship as Converstation, very interesting Johnson, Brittney and I. Moriah McCracken. “Reading for Integration, identifying complementary threshold concepts: The ACRL Framework in Conversation with Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies” Communications in Information Literacy vol. 10, no. 2, 2016.
    Also, the article reminded me that the Information has value frame is an effective approach to teaching copyright, esp its larger implications, social implications.

    Like

    • Caroline, thanks for mentioning this article on threshold concepts in IL and writing! We plan to invite discussion on ways that that the Framework opens up avenues for collaboration in a future “thing.” This article could be a great resource for that discussion!

      Like

  86. I have not had a chance to really dig in deep into the discussion about the Framework and the Standards and why there has been so much resistance to the Framework. Although I embraced the Standards and thought they made a lot of sense, I can see where the Framework fits in more closely with my ideas of students’ (or anyone’s) need to think critically about the information they are using. After reading this article, I can see where there is a place for both of these philosophies.

    Like

  87. Although I’ve been reading various articles about the Framework, it has been a challenge to change what I thought worked well in instruction over the past 17 years. After reading Foasberg’s article, I find myself encouraging students to consider that what they will be creating through their research can contribute to future articles and discussions, and not just be in an “assignment vacuum.”

    Liked by 2 people

  88. I work in The Netherlands in a academic library. In my library we concluded some years ago that the ACRL standards were outdated. We did not wait untill ACRL developed this framework because we discovered another framework which fits well: The Researcher Development Framework + the Sconul information literacy lens (RDF). This framework covers the modern view on information literacy, from searching for information to scholalry publishing.
    I studied the ACRL Framework and compared it to the RDF. Where the ACRL is philosophical and abstract, difficult to transform to lessons and implement in curricula, the RDF is far more practical. And, most important: it is written from the viewpoint of the researcher. I think the ACRL is too much a librarian thing and we do not teach our students to become librarians (at least not all of them).

    Liked by 2 people

  89. Before I read Foasberg’s article, I did not realize that the ACRL Framework involves theoretical and cultural, as well as pedagogical, shifts in the librarian mindset to define information and what it means to be information literate in the 21st century. Information literacy no longer means knowing how to find and evaluate information; it also requires knowledge of who defines and produces what is considered “authoritative” or “quality” information, and knowledge of the context in which this information is created, how it is disseminated, and to whom.

    As I do more work and research in the areas of social media, open access resources, and Wikipedia, the new ACRL framework has much more merit as a foundation for my teaching of students and faculty than the old information literacy standards. I now feel more comfortably grounded in the teaching and content creation that I do.

    Liked by 2 people

  90. As a teaching librarian, I am happy to see a new approach to information literacy that better fits a realistic model of learning. I think that many librarians who teach one shot sessions, or even semester long courses, do not really have an understanding of how to apply educational theory to their teaching. The framework does help us to think in that mode more than the standards did. The article really made the framework clear to me.

    Each student arrives to my college with a different experience and the emphasis on critical librarianship/critical thinking is important. I think that our students will benefit greatly from this approach. The framework really makes me think about my approach to instruction and how students can get the most out of a 50 minute session.

    Liked by 3 people

  91. Although I read this article over a year ago, in the rereading it became clearer the distinctions between the IL Standards and the Framework. Because the Standards were adopted and officially endorsed, they seem to be held in the highest regard, unlike the Framework that has merely been filed, ready to be changed at any time. The Framework has not replaced the Standards and at first pass this appears as a negative but the article clarified the difference in how they were created and how they are to be used.

    It seems the Standards, being skills-based, are more concrete, could be more of a check-list of definable behavior. They have been around long enough to have stood up to the practice of using them in our skills sessions, something we teach frequently in one-shot lessons. Yet we have evolved from just teaching skills but now are called to teach students to think critically about information that does and sometimes does not come from the standard sources. The Framework is a model itself in the way it was developed, through social interaction, in a way that information is evaluated today with weight and measure coming through different channels.

    I’m glad we now have both documents to assist in how we teach students to use information. Since I’ve been at this for 20+ years, it’s more of a gut feeling when I know it’s not just collecting a bunch of sources. Have I taught student well enough to go beyond collecting but also grappling with the information, digesting it, spitting out the unnecessary, and searching for what they don’t know they need? We need both the Standards and the Framework and now I understand the how and why just a bit better.

