Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacy education

Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacyeducation 1

Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacy education

Abstract:Purpose: The paper explores the adoption of a phenomenographic conceptual framework to investigate learning from the perspective of the learner, with the aim of reflecting on the features that this approach shares with information literacy education in general, and with the relational model in particular.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The study offers an analysis of phenomenographic research on learning undertaken by Marton, which is further elaborated by examples of collaborative work by Marton and Booth (1997), as well as by Fazey and Marton (2002). The relationshipbetween understanding and learning, promoted by this perspective, isexplored in this paper to illustrate its impact on retention and transfer of the learning process. This is compared with the iterativeand independent learning approaches promoted by information literacy education, and specific examples are used to illustrate the pedagogical overlap between phenomenography and information literacy.In addition, the paper examines the relational approach of information literacy promoted by the individual and collective works of Bruce, Lupton and Edwards to demonstrate how the person-world relation, advocated by phenomenography, is used to examine the learner-information relationship promoted by the work of these authors.

Findings: The paper reflects on the potential impact that phenomenography and the relational perspectives have on pedagogical practices in Higher Education. In particular, it aims to demonstrate how the relational approach, together with the learn-how-to-learn ethos of information literacy, are fundamental in promoting a framework for lifelong learning that leads to the empowering of the learner through an iterative cycle of reflection and practice. What phenomenography defines as variation in practice to foster the ownership of learning.

Originality/value: In line with the person-world relation, the paper explores the relationship between learners and information by outlining its internal/subjective and external/objective dynamics. Claims that the learner’s ability to reflect on these dynamics enhances his or her independent learning attitude are explored in the light of current phenomenographic and information literacy research.

Paper type: Conceptual paper


Keywords: information literacy, phenomenography, relational model, subject-world relation, subject-information relationship.

IntroductionThis paper aims to explore information literacy from within a phenomenographic conceptual framework in an attempt to redefine learning as experienced from the perspective of the learner, and reflect on the impact that this approach exerts on information literacy practice. This paper is based on the following premises. First that information literacy is an intrinsic part of learning (Bruce, 2002, Lupton, 2004) and the foundation of independent and lifelong learning (Abid, 2004). The link between information literacyand learning is also found in the definition of an information literate person as one who has “learned how to learn” (American Library Association, 1989). This has generated the view that information literacy is a necessary development for addressing the requirements of a learning society (Lantz and Brage, 2006) in line with Bundy’s claim that information literacy is the literacy of the 21st Century (2001). The relationship between information literacy andthe process of knowledge production is what makes information literacy the foundation of independent learning, particularly as the iterative nature of the learn-how-to-learn approach generates information-seeking attitudes that are fully transferable to other contexts (Orr et al, 2001, Bruce, 2002, Grafstein, 2002). This paper aims to illustrate how the learn-how-to-learn approach promoted by information literacy mirrors the phenomenographic principle of deep learning.

The second point proposed by this paper is that the phenomenographic person-world relation1 has influenced the development of the information literacy relational model. The aim here is to examine themain tenets of phenomenography given that this approach is used as the conceptual framework for the relational model. This influence is evident in the individual research by Australian educators, namely Bruce (1997), Lupton (2004) and Edwards (2006), and through their collaborative work (Bruce et al, 2006) which promotes a systematic classification of information literacy through the Six Frames for Information literacy Education.2 A review of the individual and collective works is given in this paper to illustrate examples of how the subject-object relation, defined by phenomenography as the internal relation, is contextualised in the subject-information relation 1 In this paper the term person-world relation is used interchangeably with the term subject-object relation.2 The collaborative work is part of the special issue on Information Literacy published by Italics under the auspices of the Higher Education Academy – Information and Computer Sciences. The issue is available at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss1.htm (Accessed: 16 January 2006).

http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss1.htm


underpinning the phenomenon of information literacy. It is important to note that Bruce et al (2006) do not present information literacy as a theory of learning, but propose that the participants’ perspectives of teaching and learning influence their interpretation of, and attitude towards information literacy, and that this is illustrated by the variation in the way information literacy education is implemented to suit diverse educational (and pedagogical) environments. The relational approach is promoted as one of the six frames, and describes the relationship between learnerand information literacy in terms of complex and different ways of interacting with information. In line with Bruce’s original relational model (1997), this frame supports the view that in order to improve learning we need to understand the students’ perspectives and appreciate the variation in the students’ conception of information literacy (Bruce, et al, 2006).

