Reinforcing information literacy development through a subject-focused resource-based project

Abstract

This paper discusses the findings of research investigating the implementation of a resource-based school history project in Malaysian secondary schools. It seeks to understand how the project contributes towards students’ information literacy development. The study took place in selected secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A total of 23 students and 5 teachers from four schools participated in the study, employing (a) student focus group interviews, (b) teacher individual interviews, (c) observation, and (d) document analysis as the data collection techniques. In general, although the history project is considered a “research” project by teachers and students, it is found to be a cursory information-gathering and information-compilation type of assignment, which is fully guided by the project guidelines or instructions. While teachers employ a mixture of teaching approaches in the project instruction, the efforts are concentrated on subject matter-related issues such as subject content and project instructions fulfillment. The larger learning experience such as information literacy and learning skills development, as well as research and report writing enhancement, appear to be overlooked in the instructions. The findings also show that (a) information literacy is loosely defined, (b) the “information gathering and information compilation” of the project task is of a superficial nature, and (c) inadequate guidance from teachers has resulted in low information literacy development among students. This study highlights the critical need to address information literacy in the education system, design resource-based assignments with a clear information literacy focus, and the importance of support from teachers for successful development. It provides a foundation for further research on the development of information literacy-focused resource-based school project assignments.

Keywords

Information literacy information literacy instruction school project secondary schools Malaysia

Introduction

The need to develop information literate, technology-competent students is high on the list of priorities of modern schools to cope with today’s fast moving world. Schools are already feeling the pressure to produce information and communication technology (ICT) competent individuals who will be adequately prepared to embark on college education and lifelong learning, and become contributing citizens to society (Bruce, 1997; Kuhlthau, 2004; Togia et al., 2015). The need to start information literacy (IL) programs in schools from an early age to enhance IL development has been discussed on many previous occasions (Kuhlthau, 2004; Probert, 2009; Yu, 2014). This has raised new pressures to upgrade the school curriculum, one that incorporates cutting-edge literacies.

The concept of “information literacy” varies, evolves and develops with time. This study conceptualizes IL according to Montgomery’s (1997) definition, where it is visualized as an umbrella term, including electronic searching and information retrieval skills, library skills, media skills, research skills, reference skills, learning skills, and study skills. This IL conception is found to be most relevant in the context of project work instruction where it encompasses the various study skills involved in the process of project work.

Despite growing awareness of IL and newer literacies worldwide, its development in Malaysian schools is rather slow. In Malaysia, children attend a compulsory 11 years of school education, six years in primary school (Grade 1 to Grade 6), and another five years in secondary school (Grade 7 to Grade 11). It is observed that IL is not directly included in the national school curriculum, while IL education is almost unheard of. While the Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) attempts to promote new skills and competencies such as ICT skills and media literacy, the “information literacy” concept as a whole is never mentioned or discussed in various MOE documents (Chan, 2002; Yu, 2014; Yu et al., 2011). Nonetheless, although not substantial or straightforward, efforts to integrate IL through students’ assignments are still evident, particularly through resource-based projects. Despite the absence of the term “information literacy” in these assignments, the expected learning outcomes clearly signify IL competencies. A notable attempt to incorporate IL through students’ work is through one resource-based history project for Grade 9 students.

The history project of concern is an important standardized assignment, compulsory for all secondary three (Grade 9; aged 15) students nationwide. It is conducted every year with different batches of Grade 9 students. The project is the final one of a series of three, obligatory for students from secondary one (Grade 7) to secondary three (Grade 9) in secondary schools. These projects require the students to work with various resources as well as document their investigation process as in any typical research work. The MOE aspires that through the project experience, students will develop crucial learning skills in preparation for them to become independent and lifelong learners. Although the term “information literacy” is absent in the national school system, its importance could still be inferred from the history project. One of the project’s objectives reads: “it is hoped that through these micro research projects, students could develop skills to search, gather, classify, analyze, interpret, synthesize, and conclude information and historical facts” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2002: 8). Likewise, the standardized project work grading scheme (presented as Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix) provides evidence of the expectation that IL skills will result from the project as the rubrics list research elements in the evaluation criteria for students’ reports. This shows that the Malaysian school system anticipates IL development, although IL is not openly addressed.

As mentioned earlier, the project under study is a compulsory assignment for Grade 9 students in Malaysia. It is, in fact, a part of Malaysian schools’ general examination, i.e. Lower Secondary School Examination (PMR). In 2010 when this project was conducted, students were given three months to work on the project and were required to submit project reports at the end of the period. The project grades would be displayed on the students’ PMR examination result slips. Unlike other class assignments, this project has a common project syllabus, comprising project guidelines and a project-grading scheme to ensure that project instructions and evaluations are standardized and moderated throughout the country. This is due to the fact that the project is conducted on a continuous basis (the project is carried out on annual basis), as well as indicating its importance and scale of operation. Apart from the standardized project syllabus, the MOE also appointed selected teachers from all over the country to become resource persons for the project. These resource persons are specially trained on the project implementation prior to the project introduction in schools. After attending the project instruction workshops, they will go back and conduct project instruction briefings to teachers in their areas. Once the teachers have been briefed on the new project, they are ready to begin the project in their classes.

The history project starts at the beginning of the year and lasts for only three months. It is delivered during the history subject period of three hours per week. It is worth mentioning that there is no student learning time allocated for the project in students’ timetable. Teachers in general spend one or two full history time slots to brief students on the project. In most cases, the subsequent project instructions are given spontaneously, or upon request from students who have problems with their project. The instructions are generally squeezed in between planned history lessons. Due to the time constraint, students generally work on their project on their own, outside the school timetable, and without teacher supervision.

