Ass+2+Henri+J+article

Henri has some amazing ideas about the school and how to create an IL school community. The key is that the school already needs to be a community of learning. IL= being able to find locate appropriate information and using he information in a way that demonstrates understanding.

Obstacle teachers have been working in isolation. To be an informaion literate school community the school has to be a community

Constructivist model of learning best reflects understanding of how the brain deals with knowledge. This relates to IL and IL skills models

School must have a holistic approach to achieve IL school community. Understanding of school culture.

Henri,J. (2005). Understanding the information literate school Community, in The Information literate school community2, J Henri and M Asselin (eds), Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, Australia.

Quotes

Henri, J, 2005, p.

As more and more people use the concept its meaning will change and adapt to meet particular purposes. It is likely that the concept will be misused because it is misunderstood. (Henri, J, 2005, p.11)
 * (in relation to information literate)**

The challenge with this undertaking is that the information literate school community is both a concept and a working model. (Henri, J, 2005, p.11)

Borrowing from Cooper and Boyd (1995) the information literate school community can be viewed as ‘a philosophy as well as a place; it is a way of being as well as a working model. It is a mindset as well as a map’ Henri (2000b) declared that ‘A school community that places a high priority (policy, benchmarking, funding, and evaluation) on the pursuit of teacher and student mastery of the processes of becoming informed can be regarded as an information literate school community’. (Henri, J, 2005, p.11&12)

=Obstacle= The idea of the ‘community’ suggests more than an organization that is student focused. Community is something that transforms thinking within the school and does so in such a way that the transforming pulls the world of school and the world outside school closer together. Collaboration and collegiality are key measures of community well-being and are partial indicators of the existence of an information literate school community. But as Cooper and Boyd (1995) noted: Collaboration, rather than isolation, unfortunately, is a foreign practice to many educators, For most teachers, the adult in the next classroom is not someone they confide in about matters of teaching practice because it is too threatening. There is no time for teachers to collaborate even if they want to. In most schools, teachers do not see each other teach; they do not know each other’s disciplines. (Henri, J, 2005, p.12)

The idea of ‘high priority’ suggests that the school is interested in implementation of innovation rather than in mere lip service to ideas. Issues pertaining to the information- literate school community will be featured in staff meetings and will be drivers of administrative rules and norms of behaviour. Professional development and induction programs will feature agendas that underpin critical elements of the information- literate school community will not bee seen as highly problematic or as low priorities but rather will provide measures against which school success is evaluated. (Henri, J, 2005, p.12)
 * HOW (to overcome obstacle)**

A definition (maybe) ‘Mastery of the processes of becoming informed’ suggests that the purpose of school in is to bring to maturity young peoples abilities to think and reason interdependently. The emphasis is on construction (Groundwater-Smith, 2001) and not on the instruction (Henri, 2004). (Henri, J, 2005, p.12)

In essence, the information literate school community describes a school community that places a significant priority on transforming information into knowledge and in turning knowledge into information. The members of this community search for meaning and application of knowledge and must, therefore, be equipped to deal with information as raw material, as partial construction, and as an end product. The search for meaning is important at both the corporate and individual level. At the corporate level, policy and culture must work together to ensure that the focus of the school is on learning and that information literacy is appropriately supported as the key enabler of learning. At the individual level both students and teacher must be encouraged to monitor the attainment of information literacy. (Henri, J, 2005, p.12)


 * Justification could be linked to how students learn thus it is a good definition.**

Also obstacle that school is not a learning community as teaching is often in isolation (see above and then this)

The idea of the information literate school community belongs to a broad family of concepts such as the ‘learning school’ (Lincoln, 1987) or the ‘learning organization’ (Senge,1990, Watkins& Marsick, 1996) or the ‘community of learners’ (Brown, 1997, Schon, 1983 and 1990) or a ‘collaborative learning communities’ (Cooper & Boyd, 1995). It also has an affinity with ideas that underpin knowledge particularly as promoted by …

The information literate school community draws from the meshes with merging learning theory and provides a sound reason for reconceptualizing and, ultimately, reengineering the places we call schools. Abbot and Ryan (1999, p.66) claim that: As scientists study the processes of learning they are realizing that a constructivist model of learning reflects their best understanding of the brain’s natural way of making sense of the world. Constructivism holds that learning is essentially active. A person learning something new brings to that experience all of their previous knowledge and present mental patterns. Each new fact or experience is assimilated into a living web of understanding that already exists in that person’s mind. As a result, learning is neither passive nor simply objective. (Henri, J, 2005, p.13)

=To achieve an IL school community a holistic approach must be taken= Abbot and Ryan suggest that for the brain’s predisposition toward constructivist learning to thrive, consideration must be given to all aspects of a child’s learning environment. Therefore, building an information literate school requires and demands a departure form stereotypical thinking that places teachers into classrooms to teach subjects. The culture, the architecture, and the relationships that dominate school must be holistic and spaces where people learn to learn and this must be transparently obvious and demonstrable.