Learning defined through phenomenographic and relational perspectives Phenomenography has evolved from the empirical studies on learning inthe 1970s into a research specialisation which focuses on human experience (Pramling,1994), rather than on human behaviour or mental states (Marton and Booth, 1997). One of the main points of debate inthe literature is whether phenomenography should be classified as part of the phenomenological tradition (Hasselgren et al, 1996; Marton and Booth, 1997; Marton, 1994). Given that the exploration of human experience promoted by phenomenography is also the aim of phenomenology it would be reasonable to assume an affinity between these two perspectives. However, Marton and Booth (1997) claim that a fundamental difference exists between phenomenography and phenomenology. In the latter it is the researcher’s perspective that is examined through reflection on his/her experience of the world. This is achieved by dissociating oneself from the natural attitude where the process of experiencing is taken for granted. From the outset such a philosophical approach aims to develop a single theory of experience. Phenomenography, on the other hand, employs an empirical approach to study other people’s perspective of the world and devise collective categories that describe the variation of this experience (Marton and Booth, 1997: 116). Therefore the aim of uncovering the richness of the individual’s experience, the person’s life-world sought by phenomenology, is in direct contrast with this phenomenographic goal of exploring the variation in the collective conception of the experience.

Hasselgren et al (1996) present a similar point by arguing that even though phenomenology and phenomenography share the same object of research their perspectives differ substantially in that the former emphasises the individual view, or first-order reality, while the latter focuses on the perspective of others, also known as second-order reality. In a study on learning Marton (1981) observes that


from a first-order perspective learning is defined by the correct acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, and therefore the learning content is dictated by the discipline studied. In his view, this typeof learning reflects the notion of transferring subject-specific and ready-made concepts and principles into the learner’s head. On the other hand, the second-order perspective, promoted by phenomenography, focuses on how students relate to what they are taught and how they make use of knowledge they already possess. Learning, from this perspective, encapsulates the experience of the learner-world relationship which reflects people’s interpretation of significant aspects of the learning process. Therefore, the aim of phenomenographic research is:

[..] not [..] to classify people, nor it is to compare groups, to explain, to predict, not to make fair or unfair judgments ofpeople. It is to find and systematise forms of thought in termsof which people interpret aspects of reality which are sociallysignificant [..]. (Marton, 1981)

Phenomenography, derives etymologically from the Greek noun fainemonon, which translates as the apparent, or that which manifestsitself, and grafia which means to describe in words or pictures that which designates an aspect or an experience of reality (Marton and Booth, 1997: 110) It originates from research by the Department of Education and Educational Research, Göteborg University, in Sweden, whose main interests involved the investigation of what and how people learn from their world in order to explore the process of learning and enhance the quality of this experience. Marton’ work in 1975 marked the starting point of phenomenography (Marton, 1994) which began with the observation that some students are more effective learners than others. This study focused on two questions, first what does it mean when we say that one person is a better learner compared to another, and second, why this is the case (Marton, 1994). The first question was addressed by asking students to read a text and, later on during individual interviews, to describe this experience in order to determine their level of understanding the text (content) and ascertain the process the students employed to accomplish the task (the act of learning). The initial analysis of the interviews produced a limited number of different ways of understanding the content of the text and these developed into categories of descriptions that defined in details each different way of understanding the text. These categories were also found to be logically related to one another and set in a hierarchical order. Marton refers to these hierarchical categories as the outcome space, and this gives an indication of the level of success of the learning task reflected in the different ways in whichthe text is understood. Therefore, the qualitative differences in the learning outcome was initially assessed by the quality of the students’ understanding and remembering of the text. However, further analysis of the students’ account of the learning process