    Like

    • I believe the Framework had been filed at the time this article was written, but have since been officially adopted and the Standards rescinded.

      Like

  92. After reading the article, I see now why I like the Framework. It’s language and intent aligns more with my personal philosophy of librarianship and teaching. Encouraging students to think critically and interact more with research instead of checking off some boxes on a list just makes sense to me. I hadn’t previously made the connection that the Standards are playing to the banking method. The Framework feels like it gives us as librarians more freedom (and some would say challenges) in our creation of lessons for instruction sessions.

    I’d also be interested in seeing/hearing commentary from the author after ACRL has decided to retire the Standards. I think the Framework is a good direction for us pedagogically and socially, but I’m not sure how I feel about ACRL’s decision to let the Standards disappear.

    Like

    • As I read the article it made me think about a shift in how we want to think about education. To me the Framework sounds like going back to an education system when learning of all types was encouraged and people would get together and talk and debate, only now maybe this is being done more online. I guess I think more Romantic period type learning versus this is what you need to know how to do to pass this test. Conversation is so important to IL and I really appreciate the acknowledgement and encouragement of allowing anyone to not just be a consumer of information but to share and contribute as well.

      Like

  93. This article reinforces discussions we have been having at the U. I think the idea of threshold concepts really jives with what I see in the classroom. A skill can be mastered, but a concept has layers.. as soon as you understand it at an elementary level you are exposed to higher level thinking. The challenge that was expressed in the pre-conference and other meetings is how do we approach this when usually we just have 1 meeting with students. How do we off load beginning ideas in a flipped classroom model or reinforce concepts later. This is what I am still working through, as much of my instruction is still in this fashion.

    Liked by 1 person

  94. My colleagues and I embraced the frames. I have found that the frames allow me to be more creative in my lessons and assessments. My goal is no longer “follow me and do what I do,” but more along the lines of “let’s start a conversation about your topic.” And the frames seem to support team learning activities easier than the standards did. I teach developmental through bachelor classes and the frames encourage customization based on the wide range of students’ assignments and promote use of a wide variety of sources because “various communities may recognize different types of authority” (qtd. in Foasberg 709). In other words, an authority for a student enrolled in statistical applications in social sciences should look very different than an authority for a first year student.

    I am happy to be entering this conversation with y’all!

    Liked by 2 people

  95. I read the other comments and found I agree mostly with Robin. I have 30 + years of Reference and “information Literacy” and maybe I am just content to not fix something that was working for us but after reading about the Framework and trying to incorporate it into some of my “one shot “ classes I just about gave up. I see how they have value and offer more chance for deeper thinking but most of my students just got this puzzled look on their faces. Some of them really do need that 5 sources on little 3 by 5 cards instruction. What I decided to do was save the Framework for the few graduate classes I get to meet with. It did seem to go over better with them. I guess you just need to know your audience.

    Like

  96. I’ve been fortunate enough to have come into libraries along with the Framework – first, as it started making the rounds as a conversation, then as a draft, later as “filed,” and now as a more widely accepted reference for standard practice. Through my MLIS, I understood the Standards as a discrete sets of skills for the purposes of outcomes and assessment. I never thought they suggested that those skills as written were the entirety or complete picture of information literacy; they were merely points of reference. Unfortunately, I also came from education in the state of Florida – where I worked with the different standards for K-12 curricula; thus, I understood that, in an increasingly objective/ metric-centered/ data-centric culture, the breadth and nuance of knowledge would forgo context for the sake of checklists. Because of that I never appreciated the reasons for the backlash against and the controversy surrounding the Framework. After a few years as a college librarian, I finally understand it. It *is*, after all, very hard (if not practically impossible) to objectively measure learning of socially-constructed values that exist in myriad forms/formats in ever-shifting spaces (digital and fixed, tangible spaces). It is even more difficult to identify a spot along a fluid continuum as the ideal spot for assessing said skill(s) in a final, determined sense.

    I appreciate Foasberg setting the Standards and Framework side-by-side for definition and discussion. It is at once a great tool for me to learn as a librarian and for me to teach as a facilitator of faculty development and outreach. In my own courses/ presentations to faculty (some of which are my librarian colleagues), I present the Standards and Framework as companion pieces – following the lead of the ACRL as Foasberg observes. I appeal to the compatibility between the Framework’s threshold concepts and those of critical thinking. I think, for the time being, this is a useful way for me to make the connection between discrete IL skills for the purpose of designing learning outcomes and the overall competencies of “an information literate person.”

