Jasiu Milanowski, Judi Buchman, richa

People who have been instrumental in working on issues of alleviating hunger and homelessness in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area:

• Jasiu Milanowski

An interview with Jasiu Milanowski / filmed by Wes Rehberg, Wild Clearing. 2006. Mary Idema Pew ASRS - Videorecordings HM1281 .M542 2006 http://library.catalog.gvsu.edu/record=b3387149~S19

• Judi Buchman and richa (formerly known as Richard Chandler)

Here is some background: “Judi Buchman, richa, and many others continued the Well House mission for more than a decade” - http://www.wellhousegr.org/about/from-humble-roots/ and http://therapidian.org/does-everyone-deserve-have-place

Background about Judi in particular:

http://indiawritingstation.com/peacemaker-judi-buchman/,   http://grhistory.blogspot.com/ , http://careervisionsjudibuchman.blogspot.com/ .

About both Judi and her partner, richa:

http://indiawritingstation.squarespace.com/judi-richa-ending-homelessness/ 

richa in particular:

http://indiawritingstation.com/richas-witness/ , http://careervisionsricha.blogspot.com/

Info about Well House:

http://www.wellhousegr.org/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Well-House/437732526237528

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/WellHouse13.aspx

Metaliteracy Model; Threshold Concepts

Jacobson, Trudi E., and Thomas P. Mackey. "Proposing a metaliteracy model to redefine information literacy." Communications in Information Literacy 7.2 (2013): 84-91. http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op=view&path[]=v7i2p84

• Jacobson and Mackey see the metaliteracy model as a kind of unified theory for information literacy, but what I see is informed learning as reflected in Harlan, Mary Ann, Christine Bruce, and Mandy Lupton's "Teen Content Creators: Experiences of using Information to Learn." Library Trends 60.3 (2012): 569-87. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/docview/1009906531?accountid=39473  as discussed in my previous blog post.
• The blogsite http://metaliteracy.org/  includes learning objectives, practice (assignments), and the article mentions a Metaliteracy MOOC with a badging system (gamification or continuing ed credits?).
• The best thing they do is to tie their work to SCONUL's Seven pillars and UNESCO's Paris OER declaration, along with UNESCO's Media and information literacy curriculum for teachers.

Hofer, Amy R., Lori Townsend, and Korey Brunetti. "Troublesome concepts and information literacy: Investigating threshold concepts for IL instruction." portal: Libraries and the academy 12.4 (2012): 387-405. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v012/12.4.hofer.html

I have some trouble with this trio's conceptions of threshold concepts in info lit:

• Metadata=findability (402). I think metadata is key to findability, but am not certain that students need to understand and recognize as much as Hofer et al state.
• Good searches use database structure (402). Yes, I agree that (like communities--Harlan et al), information has an underlying system of organization, whether it seems logical or not to newcomers. I think this is closer to a threshold concept than "Good searches use database structure."
• Information as a Commodity (403) --  this is a capitalist viewpoint, a frontier economy concept. It is what has contributed to our current journal and textbook pricing crisis. If reframed, one could say that information is part of community, and as Harlan et al saw, students see the value of giving credit when they belong to the community and are modeling their own work on others'. 
• Research Solves Problems -- does it? Sometimes, but not always. Experimentation is part of learning, and at GVSU many academics try to connect their (or their students') research to the community, but is this essential?

 I do like: 

• Format as a Process (403), meaning that format is a result of the process of creating information and that it may be important to evaluate it accordingly.
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual -- "what constitutes authority changes depending on the context" along with Harlan et al's idea that each community creates its own criteria for trusted sources.
• "Primary Source" is an Exact and Conditional Category. Sources are "created and used differently in different disciplines" and should "be considered ... in ... context" but may shift to another category "when viewed through a different disciplinary ... lens."

Ianuzzi, Patricia Anne. "Info lit 2.0 or Déjà Vu?" Communications in Information Literacy 7.2 (2013): 98-107.  http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op=view&path[]=v7i2p98

I agree with Ianuzzi's assertions that we don't need a re-statement of the info lit standards, but rather an integration into existing frameworks of learning outcomes such as:

The Lumina Foundation. (2011). Degree Qualifications Profile. http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf "so that the outcomes are 1) introduced, reinforced, and applied to the discipline[s] through integration with disciplinary context; and 2) demonstrated through a culminating experience" (102). Teaching needs to include "authentic formative assessments" which "scale" and can be collected for "program and institutional evidence of success" along with involving "students in their own assessment" and including summative assessment (103). She mentions the CLA, which GVSU tried and rejected as too costly, the
Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), or the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Proficiency Profile (formerly MAAP) as other possibilities (is GVSU using either?). Ianuzzi states that SAILS does NOT assess info lit, but that the iSkills from ETS does, although it "is expensive and can be difficult to administer" (104). However, "true assessment of student learning is through direct assessment of academic work. E-portfolios...." Ianuzzi recommends that ACRL "work with higher ed associations...(i.e., AAC&U),"...focus on clarifying info lit in "existing national frameworks," help with curriculum mapping development models, and "partner to promote already developed, normed, and reliable rubrics...."(105). She stresses that librarians "need to partner on course and curriculum design, possess technology as well as pedagogical skills, and struggle to partner with faculty who believe the ownership of the course and the curriculum begins and ends with the instructor" (106).

Informed Learning & Teens

Harlan, Mary Ann, Christine Bruce, and Mandy Lupton. "Teen Content Creators: Experiences of using Information to Learn." Library Trends 60.3 (2012): 569-87.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/docview/1009906531?accountid=39473

Info practices: 
1.  Gathering = learn how to interact, community expectations, tools for creating 
     content 
     (1st & 2nd Faces of informed learning: 
          1st "info awareness & communication" = gathering; 
          2nd "sourcing info" = browsing & searching)

     A.  Inspiration - ideas encountered serendipitously (not intentionally) cause 
           emotional resonance. Requires openness.
     B.  Focused browsing - more intentional, but no specific need identified, just 
          interest (e.g., bookmarks, favorites).
     C. Direct searching - specific skills needed: 
             application / doing - tutorials, search engines
             social contacts - online communities, forums 

2.  Thinking = learning by engaging with & integrating info into existing knowledge

      (3rd & 4th Faces: 

          3rd "info process" = planning & reflecting; 

          4th "info control" = musing & considering) 

     A. Choosing a community:

          1. Participatory culture - 

              a. low barriers - low cost & ease of use

              b. welcoming

              c. strong support - sharing, feedback, encouragement, mentorship

          2. Observation - 

              a. tenor of interactions

              b. social mores (rules, expectations)

              c. evaluate potential role 

     B. Evaluating authority - trusted sources provide valuable info to improve process

          1. Popularity within community

          2. Self-confidence of provider

          3. Helpfulness / usefulness for future, especially if there was a personal aesthetic 

              response.

     C. Musing - unaware / subconscious inspiration (idea in background)

     D. Considering - exploring inspirational sources in depth (collecting, reading, 

          responding, interacting, emulating)

     E. Planning - discussion / conversation (bouncing ideas around)

     F. Reflecting - by trial & error, & problem solving

3.  Creating 

     (5th & 6th Faces:

          5th "knowledge construction" = modeling

          6th "extending knowledge base" = composing)

 

     A. Participating - commenting & liking - building a library of content attached to

          their profile

     B. Copying - copy & apply content in order to: master tools & techniques, & build 

         confidence

     C. Modeling - use others' content as a guide but apply techniques / choices 

         differently

     D. Composing - new, original content demonstrates: knowledge of skills, 

          community practices, & creative engagement with info.