used to understand the text generated two contrasting approaches, deep and surface learning. The identification of these two approacheshelped to address the question of why some people are better learnersthan others. Students who tried to understand the content of the textwere associated with a deep approach and the higher categories of thelearning outcome, that is they achieved a better understanding of thetext, while students who focused on the task of “moving the text intotheir heads” (Marton, 1994) employed a surface approach and their understanding of the text was consequently shallow. The findings illustrated that there is a relationship between the way learners experience the learning situation and the outcome of learning. The implication of this claim is that learning from a phenomenographic perspective involves experiencing both the act and the content, and this is identified by Pramling (1994) as the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of learning.

The first connection between phenomenography and information literacywas established by Christine Bruce’s work (1997) which emphasises an holistic evaluation of people’s experience of information literacy asan aspect of learning, rather than the assessment of measurable attributes and skills associated with specific information-seeking practices. Bruce adopts Marton and Ramsden’s definition of learning as the starting point for her research:

[..] a qualitative change in a person’s way of seeing, experiencing, understanding, conceptualising something in the real world - rather than a change in the amount of knowledge which someone possesses.3 (cited in Bruce, 1997: 60)

The relational model the Seven Faces of Information Literacy was born out of this study and in here Bruce examines the conceptions of information literacy from the perspective of educators in an HE environment.

Describing information literacy in terms of the varying ways inwhich it is experienced by people, that is their conceptions, is the alternative which I propose. Studying information literacy from the viewpoint of the people [..] is the first step towards a relational view of information literacy. (Bruce,1997: 39)

This marks a change in the pedagogical practices underpinning information literacy, where the focus shifts from the development andassessment of information skills associated with traditional library instruction (Mellon, 1988) to the application of a reflective approach promoted by the relational model of information literacy. The latter, thanks to its holistic view of learning, can facilitate the shift towards a learner-centred pedagogy.

3 Original quote: Marton & Ramsden (1988: 271).


The subject-object relation According to phenomenography perspective the way of experiencing something is characterised by the relationship between subject and object. Here the unit of research is a way of experiencing a particular phenomenon, while the variation in ways of experiencing this phenomenon becomes the focus of the research. (Marton and Booth,1997: 111) Marton (1994) also states that phenomeographers adopt a number of terms to describe the relation between subject and object, such as conceptualise, understand, perceive. However, these terms should be used interchangeably to portray the process of conceptualisation not as a mental representation or a cognitive structure, but as a way of being aware of something. He argues that awareness is affected by the relation between subject and object, where the former relates to, and is revealed by the latter either through experience or conceptualisation. As the two exist in relation to each other, what Marton calls the internal relation, he concludes that the way of experiencing or conceptualising the object (or phenomenon) also reveals aspects of the experiencing subject. He observes that the structural aspects of the experience define the subject’s boundaries of awareness and these are described as the internal and external horizons (Marton, 1994). However, he interpretsawareness as the person’s total experience of the world at a given point in time rather than as a dichotomy of conscious and subconscious states. By this he means that awareness involves a relationship of constant variation between things in the foreground of awareness which are explicit and thematised (the internal horizon), and those in the background that are implicit and unthematised (the external horizon). By examining the differences in the structure of awareness we can deduce the meaning of the phenomenon or situation from the learner’s perspective.

The outcome space of learning and its impact on the information literacy relational modelMarton (1981) cautions us about defining the diverse ways of understanding reality. In his view, these perspectives are not conceived by phenomenography as individual qualities, but as categories of description that portray a collective conception of a phenomenon. Given that the second-order perspective accommodates different ways in which people experience or conceptualise any aspectof the world around them, the basis for similarities is found in the commonness of the perspective, while the source of variation originates from people’s interpretation of the phenomenon. The relationship between learners and learning is therefore encapsulated in the development of distinct categories of experience, and these are arranged according to a hierarchical structure, or outcome space,also described as a diagrammatic representation of the logical link


between the categories of description4. Marton argues that in order to identify levels of variation in how the phenomenon is experienced,conceptualised and understood, these categories need to be explored both in terms of the common critical attributes that describe each category (the commonness of the perspective), and in terms of the features that distinguish one category from another (the variation inthe interpretation of the phenomenon).