This study examines how a resource-focused history project in selected Malaysian schools contributes towards students’ development of IL. Although studies have demonstrated positive IL development through project assignments (Breivik, 2005; Bruce, 1997; Herring, 2011; Kuhlthau, 2004; Macklin, 2001), these studies did not specifically discuss project design (such as project requirements, nature of task, and project assessment); as well as teachers’ supervision styles, and how these influenced or contributed towards students’ IL development. There is a need to address the fact that learning tasks of different complexities result in different information-seeking and use (ISU) experiences and learning outcomes.

Although IL development through practical experience on resource-based assignments is a well-established fact, most studies explore learning experiences through IL-focused curricula in western countries (Herring, 2011; Kuhlthau, 2004; Macklin, 2001; Mondschein, 2007; Nichols, 2009; Williams and Wavell, 2006). Not much is known about IL education through subject-focused assignments (where the skill is not the central curriculum focus). Little attention has been given to project work design (such as project requirements, nature of task, project assessment, and project supervision styles), and how these could influence IL development (Abdullah, 2008; Hart, 2000; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Tan and Theng, 2006; Yu, 2014). This has raised concern as to whether or not we can treat every “school project” as equally capable of delivering IL to students. Studies (Limberg, 1999, 2007; Lundh and Limberg, 2008) show that there is a link between the type of project task and the extent of IL development. Limberg finds that students’ ISU are shaped by: (a) learning conditions imposed; and (b) predetermined learning outcomes. This is to say that students’ IL experiences are influenced by the imposed learning conditions, such as the need to cover certain specified knowledge or subject content, or certain abilities such as information seeking, reading, writing, work-planning, or time management. Secondly, students could also be influenced into producing the intended learning outcomes devised by teachers. Equally, few studies focus on how teachers approach project instruction and how the students develop IL mastery at the end of the project experience (Probert, 2009; Williams and Wavell, 2006; Yu et al., 2011). This paper aims to discuss how a nationwide standardized school project contributes towards students’ development of IL in a learning environment that is not IL-focused. It is hoped that the findings from this study will improve the school project syllabus through a greater focus on IL.

Literature review

Although numerous studies have demonstrated positive IL development through resource-rich, authentic project tasks, little is said about nature of the project tasks, how they are conducted, and under what kind of learning environment. Researchers underpin the need to have a solid project work curriculum framework to equip students with the competencies to manage continuous development of resources in the information-rich digital society (Kong; 2008; Markless and Streatfield, 1992; Tan and Theng, 2006; Williams and Wavell, 2006).

While not directly discussing school curriculum and IL development, a number of studies (Julien and Barker, 2009; Merchant and Hepworth, 2002; Tan and Theng, 2006) report good IL program outcomes in schools where the environment supports the skills. This indicates an IL-supportive school environment is important in developing the skills. More studies (Limberg, 2007; Merchant and Hepworth, 2002; Tan and Theng, 2006) have been conducted on the link between project task designs and their potential to develop IL among students. Limberg (2007) explores the outcomes of employing learning assignments of various complexities on students’ IL development by analyzing different studies on students’ ISU habits. She attempts to understand how different learning tasks conducted in different school environment/social practices result in different learning practices and learning achievements. Her findings show that there are two conditions accountable in shaping ISU practices, namely: (a) learning conditions imposed; and (b) predetermined learning outcomes. Tan and Theng (2006) observe that the project assignment curriculum is influential in shaping and developing students’ IL and identify that there is an obvious shortcoming in the project work curriculum they studied. In brief, they discover that the syllabus only addresses IL in terms of the learning outcomes and this has resulted in the students lacking detail and richer understanding of the skill. Williams and Wavell (2006) conclude by providing several strategies to integrate IL across the school curriculum. They are: the need for clear learning objectives of information-based activities; ensuring that students understand, and are able to fulfill learning expectations; considering students’ prior knowledge before assigning tasks; ensuring that students have basic knowledge in organizing and presenting information in various physical and virtual environments; and the importance of designing learning tasks that allow the development of practical learning skills and cognitive abilities.

The importance of assigning a well-planned learning task for meaningful ISU activities is also explored in many studies. Among areas of concern are information seeking experiences (Alexandersson and Limberg, 2003; Limberg, 1999; Majid and Kanagasabai, 2007; Meyers and Eisenberg, 2008); variations of information use, which includes selecting and evaluating information (Jackson, 2006; Julien and Barker, 2009; Meyers and Eisenberg, 2008); and ethical use of information and information synthesis (Laverty, 2002; Williamson and McGregor, 2006; Williamson et al., 2007).

Project work evaluation as a part of project curriculum is also discussed in other studies (Harada, 2002; McGuiness and Brien, 2007; Moon, 1999). McGuiness and Brien (2007) and Moon (1999) highlight the strengths of using students’ work to assess their skills in comparison to the traditional quantitative approach and standardized forms of assessments. They argue that students’ work or “product appraisal” provide a clear method to evaluate the extent of IL skills that students have mastered. In contrast, Markless and Streatfield (1992) warn against exclusive use of product appraisal, citing that product assessment generally does not provide sufficient and clear assignment guidelines, and has the tendency to assume that students will automatically develop information skills through research without being given proper guidance and instruction, and that the assignment grading criteria are generally product-focused, rather than process-focused. This view is refuted by Moon (1999) who claims that working on the product could overcome the tendency to merely focus on product assessment and direct more attention to the learning process that leads to the product creation.