    Like

  97. Caveating this entire comment with the fact that I’m one year out of college and have not received/begun my MLS yet. I have no instruction role in my current library position and won’t any time soon, and this is the first time I’ve ever interacted with/read about these Standards/Framework. (Point being: I don’t know what I’m talking about.)

    I greatly appreciated the direct comparison/contrast between the Standards and the Framework given that this is the first time I’ve really encountered either.

    I’m excited about the Framework, in particular the way it encourages students to challenge and question authority and emphasizes the conversation/participatory aspect of research. How to teach students to do this for themselves, I haven’t the foggiest, but I found myself really agreeing with one of Robin Shapiro’s comments in an earlier post here, about the Standards being almost a precursor to moving into the Framework: “For me, the Standards were useful as a kind of interdisciplinary freshman context — in college, students need to determine appropriate scope (based on an assignment), fulfill the instructor’s requirements in terms of source type and number, incorporate the ideas of others (i.e. sources) within a clear line of argument (in other words, move from patchwriting to writing with sources), and distinguish between their own words and ideas and the words and ideas they’ve sourced from others. As students grow in their skills and in their disciplinary knowledge, the Framework becomes a more appropriate lens for information literacy.” I do think the Framework’s goals seem to require some sort of fundamental skill set in students before being able to engage with information in the more social/active way.

    Another aspect of the Foasberg article I really enjoyed was this concept of students being novices/experts in information literacy rather than information literate or illiterate. Having a multi-dimensional scale rather than a have-it-or-you-don’t skill set paves the way for more meaningful and engaging research on the student front. Although, it also seems like it might make teaching large classes more difficult for librarians – the Framework seems to apply more on an individual scale than “here’s a set of techniques we can teach a bunch of people at once.” A common comment here seems to be how to achieve this in one-off information sessions, or even multiple sessions – perhaps much of the Framework will end up being taught in one-on-one consultations outside of group instruction sessions? Working one-on-one with faculty to promote the Framework in their courses?

    Liked by 1 person

  98. I gained several takeaways from the ARLD Day Pre-Conference Workshop:

    – One strategy we might use going forward is to align our work more closely with the institutional learning goals that have already been adopted. These goals provide an entry point for conversations about information literacy skills.

    – Understanding the learning theories behind the development of the Framework was very useful for thinking about the future of library instruction. Teaching for transfer is something that I plan to give renewed attention next year in my own teaching and in training for embedded research tutors (a new position). I also appreciated the reminder that backward design is a well-researched method of instruction planning that can help when deciding what and how to teach.

    – I really appreciated learning about the assessment research conducted at UMD. Choosing one facet of student research (in this case, persistence) seems like a manageable way to begin measuring whether/how students are developing as experts. I plan to encourage faculty to assign research process blogs, especially in first-year writing classes.

    The workshop and Foasberg’s article have together reinforced for me the idea that what we might actually need is to blow up the model of one-shot instruction. If we agree that the Framework should guide our work, then I just don’t see how the one- (or even two- or three-) shot model can be relied on to accomplish our goals.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maggie, I’m glad it was helpful to hear about our assessment project! If you move ahead with asking faculty to assign research process blogs, I’d definitely like to hear how it goes. I’d also be happy to talk at some point if you want to hear more about what I learned from the process (what I might do differently in the future).

      Like

  99. I benefited from the close comparison and contrast between the Standards and the Framework. While I am still figuring out how to incorporate the Framework in my own instruction, I like to call out the concepts that even beginning students are participants in the conversation that scholarship enables, and that research and the products of student research are a process. I do think the Framework offers more flexibility, but also opens the world of research and scholarship to students as participants, not just consumers, as Foasberg points out. I think the shift from the notions of authority as defined in the Standards to the way it is conceptualized in the Framework as something constructed by discursive communities is significant and worth discussion in classrooms and other types of instructional settings, in light of increasing division between real-world communities and their preferred information sources. Foasberg’s discussion highlights to me how the Framework not only invites but requires thoughtful discussion and exploration of all of these notions of socially constructed authority and value, and allows for the ongoing re-creation of new information contexts by its engagement.