Variation of the learning experience to expand the subject’s focal awareness is also promoted by Fazey and Marton (2002) who view the qualitatively different ways in which people experience or make senseof something as crucial aspects of what is learned.

Encouraging students to practice varying their perspectives, approaches, and the skills they employ is based on the variations that we have each experienced [..] the person-world relationship is a space established, but not delimited by, the dimensions of variation experienced by the learner. In other words understanding is the space of experiential variation. (ibid: 248)

Similarly, Marton and Booth (1997) promote the outcome space as an effective way of conceptualising learning and understanding, and identify different aspects that are discerned by the learner as the space of experiential variation. An example of the outcome space drawn from students’ learning experiences is outlined in Table 1 below.

Ways of experiencing learning

Temporal facet

acquiring knowing making use ofCommitting to memory (words)

memorising (words)

remembering (words)

reproducing (words)

Committing to memory (meaning)

memorising (meaning)

remembering (meaning)

reproducing (meaning)

Understanding (meaning)

gaining understanding (meaning)

having understanding (meaning)

being able to do somethingbeing able to do something differentlybeing able to do

4 For a detailed explanation of how to apply a pheomenographic approach to explore information literacy see Edwards, 2006: 51-62.


something differentUnderstanding (phenomenon)

gaining understanding (phenomenon)

having understanding (phenomenon)

relating

Table 1: The outcome space of learning (quoted in Marton and Booth, 1997: 43)5

The categories in the first column of this table demonstrate the distinct ways in which learning is experienced. In the first two categories this is interpreted as the memorisation of words or meaning, where the person-world relationship operates entirely on memory, leading to the reproduction of the task and surface learning6. On the other hand, learning that is described as a way ofunderstanding meaning, or of becoming aware of the whole phenomenon, implies a more active level of engagement on the part of the learner which is associated with deep learning. Whilst a full interpretation of these categories goes beyond the scope of this paper, it is worth noting that in the last two categories the learning experiences, shown by understanding of the meaning or of the phenomenon, are associated with a transfer of learning. This is demonstrated by the (independent) accomplishment of a task in its own right, or the completion of the same task approached in a different way, or the ability to do something different from the task learned. The final category illustrates the learner’s ability to apply what he/she has learned which is associated with a level of understanding that goes beyond the process of memorisation underpinning the first two categories. The outcome space of learning that is based on understanding generates greater learner awareness and this supports Marton’s view (1994) that educators need to focus on how students relate to what they are learning, and on how they use the knowledge they already possess in order to enhance their learning experience. As shall see later this type of understanding is also found in the work of Fazey and Marton (2002) and it involves the mastery of the process of learning as well as the appropriation of the content.

The relational models produced by Bruce (1997), Lupton (2004) and Edwards (2006) offer individual examples of the outcome space contextualised within the information-world. Table 2 provides a diagrammatic representation of the categories of description that each model

5 Extract from: Marton, F. Watkins, D. & Tang, C (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction. 7 (1), March 1997: 21-48.6 As we have seen earlier, in his initial study Marton (1975) identified two processes of learning, surface and deep. He links the former to memorisation and describes this process as the learners moving the text into their heads.


has devised to interpret the relationship between the user/learner and information in three different contexts.

Bruce, 1997: The Seven Faces of Information Literacy

Lupton, 2004: The Learning Connection. Information literacy and the Student Experience

Edwards, 2006: Panning for gold: influencing the experience of web-based information searching

Information Technology conception

Seeking evidence Information searching is seen as:

Information Sources conception

Developing an argument looking for a needle in a haystack

Information Processing conception

Learning as a social responsibility

a way through a maze

Information Control conception

using the tools as a filter

Knowledge Construction conception

panning for gold

Knowledge Extension conceptionWisdom conception

Table 2: Outlines of the three relational models of information literacy

Summaries of these three models are included here to give a brief illustration of their interpretations of the relationship between learner and information7. Bruce’s relational model (1997) frames information literacy into seven different ways of experiencing information-use through active and reflective engagement with the relevant information practices8. The users’ conceptions of information literacy produce seven categories of description:

Information Technology conception, which associates information literacy with the use of IT to gather and communicate information.