A number of studies (Bawi, 2002; Hart, 2000; Jackson, 2006; McKenzie, 2000; Williams and Wavell, 2006; Yu et al., 2011) reveal that students receive inadequate guidance on how to work on school projects for various reasons. Among the more common reasons are: teachers believe that students already have good information-seeking and information-locating skills, and therefore need little assistance to work on their research (Jackson, 2006; Macklin, 2001; Probert, 2009); teachers merely focus on the subject-matter of the task and do not address IL elements (Bawi, 2002; Hart, 2000; Yu et al., 2011); and teachers themselves do not have adequate IL competencies to teach their students (Jackson, 2006; Macklin, 2001; Probert, 2009; Yu, 2014). Regardless, there are studies that closely monitor the teacher’s role in teaching IL through project tasks (Barrows, 1998; Chu et al., 2011; Jackson, 2006; Lundh and Limberg, 2008; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Mokhtar et al., 2007; Yu, 2014). These studies have identified appropriate teaching methodologies which, they claim, have successfully embedded IL and other skills through project work. The teaching approaches include: (a) scaffolding (Jackson, 2006; Lundh and Limberg, 2008; Yu, 2014); (b) personalized coaching (Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Mokhtar et al., 2007; Yu, 2014); and (c) tutors and facilitators (Barrows, 1998; Chu et al., 2011).

Jackson (2006) develops an online scaffolding session to teach IL through the school library website. She collaborates with subject teachers who need assistance while doing resource-based projects. Macklin (2001) encourages teachers to become facilitators in teaching IL through project work and outlines several roles of facilitators in project supervising, they are: setting up the problem/situation; balancing student-direction with assistance; contributing knowledge and experiences; creating a pleasant learning environment; and stimulating critical evaluation of ideas. Likewise, Barrows (1998) and Chu et al. (2011) highlight teachers’ important role in integrating IL through project work by becoming tutors and facilitators to guide students to inquiry and self-directed learning. Some of these studies (Chu et al., 2011; Jackson, 2006; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Mokhtar et al., 2007; Montiel-Overall, 2005) also promote a teaching partnership between subject teachers and teacher-librarians for better IL development.

Although IL development through resource-rich, authentic assignments is a well-established approach, most of these studies explore learning experiences through IL-focused curricula in the western countries where teachers and students are well exposed to an IL curriculum (Julien and Barker, 2009; Limberg, 1999; Mondschein, 2007; Probert, 2006; Todd, 2006; Williams and Wavell, 2006). Not much is known about IL development through subject-focused assignments in learning environments that are less exposed to IL. In addition, little attention has been paid to certain aspects of the project work curriculum such as the (a) syllabus, (b) implementation, and (c) project assessment that could shape and influence IL development (Abdullah, 2008; Hart, 2002; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Tan and Theng, 2006).

Objectives and method

This paper aims to discuss some major findings of a study focusing on the supervision approach of a history project in Malaysian secondary schools and its contributions towards students’ development of IL. The project under study is a nationwide standardized assignment that is compulsory for all secondary three students (Grade 9, aged 15) in Malaysian schools. The history project is selected for the study as local researchers (Abrizah and Zainab, 2011; Yu, 2014) have identified that it is an ideal platform to engage students in IL through formulating meaningful questions, planning tasks, gathering resources, evaluating information, collaborating with others, and reporting findings. The study specifically aims to answer the following questions:

How is the history project task structured and presented to develop information literacy to students?

How does the history project supervision influence students’ development of information literacy?

How does the history project contribute towards students’ development of information literacy?

This study employs a qualitative case study method, taking place in four schools in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia and involving five teachers who supervise 23 students (15 years old) working on their history project. The teachers are Mrs Anna, Mrs Brenda, Mr Chan, Mrs Dora and Mrs Emma.¹ They are from four schools in the state of Selangor, Malaysia, namely: Sekolah Amanah, Sekolah Bijaksana, Sekolah Cendikiawan, and Sekolah Dedikasi.² Two teachers, Dora and Emma are from the same school, Sekolah Dedikasi. Emma joined the study later to supplement data collected from Dora. The teacher participants were selected based on the following criteria: they were supervising the history project, had three years or more experience of supervising the project, and had good potential for providing rich data. The students were selected through the teachers for two reasons: (a) only minimum contacts with the students are allowed by the MOE prior to their national examination; and (b) the teachers knew the students and their learning abilities better, and were in a better position to select the appropriate students. They are coded as S1SA to S6SA, S1SB to S6SB, S1SC to S6SC, and S1SD to S5SD from the four schools respectively.

The study was conducted through a multi-stage (three stages), simultaneous data collection procedure taking place over one-and-a-half-years, detailed in Yu et al. (2014). It employed three data collection techniques:

interviews, comprising individual teacher interviews and students’ group interviews’ (group of five students)

classroom observations during history project instructions

document analysis of students’ project journal and the completed project report.

As this study involved school children as human subjects, approval to conduct the research in schools was sought from the MOE and the state education department. Two types of data collection procedures, namely classroom observation and teacher interviews took place during the first stage of data collection. It started with classroom observation as full project instructions were only carried out at the beginning of the project. The whole instruction was captured both on audio and video recorder. Special attention was given to understanding the project syllabus, the nature of the project task, project evaluation, as well as project instruction approaches. During these times, notes were taken on interesting leads to be further queried in the subsequent teacher and student interviews. This was followed by a “meeting the students” session to brief them on how to write their project journals. Samples of journal entries were given to the students. While the students were told to write whatever they wanted about their project experiences, itemized ISU activities were provided to them as guidance on what aspects to write about. This was to help them to get more ideas on what to write.

The second round of teacher interviews and first round of student group interviews were conducted during the second stage of data collection. During this stage, the teachers were individually interviewed to probe the details of the project task as well as their teaching approaches in supervising the students. Next, students’ project journals were collected. The student group interviews were carried out at the end of the year (several months after they had completed their project) as the MOE did not allow researchers to contact the students until they had completed their examination.