Social constructivism attempts to explain learning as a community endeavour rather than as merely personal pursuit. This community emphasis can be seen in Brown’s (1997) community of learners and the parallel idea of communities of practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Within these communities, the focus is on shared responsibilities and mentoring relationships where loosely-coupled groups of people come together through shared expertise and passion for learning (Weick, 1976). This argument was passionately put by Senge (1990) who noted that, while all people have the capacity to learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conductive to reflection and engagement.

Senge claimed that learning organizations are: Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together (Senge, 1990,p.3) (Henri, J, 2005, p.13)

=How to overcome obstacle=

System thinking (comprehend and address the whole) Personal mastery Mental models Building shared vision Team learning

Building the learning community Create continuous learning opportunities Promote inquiry and dialogue Encourage collaboration and team learning Establish systems to capture and share learning Empower people towards a collective vision Connect the organization t its environment

(Henri, J, 2005, p.14)

=Obstacle= Selfish learning occurs when the individual goals and vision do not match the corporate goals and vision. Examples of selfish learning in schools are: Multiple teachers preparing the same lessons New teacher having to develop lessons plans without resources to a database from which they can retrieve previously used materials Teachers attending professional development courses without reporting their learning and its potential application, to the wider school community (Henri, J, 2005, p.15)

Fullan (2001) also argues that school systems and corporations suffer from the knowledge- sharing problem. He notes that: Corporations and school systems have much more in common than we thought. They are not identical, but they both would be better off (and hence so would society) if they strengthened their capacity to access and leverage hidden knowledge (p.5) (Henri, J, 2005, p.16)

School Culture The picture of a typical school is of an architecture that makes accessing and leveraging knowledge for learning extremely complex. (Henri, J, 2005, p.16)

Deal and Peterson (1999) argue that school cultures are complex webs of traditions and rituals that have been built up over time and which are shaped by principals, teachers, and key people who reinforce, nurture, or transform underlying norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions. School culture affects a staff’s receptiveness to professional development as a vehicle for change. Cohesion of purpose comes out of a strong culture. If the culture is both successful and strong it will be the prime element to the successful improvement and understanding the school’s culture will be the prerequisite for any internal or external change agent (Stool, 2003) (Henri, J, 2005, p.17)

=Kuhlthau’s inhibitors and enablers of IL school= Kuhlthau (1993a) has developed a set of primary inhibitors and basic enablers that may help in understanding the information literate school community. She found three primary inhibitors in programs that seemed to have stalled, that is, to have been unable to develop effective collegial teaching and learning: lack of time; confusion of roles; and poorly designed assignments. Stalled programs show evidence of lack of time both for instructional planning and for students to engage in information literacy activities. The lack of instructional planning prevents the development of new or enhanced instructional roles involved in all. The students assignment are not integrated into the classroom curriculum they are of then regarded as add-ons, as optional enrichment activities, rather than an essential part of curriculum-based learning.

Kuhlthau (1993a) found that four basic enablers were present in successful programs: a team approach to teaching; a shared understanding of learning as a constructivist process; a shared commitment to lifelong learning; and competence in developing learning activities and strategies. Successful programs show evidence of the teachers, the librarians, and the principals working together to facilitate, develop, and implement instructional programs.

(Henri, J, 2005, p.17)

The instructional team develops assignments through innovation and experimentation; they are trying new approaches in order to enhance student learning.

While Kuhlthau was primarily concerned with library programs and teacher and teacher librarian interaction, her findings demonstrated that basic enablers are not simply opposites of primary inhibitors. This means that creating information literate school communities involves addressing both kinds of indicators, developing the basic enablers while eliminating or ameliorating the primary inhibitors. This is consistent with the findings of research in educational change. (Henri, J, 2005, p.18)