    Liked by 2 people

  100. I’m a mid-career librarian, with nearly 20 years of instruction experience, and this article illuminated why I’m having a hard time putting the Framework into practice. When I used the Standards, I certainly taught research as a messy, nonlinear process — anything else would be dishonest and likely to undermine students’ confidence when their experiences don’t match their expectations. I focused on evaluating sources in terms of the information need or discipline, not by some arbitrary standard. The Performance Indicators made sense to me, and my department used them as a jumping-off place for our assessment. I primarily teach one-shots (or two- or three-shots, depending on the class and instructor) and I’m at a community college. And that may be the source of my difficulty with the Framework.

    The Framework asserts, accurately I believe, that you can’t fully understand academic information outside of its disciplinary context. And yet, at the community college we’re mostly offering one-shots to students who aren’t sure what discipline they’re moving toward; even those who know they’re pre-nursing or transferring to a k-12 ed program don’t have experience within the discipline yet. They’re in the library classroom with a college reading class, or a freshman comp class, or maybe a gen ed sociology or history or biology class. What disciplinary context can we adopt? More specifically, what disciplinary context can we adopt swiftly enough to support an effective 50- or 80-minute one-shot and make it useful to students?

    For me, the Standards were useful as a kind of interdisciplinary freshman context — in college, students need to determine appropriate scope (based on an assignment), fulfill the instructor’s requirements in terms of source type and number, incorporate the ideas of others (i.e. sources) within a clear line of argument (in other words, move from patchwriting to writing with sources), and distinguish between their own words and ideas and the words and ideas they’ve sourced from others. As students grow in their skills and in their disciplinary knowledge, the Framework becomes a more appropriate lens for information literacy.

    I’m hoping that engaging with the Framework through this project will help me learn to use it with the students I see.

    Liked by 3 people

  101. After reading Foasberg’s article, the primary way that the Framework intrigues me as a basis for instruction is its provision of (what I regard as) a more realistic conception of the research process. As Foasberg writes, “Research in the Framework is a messy, ‘nonlinear and iterative’ process rather than a single, prescriptive set of steps,” (711). In my experience working primarily with first year students, there seems to be a general perception that research should be a step-by-step – find your required 3-5 sources and plug them in – process, which can create frustration for students when the process doesn’t seem to be working “right.” While the Standards don’t *have to* reinforce that perception, I believe they can fit more comfortably alongside it than can the Framework. In emphasizing concepts like conversation and exploration, I believe the Framework can be more empowering to students, placing them as participants and creators, rather than simply the consumers of information products as Foasberg describes them under the Standards. (Having read several of the discussions on Standards vs. Framework in the ACRLFrame listserv, I want to note that I don’t believe this to mean that all Standards-based instruction was mechanical and inauthentic, just that I believe the Framework more specifically and pointedly avoids those outcomes.)

    I was also happy to see Foasberg discuss the problematic connotations inherent in the term Information Literacy – namely that it suggests that those who aren’t information literate must be information illiterate. For this reason, I hate (and avoid at all costs) using the term Information Literacy in any student-facing context.

    In my personal practice, I find the Framework more flexible than I imagine the Standards to be (I just finished my second year of instruction responsibilities, and I’ve never worked with the standards). My institution is still firmly on the faculty-requested one shot model, and I like the ability that the Framework provides me to be able to take the instructor’s request, match it to 1-3 Framework concepts, and build a lesson around that.

    Liked by 1 person

  102. After reading the article, I better understand the philosophy behind it. Especially interesting were parts discussing students’ ways of researching including bringing their existing skill set to research and then learning and incorporating appropriate new ways of researching.

    As I learn more about the Framework, I’ll also be interested to look at it from an angle mentioned in the article: what we can do to improve our practice. The practical applications of this philosophy will still be essential to understand in our teaching and learning.

    Like

    • This article helped me better understand the differences between the Standards and the Frames beyond simply the former being skills-driven and the latter more process-oriented. It also helped me discover the philosophy behind each, and so gave me a greater appreciation for what the Frames are intended to accomplish. I now see students as engaged participants in the research process and on individual journeys, rather than passive spectators who must eventually seek and secure a piece of information needed to complete an assignment. This drastically changes my role as library instructor from someone who’s expected to model the correct behavior to a co-participant in the research journey, and someone who may be equally surprised by it! The article also greatly challenged my notion of information literacy as something that’s predictable enough to expect the same results from everyone I teach it to. It’s far more fluid, individual, and situational that I assumed!