The third stage of data collection involved conducting a second round of student group interviews to fill in missing gaps from the first round of interviews. This was followed by collecting students’ completed project reports. A combination of semi-structured interview and in-depth interview conversations was employed in both teacher and student group interviews to ensure that every element and area of IL practices were successfully captured in a natural manner through the interviews. The data analysis was carried out in two stages, namely the first stage (or primary analysis) and second stage analysis. During the first stage, the analysis, especially data reduction, was made while collecting the data. The focus at this point was to concentrate on the more important aspect of the phenomenon such as the teachers’ approaches to teaching the project, while less important ones, such as the role of school library in supporting the project, were discarded as not much data emerged. At this stage, data were “mentally” analyzed by making sense of them and comparing them to the themes derived from the existing literature before they were downloaded to Microsoft Word data analysis matrices for more thorough analysis. Primary data analysis during data collection is recommended by experienced researchers such as Merriam (2009) and Miles and Huberman (1994) as the data were still fresh to the researcher.

In the second stage, all raw data were processed. Interview transcripts were prepared from tape-recorded interviews, expanded field notes were prepared from scribbled field notes and from recorded videos, and notes were prepared while studying students’ project journals and reports. Microsoft Word tables were constructed to organize and categorize data according to potential codes and themes according to the research questions.

The data were then closely examined and transferred from interview transcripts and observation notes to data analysis matrices. The data then went through several iterations of data refinement and filtration processes, employing Miles and Huberman’s (1994) approach of “three steps data analysis: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification” throughout the process. At this point, potential codes were listed and tabulated according to the research objectives and research questions. Upon analysis, the data were categorized according to these themes:

project work design: project requirements, nature of task, and project assessment;

teachers’ instructional approach;

teachers’ instructional approach: integration of IL: matched against Big6 IL model;

students’ development of IL: students’ perception of the project; IL experience through the project; learning and skills development.

Findings

The history project task

As a compulsory and standardized assignment for all 15-year-old students in Malaysian secondary schools, the project work under study was a highly structured assignment. It had a standardized project syllabus, detailed project instruction guidelines, and a project-marking scheme to facilitate a moderated nationwide project work implementation. The project task was divided into three sections, namely Element 1, Element 2, and Element 3. The Element 1 section was a compilation of resources that the students refer to for their project (which teachers and students refer to as “project evidence”). This is how a teacher described the first element of the project task:

The examination board (MOE) provides a complete guideline on the three elements of the project. Mr Chan (L24)

The students were also required to print out or make copies of their resources to be presented in the section as crucial evidence to support the project discussion as well as to assist project assessment. This section was evaluated based on the resources enclosed as proof of evidence that the students have collected them. The teachers used the “checklist for collecting historical facts” form to record students’ marks for the section (Table 1 in Appendix). The project evaluation checklist appears to be a good tool to ensure that students indeed use multiple resources for their project.

The next section (Element 2) was the main body of the project report as it was where the students wrote their research findings. The teachers explained that the project reports were evaluated based on nine areas namely: title, table of contents, acknowledgement, research objectives, research methodology, findings, summary, appendices, and references (Table 2 in Appendix). The third section (Element 3) was the shortest section of the report. It comprised only one short essay, integrating the project topic – patriotism and moral values. As in the Element 1 section, the instructions for Element 2 and Element 3 sections were also guided rigorously by the project guideline. The guideline provided detailed information not only on the structure of the project report, but also on the rough draft of the report. This is demonstrated in the following excerpt:

Element 2 describes what has been collected, they (students) have to explain this (investigation) in their own words and supported by evidence in element 1. Element 3 tests students on patriotism values…, writing an essay. Mr Chan (L32; 35; 37)

Upon close examination, it is observed that the history project evaluation was highly influenced by students’ ability to fulfill the project requirements, as displayed in Table 1 and Table 2 in the Appendix. This also means that although the project evaluation tools (checklist forms in the appendices) provided good indicators to assess the project achievements, they seemed to evaluate the project attainments only in terms of the end product. There was no evidence to suggest that the assessments also included some “process-oriented” elements to complement the “product-oriented” one. Crucial working experiences such as: (a) applying appropriate research methodology for the task; (b) identifying and selecting relevant information sources from a variety of formats; (c) examining and comparing information; the ability to identify opinions from facts, bias vs. factual; (d) synthesizing ideas from various resources; and (e) communicating findings were missing from the project instructions and assessment. As a whole, the findings in the study reveal that the project design is highly structured, guided by the project guidelines and project-marking scheme.

History project supervision and students’ information literacy development

Although there are some variations in the manner the teachers supervised the history project, in general, they are found to employ four different approaches to teach the project, namely: (a) briefing/instructing; (b) coaching/facilitating; (c) scaffolding; and (d) exploration. Two teachers, Mrs Brenda and Mr Chan have ventured one step further by also employing a modeling technique to make their instructions more engaging. As a whole, the teachers were observed to employ different teaching techniques during the different project stages to facilitate the students with their work progress. All five teachers were found to rely heavily on the project work guidelines to introduce the project to the students (at the beginning of the project). Armed with the guidelines, the teachers employed a briefing/instructing teaching strategy to explain the task, particularly the format and outline of the project, as well as its requirements. It becomes apparent that the project briefings were also geared towards helping the students to score good marks and to produce predetermined project reports by complying with the project guidelines. This is shown in the following interview excerpts:

The examination board (MOE) has given us the project title. The guideline even showed us how to write the contents…, it has organized [how we should write] the contents. It assists us [to teach]. Mrs Anna (L117; 119–122; 126)

…the focus of the instruction is on the provided guideline [by examination board, MOE]. The students need the marks [by complying with the guideline]. Mr Chan (L177–179)

After the initial project briefing session, all teachers mainly employed the exploration method during the information-seeking, information-locating, information-use, and information-synthesis stages. This means teachers allowed students who were willing and capable of working independently to do their research and write the reports on their own, with little supervision (from the teachers). The teachers unanimously referred to these students who were willing and capable of working on their own as “good students”. The occurrence of the exploration teaching method is presented in the following dialogues:

the exposure [from the ICT class to find information] was enough, they knew how to find information. They just showed me what they found. Mrs Emma (L191–192, 194)

hmm … I didn’t teach the good students [how to find information from the Internet] because they are more advanced, right? Mrs Dora (L315–316)