Information Sources conception, where information literacy is perceived as the knowledge of sources and the ability to access these directly, orindirectly via an intermediary.

Information Processing conception, which describes information literacy as “executing a process” (Bruce, 1997: 128), where a new situation is tackled through the use of an appropriate strategy to find and use

7 There is no scope in this paper for a full account of these relational studies, or for a detailed examination of their impact on information literacy practice. Readers who wish to explore the practical implications of these approaches should read the original research by Bruce (1997), Lupton (2004) Edwards (2006) and their collective work (Bruce et al, 2006) cited in this paper. 8 The overview of Bruce’s Seven Faces of Information Literacy is taken from Andretta, 2005: 18.


information. The nature of the process varies according to the participant of this process.

Information Control conception. Here information literacy is associated with the effective control and manipulation of information through the use of mechanical devices, memory, or IT.

Knowledge Construction conception, where information literacy is perceived as “building a personal knowledge base in a new area of interest” (ibid.: 137). Bruce stresses that this differs from the storage of information, because it involves the application of critical analysisof the information read.

Knowledge Extension conception, which envisages the application of knowledge and personal perspectives that lead to new insights.

Wisdom conception, which is associated with the wise and ethical use of information considered in a wider historical or cultural contexts.In addition, the information here undergoes “a process of reflection which is part of the experience of effective information use.” (ibid.: 148)

Bruce contends that in order to fully explore the learning process, aclear understanding of the relations between the learner and the subject studied must be sought, in combination with an evaluation of the learner’s perspective of information and the learning environment. The aim is to promote an holistic experience of learning which involves the ability to perform information literacy tasks, such as formulating an information problem, and finding an appropriate solution to these. Most importantly though, this process must be perceived by the learner as fully transferable to solve otherinformation problems even when they occur in unfamiliar contexts.

Lupton explores the relational perspective of information literacy byexamining the students’ relationship with information within a problem-solving scenario in Higher Education. She emphasises the connection between information literacy and learning by examining thestudents’ attitudes towards an assessment task. Her study generates three categories that describe their level of engagement with an essay and with the underlying information literacy practices. These are:

Seeking evidence. Here a familiar topic is selected and information is seen as external to the learning process. Students assume an instrumental approach and see the essay as a product that needs to bedone to complete the course. Lupton describes this category further by listing three distinct types of seeking evidence, including the simple use of statistics to support an argument, searching for ideas or opinions that support the students’ viewpoint, or promoting an


objective view by identifying contrasting perspectives on the topic. In this first category students focus on the essay task rather than the transferable and transformational aspects of the learning process.

Developing an argument. Here the information is internalised and personalised as students learn more about the topic by gathering background information to set the context and gain increased awareness of the subject. The main stages of developing an argument include learning about the topic, setting the essay within a context and reformulating the topic. Students in this category engage with the process of topic formulation, rather than limiting their efforts to the completion of the essay task.

Learning as a social responsibility. This offers a more comprehensive view of information literacy which is experienced as the interrelationship between the essay, the information, and the learning process. The essay is seen as an end in itself, a tool for learning and for communication. As with the second category, students in this group focus on the process of learning rather than the specific task of writing an essay. In this case, however, the emphasis is on activities that transcend the educational context, such as the application of learning to help the community bring about social and political change. This, Lupton argues, is what makes information literacy a transformational agent operating at both personal and social levels.

Lupton’s research emphasises that information literacy cannot be decontextualised from the learning process (Lupton, 2004: 89), and assuch it is seen not as a characteristic of the learner, but as a response to a context. This view echoes Bruce’s relational approach in that it examines the intent of searching for information as the driving force behind information literacy practices, rather than focusing on the measuring of competences in information seeking and use.

