You may wish to read the previous blog entry – here to make sense of the post below.
After reading Six Frames for Information Literacy Education: A conceptual framework for interpreting the relations between theory and practice over several times and pondering on the frames and the implementation section, I really feel little farther along on my quest for direction. As with many of these research articles, the emphasis is on higher academia while I work at a primary level most of the time and secondary part-time. Much of the discussion regarding practical application within the article simply doesn’t apply to my workplace.
What is interesting in this article however, is the succinct way in which they have encapsulated views of teaching, learning and IL. By looking and comparing the frames I can see that TL’s are being trained to operate from a Relational frame, most of the teachers where I work are operating from a Content frame and the philosophy of the school purports working from a Learning to Learn frame. Hmm.
So is this insight of any use? I think so. As Bruce, Edwards and Lupton (2006, pp. 14-15) have pointed out in the conclusion of this paper:
1/the resultant framework provides a conceptual tool for thinking about the kinds of IL education that might be fostered within each frame,
2/the frames may serve as an analytical tool for understanding the discourses and differences in opinion about how IL education might be best progressed.
3/challenges may be understood or tackled using the frames as lenses, includ[ing] challenges associated with … frames adopted by teachers or teams conflicting with the frames that underpin institutional values, policy or direction.
Ultimately, as the problem becomes clearer, the solution becomes more complex. =S