Meanwhile, a combination of coaching/facilitating, scaffolding, and exploration methods were also selectively employed after the initial project instruction had been conducted to facilitate students with their various needs throughout the whole course of the project. The mixture of these teaching approaches continued to be employed throughout the information-use and information-synthesis stages of the project. The personalized coaching, scaffolding, and modeling approaches were specifically employed to provide additional help to the weak and unmotivated students, while the good and more able students mostly work on their own by means of another instructional approach (i.e. exploration method). These good students were allowed to work independently on their project by exploring information-seeking and information-use activities on their own. Two teachers, Mrs Brenda and Mr Chan even provided further help to the students through the modeling teaching approach. This strategy was considered to be one of the more serious teaching efforts as it requires real demonstration to teach the intended skills. For instance, Mrs Brenda took her students to the library and demonstrated strategies for locating and accessing information from books, journals, magazines, encyclopedia, and newspapers, while Mr Chan brought his own laptop to the classroom to demonstrate how to browse the Internet to find information. In many cases, while not too dependent on their teachers, the students would seek help from other sources, such as from more knowledgeable friends and family members. These students only needed several supervision sessions with their teachers, mainly to have their work checked and approved by the teachers, rather than to ask for inputs to their projects. The findings show that the students received little guidance on how to work on a project or research work as the teachers did not facilitate or coach them with the necessary learning skills to approach their task. The occurrences of the mixed teaching approaches are displayed below:

I gave them the keywords … for example “Malaysian culture”. I know which website they are going to visit. We just give them the keywords. Mrs Brenda (L212–214)

I didn’t specifically teach the students [how to find information], I just explained how to browse the Internet in the class. Mrs Emma (L165)

To conclude, not much evidence of IL instruction was gained from the teachers as they focused their discussions on getting the students to complete the project. Much of what was discussed was on getting the students to comply with the project instructions to produce the project reports. Findings from this study imply shallow project instructions, focusing only on subject-matter and project instruction compliance. While teachers employed five different instructional approaches in the project instruction, these efforts were mainly geared towards accomplishing the predetermined learning output, rather than developing learning and research skills.

History project contribution towards students’ development of information literacy

Although the history project was considered a “micro research” as stated in one of its objectives, it was in actuality not more than an information-gathering and information-compilation type of assignment. It relied heavily on the project instructions/project guidelines to help the students produce their project reports as specified in the guideline. Three central themes emerged in the students’ project experience as discovered through the students’ interviews and their project journals. They are: “convenience”, “comprehensive information”, and “fact finding”. As a whole, except for very few cases, every decision the students made during the project experience was based on the most convenient and easy way to complete their task. This is where the “convenience” theme comes into the picture. For instance, in discussing their decisions to choose a specific festival (topic) to work on (out of the “traditional festival” topic assigned), most students cited “familiarity with festival”, and “easy or convenient information” as two main reasons for choosing a topic. One student, S3SC wrote in her project journal: “of course I would choose the easier one [topic] right?” Most of the students opted to work on a festival that they celebrated and knew a lot about, or a festival that they could easily find comprehensive information about. They were not keen to challenge themselves to try out something new, or do something that they were not familiar with. Out of 20 of the students’ journals 10 also had entries about selecting a well-known topic or a topic that provided more information. This supports the “convenience” and “comprehensive information” themes in the study.

In describing their information-seeking experience, most students suggested that it was not more than a “fact finding information-seeking experience”, where the goal was only to go for resources that provided information to answer the project questions. The emphasis was also on resources that were able to provide comprehensive information about the topic. Consistent with findings from other studies, the Internet emerged as the most widely used and popular information source in the study. Students’ information-seeking experiences are presented below:

[on Wikipedia] it has a lot of information about the topic, specific information … S5SC (L342, 344)

the Wikipedia is already complete, there’s no need to do other searching. S1SB (L514)

The students did not face many problems getting the desired information for the project. Most of them only needed to practice basic information-seeking strategies mostly through a “one-word” search term to get the desired result. For instance, this is how student S2SC describes her information-seeking experience from the Internet:

for Hari Raya [a traditional Malay festival], just type “Hari Raya”.

The students explained that a single keyword strategy was good enough to get the desired result. They added, however, that they might need to change the keyword, or use a compound keyword at times when the search result was not good, but had never used Boolean logic search strategy using “and” and “or” in their information search attempts. This suggests that the simplicity of the research task and the broad topic of the project did not challenge the students to engage in a more meaningful information-searching process.

With regard to information use, students were found to simply access any information that was relevant to their topic without interpreting or evaluating it first. A bigger problem spotted was that the students were found to have serious problems with information use ethics. The findings showed that the students had very low IL awareness, and that they had never heard of the word plagiarism. Therefore, “direct copying”, “word for word copying”, or “copy and paste”, were used as substitutes for plagiarism throughout the interviews. Most of the students initially believed that it was not wrong to plagiarize as they had never heard of such things in the ethics of information usage. They innocently believed that they did not do anything wrong because they were merely reporting “accurate” information in their reports. However, some students began to change their stance on the issue as they started to see the resemblance of plagiarism to cheating as the discussion progressed. They also justified their actions by claiming that the information that was uploaded on the Internet by someone was for other people to use. These are some responses from the students on plagiarizing:

I just copy the sentences if I like them. S3SB (L404)

yeah, most of us did that [direct copying]. S4SB (L401)

Although all of the students admitted to practicing “copy and paste” at one point or another, they explained that it did not mean that they always had the intention of copying other people’s work. They defended their actions and cast off accusations that they were plagiarizing just because they “referred” to other work. For instance, S2SB cited:

it is not easy to cheat, don’t think that we wanted to copy, we referred to the reports because we did not have any ideas.