      Like

      • I know, of course, that the framework gave rise to a good deal of debate and critiques from many quarters, but I welcomed the frames as a new tool for IL instruction that provided relief from the basic frustrations I felt with the Standards model, especially in terms of its reducing the complexities of research and thinking through information to mechanistic skills. Foasberg’s article articulated the different assumptions behind each model in a way that really made me see those frustrations more clearly.

        I have often felt a little guilty about those frustrations, because I do think the Standards can distill the research process for students in a way that can itself be empowering for some. An excursion into the bibliography, led me to Emily Drabinski’s “Toward a Kairo of Library Instruction” (which I’d long meant to read!) and that has given me a way to also appreciate the Standards’ usefulness as functional and strategic.

        Foasberg’s article introduced me to 3 things I was happy to find or refind in the ILL conversation:
        • The critique of privileging scholarly over popular sources; as a librarian teaching a 2-credit stand-alone IL course I have the opportunity to teach beyond the artificial distinction that results from this overemphasis on scholarly sources by which peer-reviewed articles are somehow automatically credible and valuable and other “popular” sources –even in-depth analysis articles by authors in the popular press—are somehow suspect; but, I often feel the imperative to focus primarily on scholarly articles, even when I recognize their difficulty –and sometimes un-usefulness for first-year students. I am eager to check out the articles on this topic featured by Foasberg.

        • I agree that the framework resonates a great deal with concepts in Composition and Rhetoric. As a former English Composition instructor, I have often felt that library instruction works best within a rhetorical model that acknowledges process over product and skills. I particularly admire the strain in Composition & Rhetoric teaching that gets around the prescriptive teaching of writing and engages students in a descriptive exploration of language use and modes of writing…I would love to figure out a way to translate that approach more concretely to teaching IL. I think the frames do help with that.

        • Foasberg really made me think about how the framework incorporates a critique of power as it’s embedded in information systems. I feel that the best way to do that in teaching is to put students in the role of active critique from the very start. For example, our course –which is hybrid– requires the viewing of tutorial videos. I plan to encourage students to consider not only what they learned from the videos, but also how they learned it—what, in that sense, was effective about the video, what not—all in preparation for planning their own video tutorial on an IL concept for their final group presentation. There’s a big difference between just reading/viewing, and reading/viewing to create a similar work yourself.

        Like

        • I appreciate that the Framework takes a comprehensive approach to using information, versus expecting the learner to find “good” sources instead of “bad” sources. The idea of research as inquiry and information as part of a conversation are appropriate improvements in this age of social media and access to information. I’ve always preferred the word and idea of “process” in library instruction because students need to be mentally flexible and open to following discussions and understanding what resources are most useful in different scenarios.

          Laurie Robb

          Like

          • Reading through this article I was reminded of the journey we went on in the period when the frameworks were first offered for review. As much as we have come to embrace the frameworks, I remember well the resistance and objections raised: “But how will we assess our students….? What are the learning outcomes…? How do I explain this to faculty…? Is this measureable?” But slowly there was growing consensus that, while the frameworks made things more complicated, these complications were necessary and overdue. I started using the phrase “cut the craap” to reflect what I saw as the intellectual honesty contained with the frameworks. It was exciting to literally “reframe” information literacy and to conceive of ourselves as educators who aren’t just passing on skills but who are also helping students shape their conceptions of information and their relationships to it. This article is definitely a great refresher in that it is rekindling some of that early enthusiasm. It’s a needed reminder, because I do find myself at times slipping back into a CRAAP / Standards mentality. One-shots for instructors who simply want you to cover finding scholarly sources, students expressing an attitude of “I just want to do what I have to do to get a good grade on this paper”, the discouraging feeling that a cookie cutter approach to instruction is all you can do to keep up – all of this makes it hard sometimes not to fall back into a positivist, checklist, banker-style approach to teaching. I am feeling particularly intrigued about the connection between critical librarianship and the frameworks. I am also curious as to how a frameworks approach to IL could and SHOULD impact requirements around sources for “signature assignments” within our curriculum, particularly in the first year.

            Like

Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s