Dr. Kuboni:

I can speak from my own experience as a superviosr for graduate students' research. It appears that at the time they acquire their information literacy skills they are not directly involved in their research. As such, they forget what was taught and many times I have to refute claims that a dearth of research for their specific topic exist. Of course, the process as to where and how to find the research now becomes instructive. In summary, I do think that information literacy should be integrated into subject curricula as it becomes more useful to students when they need it the most.

Many thanks,

Debra

I think it is important when discussing information literacy instruction that we look at the current information seeking behaviour literature. An important theme is that information seeking behaviour is highly influenced by the context in which it occurs. People will seek differently in different contexts. For me it follows that instruction should be contextualized. Students will also learn best when they can apply that learning to a real problem that they can relate to their learning. Having said that, there is a risk that students may not recognize that skills are transferable to other contexts. I have conducted research that suggests students can be highly skilled in discipline specific tasks but score low in general information literacy skills. However, this may be related to how the subject skills were taught. Generic programs can be more economical because they can be offered broadly and require less subject specialization.

Thanks very much Debra and David for your comments. David, the notion of 'information-seeking behaviour' is an interesting one and I would certainly explore it further. However, I am somewhat hesitant to completely accept the perspective that it is highly influenced by context. Still mulling that one round in my mind. Given my own background, I am somewhat biased towards learning skills-training programmes that enhance learners' capacity for transferring to other contexts. So the issue that I am turning over in my own mind now, is whether one can view the whole issue of embedded-generic along a continuum. Also, what exactly constitutes context? Is it necessarily a particular subject area? Just wondering. Thanks again for your thoughts.

Yes, I think the idea of continuum is a good one. Although I might teach to meet very specific info needs, I also try to demonstrate general applicability to other contexts. Contexts can be complex and overlapping. I teach in a law school so my context is both academic and professional. It is also subject specific. For example, understanding the economic, legal, and social aspects of information use would have very specific applications in a lawyer's world that need to be addressed. The overarching concepts are certainly the same across contexts but perhaps conceptualizer, experienced and applied differently. Am I making sense?

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. At the same time, you are offering a perspective that I had not previously really considered, i.e. overarching concepts conceptualized, experienced and applied differently across contexts. Need to look intro that some more. Thanks again.

Interesting question and discussion. I think the context is important in choosing or planning generic literacy courses vs. embedding these into the subject courses. The context is complex though; it does not just depend on the subject but also the needs and expectations of the students, future employers, other stakeholders, the students' prior knowledge, and their current skills levels... There is also the issue of so-called explicit embedding vs implicit embedding, which has not been researched enough. I would think that students would be more comfortable with classes where literacy and research skills are implicitly or totally embedded, where they might receive learning support or development without realizing or without being assessed on those. I saw one source sometime ago (see link below - page 4 also has a table) that says explicit embedding would  work better, where the students are made frequently aware of the importance of those skills and regularly formatively assessed in terms of how they are progressing in those skills. So, the context and how we do the embedding seem worth thinking about. I also enjoyed reading everyone else's comments. 

http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/quality-and-standards-office/docs/Policy-on-Graduate-Skills.pdf

I really appreciate how this exchange is developing. Emre, I found the link you provided to be very useful. I note the comment that graduate skills would need to be considered  throughout curriculum development - a point that clearly emphasizes the embedded nature of the activity. In that context, it occurred to me that this is not only a development issue but would have to carry over into delivery. So every tutor/lecturer/ facilitator would be expected to deliver the curriculum in a manner that allows students to be aware of clearly articulated skills, be able to integrate those into their cognitive 'make-up' and have them available for use as required. Just thought that this would require a higher level of understanding and practice of teaching at the higher education level.

I also note the 3 levels re- Graduate skills development. For some of us, there is still a lot of work to be done at Level 1, the study-skills perspective, in order to lay the foundation for the other two. Which brings me back to David's earlier contribution about information-seeking behaviour, context and transferability of skills. Following his suggestion, I just did a quick browse on it, and noticed mention of 'barriers' that can limit learners' growth in this area. And I was wondering whether there may also be need to highlight some generic skills, allbeit in some appropriate context, to allow for differing applications of overarching concepts across contexts.

Thanks for the sharing.

Emre, I also appreciate the document you posted. Our faculty of Management engaged in a similar though much less structured process of determining which management skills were being taught implicitly and explicitly across the curriculum. Each instructor had to list the kinds of skills (teamwork, critical thinking etc.) that were developed in the course and the means used to develop these. It was not expected that every course would cover ever skill but the full curriculum should. It was an illuminating exercise as we often didn't think as holistically as this, or imagined someone somewhere is teaching these skills. It is interesting to review your list of Graduate Skills and then map many of them to IL skills.

Thanks Bradley. Your point about faculty buy-in for embedded instruction is well-taken. One question - in terms of assessment, any particular ideas about assessing the learning skills and is the approach different from that used for assessing the subject-matter content?