Besides the plagiarism issue, very little was mentioned about the other aspects of information use such as the need to filter and evaluate information during the information-use process. Likewise, there was little discussion of information-synthesis issues, such as the challenges of integrating information from multiple resources or the need to investigate conflicting information from different sources. As a final point, the pressure to complete the project, guided by the project guideline outweighed the initial goal of enhancing students’ learning skills and competencies. Despite the flaws and challenges faced by the students which hindered fuller learning opportunities, the students were confident that they had benefited from the project and believed that they had developed knowledge and competencies in more than one way. They described gains in three broad areas, namely: (1) the topic and research area; (2) work process and learning skills; and (3) interpersonal and social skills. These are further elaborated as follows.

Knowledge development: Topic and research area

Students reported gaining a better understanding of the topic and the different cultures when they were asked what they learnt from the project:

in-depth understanding … the topic. S2SA (L966, 970)

Knowledge development: Work process and learning skills

Students also listed a host of learning skills that they acquired from the project experience including: computer skills, researching skills (which comprised information-seeking skills, data collection from primary sources, and information-handling skills), writing skills, organization and presentation skills, time management, and critical-thinking skills.

we basically know about all the basics [of using computers] now, everybody uses a computer, right …, we get new skills … how to create columns, tables, graphs. S4SA (L278–280)

[developed] information-seeking skills … S1SC (L667)

save our file in folders [organizing information]. S2SB (L160)

Interestingly, the students also mentioned acquiring critical thinking skills as displayed below:

…in searching for information, it is important to select accurate information, so there were different ideas among the [group] members, so we debated on it [in discussing critical thinking]. We listen to all ideas [deciding to reach consensus]. S1SB (L1209)

A cross-examination of the journals also strengthens these learning claims. Students wrote about information-seeking attempts, safely storing electronic and printed information, selecting, and organizing information before using them. They also talked about sorting and organizing resources into the respective sections of the report, as well as experience in preparing the table of contents, illustrations, references, as well as binding the whole work as a report. These are exactly the same learning skills discussed in the interviews.

Knowledge development: Interpersonal and social skills

It is interesting to find that the students were aware that they were also developing interpersonal and social skills. Many of them appreciated the opportunity to work together as they believed that they had improved their interpersonal and social skills in various ways. To cite an example, student S3SC reported she had improved her confidence to interact with other people:

I learned how to socialize with others …, because I didn’t know how to approach others before, so after I interviewed the resource person …., I was able to talk to some Chinese people [student is a Malay girl], my neighbors …. S3SC (L 1150– 1152).

In brief, the students were found to have learned a lot from the project experience, ranging from the subject matter to various learning skills as discussed above. Based on their descriptions, they were implying that they had experienced lifelong learning.

Discussion

Although there are continuous efforts to prepare students to become information literate individuals through authentic learning tasks (such as resource-based projects), the IL assignments vary in their nature, complexity, and assessments. The outcomes of these assignments depend on how the projects are structured and presented. Researchers (Julien and Barker, 2009; Limberg, 1999, 2007; Parker, 2001; Todd, 2006) underpin the need to challenge students with “ill-structured” assignments to allow them to think critically and solve problems on their own. Lundh and Limberg (2008) stress that such superficial information-seeking approaches do not support information-seeking understanding and development as expected by teachers. Limberg (1999, 2007) and Parker (2001) add that learning development depends on the different “information-seeking and use” (ISU) experiences brought about by the different complexities of the tasks, stressing that complex and “ill-structured” learning tasks result in better learning. Other researchers (Kong; 2008; Markless and Streatfield, 1992; Tan and Theng, 2006; Williams and Wavell, 2006) emphasize the need to have a solid curriculum framework to equip students with the competencies to manage rapid and continuous development of resources in the information-rich digital society. The history project in this study is a well-guided, subject-focused, and cursory information-seeking and information-compilation type of assignment with inadequate emphasis on IL. As discussed in the literature, well-guided and superficial information-seeking and information-compilation assignments, such as the history project in this study, do not challenge students enough to engage in more in-depth ISU experiences. Researchers (particularly Laverty, 2002; Lundh and Limberg, 2008; Williamson et al., 2006; Williamson and McGregor, 2006) also see the connection between unethical use of information practices, particularly plagiarism, and a simple and broad category project task. The researchers discuss the prevalence of direct copying and plagiarism practices among students who work on resource-based assignments. They observe that direct copying practices become more prevalent in situations where the students can find ready answers to their tasks. This suggests that students are more exposed to the opportunity to plagiarize if the topic they are working on falls within a broad category, as it becomes easier to get direct answers for their tasks. The finding hence suggests that there is a connection between the nature and complexity of a project task and the manner in which it is delivered by teachers and experienced by students. This, in turn, will shape and influence IL development among students. In the case of the history project in this study, although efforts were taken to ensure that students developed learning skills through meticulously planned project task, the students’ real opportunity to explore further learning was restricted by the need to comply with the project guidelines. This is believed to have inhibited far-reaching IL development among the students.

On the teachers’ role in teaching IL, although the teachers in this study employed a mixture of teaching approaches in the project instruction, the efforts were focusing on the subject matter, rather than experiencing learning processes such as developing learning skills, research skills, and report-writing skills (that are important elements in a project task). While this does not seem to be productive, it is not uncommon as other studies (Bawi, 2002; Hart, 2000) also record similar findings on teachers’ preoccupation with subject-matter of their students’ project task. Hart’s (2000) study in South African primary schools, for instance, finds that classroom teachers did not teach IL through a school project as they claimed they did. She observes that very few of the teachers talked about IL and the benefits their students acquired from the project. They also described the project work progress in terms of topics and sub topics, suggesting a subject matter-focus teaching approach. There was also hardly any mention of keeping records of students’ on-going work progress and activities, a similar trend reported in the present study. However, although findings from other studies (Hart, 2000; Merchant and Hepworth, 2002; Tan and Theng, 2006; Williams and Wavell, 2006) also recorded evidences of prioritizing subject-matter and grade accomplishment over learning processes, the participants in these studies talked more about IL, meaningful learning, and lifelong learning compared to the participants in this study. This suggests the teachers and students in the other studies were more aware of IL, and experienced more successful IL integration through project work. Apparently, the teachers in this study did not put much effort into delivering IL through closer mediation methods such as tutoring, facilitating, coaching, and scaffolding efforts as recommended (Chu et al., 2011; Collins, 2006; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Mokhtar and Majid, 2006; Tan and Theng, 2006) to better assist the students with the resource-based task, and to guide them to “learn how to learn” by developing the intended skills.

Conclusion

This paper has sought to understand how the implementation of a subject-focused resource-based school project in secondary schools contributes towards students’ IL development. To conclude, teachers in this study mainly concentrated on the processes involved to generate the learning outcome (i.e. project report) in their instructions, such as finding information, collecting various resources, organizing and compiling them into a project report. In contrast, inner mental processes that occur during ISU activities were largely overlooked. This suggests teachers’ low awareness of IL and the need to deliver and develop the skill through resource-based assignments. Based on the findings, it is believed that there are several reasons responsible for the inadequate IL guidance and equally poor IL development through the school project. These are:

Low IL awareness caused by inadequate IL positioning in the local school education system. This calls for the need to expose and position IL in the school curriculum before presenting teachers and students with IL and other learning skills development tasks.

Subject-focused project work design. There is a need to design resource-based projects with IL and other learning development objectives in mind. Research projects need to have a clear IL syllabus, linked to some IL frameworks, and presented with a unique and relatively complex task to challenge the students into meaningful and in-depth learning while limiting students’ opportunities to plagiarize at the same time.

Inadequate guidance from teachers. The lack of time allocated for project instructions and teachers’ own limited understanding of IL (as presented in teachers’ stance on the plagiarism issue) are identified among the reasons why teachers were not fully involved in their students’ project experience.

In all, inadequate positioning of IL in the school curriculum, weaknesses in the project syllabus, and inadequate teaching guidance are among the reasons found to limit more extensive learning and IL development among students. This study highlights the critical need to structure and present resource-based assignments with a clear IL syllabus for effective IL development.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table 2.

Element 2: Recording historical facts.

Aspect	Scoring criteria	Score
1. Title	Write a complete title	/1
2. Table of contents	List table of contents and pages	/9
3. Acknowledgement	Provide acknowledgements to any three of these: [teachers, parents, friends, individual person, or institutions]	/3
4. Objectives	State and explain 3 objectives of the study	/3
5. Research methodology	State and explain any three of data collection techniques;[interview, observation, document analysis]	/3
6. Findings	List and explain 4 sub topics with research evidences: [illustration, charts, maps, etc.]	/4
7. Summary	List and explain 3 patriotism values related to the topic: [values to personal self, ethnic, and country]	/3
8. Appendices	Enclose any three categories of information sources	/3
9. References	List four types of resources according to the format	/4

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

Halida Yu is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Information Management, University of Technology MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. She obtained her PhD from the University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur. Her research area of expertise is in information literacy and school librarianship.

A. Abrizah is a professor at the Department of Library & Information Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Her research interests focus on digital libraries, Open Access Initiatives, information behavior, bibliometrics and scholarly communication. She is a research fellow at the Malaysian Citation Centre Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, and currently the dean of institute of Graduate Studies, University of Malaya.

Rafedzi E.R.K is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Information Management, University of Technology MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. She obtained her PhD from the University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur. Her research area of expertise is in information needs and seeking behaviour, focusing on juvenile delinquents and disadvantage groups.

Siti Nurul Maryam Abdullah is a lecturer at the Faculty of Information Management, University of Technology MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. She has a Master’s degree in Information Management. Her research interests focus on collaborative learning and information literacy.

References

Abdullah

(2008) Building an information literate school community: Approaches to inculcate information literacy in secondary school students. Journal of Information Literacy 2(2): 32–45.

Abrizah

Zainab

(2011) Digital libraries in the classroom: Secondary school teachers’ conception. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 43(4): 224–236. DOI: 10.1177/0961000611418811.

Alexandersson

Limberg

(2003) Constructing meaning through information artefacts. New Review of Information Behaviour Research 4(1): 17–30.

Barrows

(1998) The essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental Education 62(9): 630–633.

Bawi

(2002) Implementing technology in schools: Perception of principals towards the implementation of Malaysian smart school. Master’s Thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Breivik

(2005) 21st century learning and information literacy. Change 37(2): 20–27.

Bruce

(1997) Seven Faces of Information Literacy in Higher Education. Brisbane: QUT. Available at: http://sky.fit.qut.au/~bruce/inflit/faces1.htm (accessed 26 June 2006).

Chan

(2002) Developing information literacy in the Malaysian smart schools: Resource-based learning as a tool to prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s society. In: School libraries for a knowledge society: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship and the sixth international forum on research in school librarianship (ed. Singh

), Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 5–9 August 2002, pp. 203–215. Seattle, WA: IASL.

Chu

SKW

Tse

Chow

(2011) Using collaborative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help primary school students develop information literacy and information skills. Library & Information Science Research 33(22): 132–143.

10.

Collins

(2006) Cognitive apprenticeship. In: Sawyer

(ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–60.

11.

Harada

(2002) Personalizing the information search process: A case study of journal writing with elementary-age students. School Library Media Research 5. Available at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol5/SLMR_PersonalizingInfoSearch_V5.pdf (accessed 22 August 2016).

12.

Hart

(2000) Project work as a vehicle for information literacy education in a circuit of South African primary schools. In: Proceedings of the 66th IFLA council and general conference, Jerusalem, Israel 13–18 August 2000. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450767.pdf (accessed 22 August 2016).

13.

Herring

(2011) From school to work and from work to school: Information environments and transferring information literacy practices. Information Research 16(2): 473. Available at: http://InformationR.net/ir/16–2/paper473.html (accessed 26 June 2012).

14.

Jackson

(2006) The high school library web site: Scaffolding information literacy skills. PhD Thesis, Illinois State University, USA.

15.

Julien

Barker

(2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library & Information Science Research 31(1): 12–17.

16.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2002) Buku Panduan Kajian Sejarah Tempatan Sekolah Menengah Rendah. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

17.

Kong

(2008) A curriculum framework for implementing information technology in school education to foster information literacy. Computers & Education 51(1): 129–141.

18.

Kuhlthau

(2004) Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. 2nd edn. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

19.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Laverty

(2002) The challenge of info seeking: How children engage in library work. CAIS/ACSI 2002: 166–180.

21.

Limberg

(1999) Experiencing information seeking and learning: A study of the interaction between two phenomena. Information Research 5(1). Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper68.html (accessed 22 August 2016).

22.

Limberg

(2007) Learning assignment as task in information seeking research. Information Research, 12(4). Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis28.html (accessed 22 August 2016).

23.

Lundh

Limberg

(2008) Information practices in elementary school. LIBRI 58(2): 92–101.

24.

McGuiness

Brien

(2007) Using reflective journal to assess the research process. Reference Services Review 35(1): 21–40.

25.

McKenzie

(2000) Beyond Technology: Questions, Research, and the Information Literate school. Denver, CO: FNO Press.

26.

Macklin

(2001) Integrating IL using problem-based learning. Reference Services Review 29(4): 306–313.

27.

Majid

Kanagasabai

(2007) Information source preference for project work by primary school students. Library Review 56(1): 24–33.

28.

Markless

Streatfield

(1992) Three Decades of IL: Redefining the Parameters. Available at http://www.informat.org/pdfs/Streatfield-Markless.pdf (accessed 6 November 2011).

29.

Merchant

Hepworth

(2002) Information literacy of teachers and pupils in secondary schools. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 34(2): 81–89.

30.

Merriam

(2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Revised and expanded from Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (1988). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Meyers

Eisenberg

(2008) Information behaviour of grade 9 students: More and less savvy than you might think. In: World class learning and literacy through school libraries: 37th International Association for School Librarianship conference, Berkeley, CA, USA. Available at: http://www.kzneducation.gov.za/Portals/0/ELITS%20website%20Homepage/IASL%202008/research%20forum/meyersrf.pdf (accessed 22 August 2016).

32.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Mokhtar

Majid

(2006) Information literacy education in the context of project work: Application of multiple intelligences and mediated learning. In: Asia-Pacific conference on library & information education & practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006) (eds Khoo

.), Singapore, 3–6 April 2006, pp. 207–218. Singapore: Nanyang Technical University.

34.

Mokhtar

Foo

Majid

(2007) Guide me, show me: Personalised coaching as a means of instilling information literacy competencies in students. LIBRI 17(2): 1–19.

35.

Mondschein

(2007) Problem-based learning as a method for teaching information literacy to first year students. PhD Thesis, California Lutheran University, USA.

36.

Montgomery

(1997) Use of information: The information literacy phenomenon. In: Tepe

Calarco

(eds) A Handbook for Pathways to Knowledge: IFS Follett’s Information Skills Model. McHenry, IL: Follett Software Co., pp. 8–10.

37.

Montiel-Overall

(2005) A theoretical understanding of teacher librarian collaboration (TLC). School Libraries Worldwide 11(2): 24–48.

38.

Moon

(1999).Learning Journals: A Handbook for Academics, Students And Professional Development. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

39.

Nichols

(2009) The 3 directions: Situated information literacy. College & Research Libraries 70(6): 515–530.

40.

Parker

(2001) Student learning as information behaviour: Exploring assessment task processes. Information Research 6(2). Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/6-2/ws5.html (accessed 22 August 2016).

41.

Probert

(2009) Information literacy skills: Teacher understandings and practice. Computers & Education 53(1): 24–33.

42.

Tan

MHM

Theng

(2006) Building information literacy through project work: A case study in Singapore. In: Asia-Pacific conference on library & information education & practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006) (eds Khoo

.), Singapore, 3–6 April 2006, pp. 198–206. Singapore: Nanyang Technical University Singapore.

43.

Todd

(2006) From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students’ knowledge of a curriculum topic. Information Research 11(4): 264. Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper264.html (accessed 22 August 2016).

44.

Togia

Korobili

Malliari

. (2015) Teachers’ views of information literacy practices in secondary education: A qualitative study in the Greek educational setting. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 47(3): 226–241.

45.

Williams

Wavell

(2006) Information Literacy in the Classroom: Secondary School Teachers’ Conceptions. Final Report on Research Funded by Society for Educational Studies.Research. Report 15. Aberdeen: The Robert Gordon University.

46.

Williamson

McGregor

(2006) Information use and secondary school students: A model for understanding plagiarism. Information Research 12(1): paper 288.

47.

Williamson

McGregor

Archibald

. (2007) Information Seeking and Use by Secondary Students: The Link between Good Practice and the Avoidance of Plagiarism. American Association of School libraries (AASL).Available at: http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume10/williamson_informationseeking.cfm (accessed 14 June 2008).

48.

Noordin

Mokhtar

. (2011) Integrating information literacy instruction (ILI) through resource-based school projects: An interpretive exploration. Education for Information 28(2/4): 247–268.

49.

Abrizah

Saat

(2014) Overcoming time and ethical constraints in the qualitative data collection process: A case of information literacy research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 46(3): 243–257.

50.

(2014) Conception, integration, and experiences of information literacy through resource-based learning. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.