Similarly to Lupton’ study, Edwards’ relational model of information literacy (2006) examines students in a Higher Education context, although this research covers the learners’ experience of informationsearching when using the Internet and library databases, rather than the accomplishment of an assessment task. Edwards identifies four main categories which describe different ways of experiencing the search and reveal different awareness structures, different approaches to learning, and different search outcomes. Information searching is conceptualised as:

Looking for a needle in a haystack. Students here operate under the assumption that understanding the research topic is a necessary step to find information ‘out there’. Edwards observes that there is


little reflection on the research process and this is illustrated by the fact that students lack an appreciation of the information environment’ structure, or of the range of research tools at their disposal. In particular, students in this category are not aware thatthese tools are instrumental in retrieving the information they need.

Finding a way through a maze. Here the metaphor is changed from a needle inthe haystack to a maze, implying that students perceive information searching as involving the systematic processing and planning of a search. Students in this category also become aware of the wide rangeof the search tools they have access to. Whilst they still prioritisethe topic of research, students engage with advanced search facilities of the available tools, and begin to assess the quality ofthe information retrieved.

Using the tools as a filter. Searching for information at this point involvesthe use of the searching tools as a way of filtering the information.Here planning and reflection are evident as students concentrate on athorough analysis of the initial terms used, apply appropriate synonyms, and ultimately adapt their searching strategy in response to previous searching attempts. Their awareness of the structure characterising the tools used is also heightened, as is their abilityto adapt their searching strategy according to the tool they use. Panning for gold. This stage builds on the previous one where the search tools are used to filter the available information with the added outcome of limiting the results to high quality information. Studentsin this category select the appropriate tools to retrieve the required resources, and the searching strategy is rooted in systematic planning and careful reflection of information searching as a process.

Edwards concludes that there is a major conceptual gap between students in the first category, who experience information searching as a helpless task of finding a needle in a haystack, and those in categories two, three and four, whose conceptual engagement with the process of searching is illustrated by increasingly complex ways of interacting with the tools and complemented by reflective topic and search formulation practices.

The subject-Information relation It is a contention of this study that the relational model of information literacy identifies information as the ‘object’ in the subject-object relation. The categories of description derived from this relation reflect the subjects’ perception of information and further an understanding of their experience of the information literacy phenomenon.

“Descriptions of these conceptions, or experiences, reveal variation in the internal relation between subjects (people)


and some object (in this case information) [...] internal variation suggests that the meaning of information literacy is derived from the ways in which people interact with informationrather than from any external influence.” (Bruce, 1997: 9)

Further elaboration on the subject-information relationship is found in the collaborative work of Bruce, Edwards and Lupton (2006) who adopt a phenomenographic perspective to devise six conceptual frames of information literacy, consisting of the Content frame, the Competency frame, the Learning to learn frame, the Personal relevanceframe, the Social impact frame and the Relational frame9. In this section we draw examples from individual and collaborative relationalstudies to demonstrate the variations in the relationship between learners and information as external-objective, internal-subjective, and transformational. The external-objective conditions show that information is experienced as part of the external environment, and Edwards’ category of looking for a needle in a haystack (2006) illustrates this by observing that the students perceive information as an external entity that exists ‘out there’. Bruce et al (2006) associate the external role of information with the first two frames,where information is transmitted from one person to another (Content frame), or where it assists the performance of the relevant competence (Competency frame).

In a subjective-internal condition information is seen as open to interpretation and reflection, leading to its internalisation by the learner. This process of appropriation is exemplified by Bruce’s knowledge extension conception (1997) and Lupton’s developing an argument (2004). Bruce et al (2006) associate this condition with the next three frames. In the Learning to learn frame, for example, information shifts to a subjective role when the learner internalisesit. As it is demonstrated in following section of this paper, the process of internalisation is associated with the phenomenographic view that full understanding is successfully accomplished only when the learner has taken it in (Fazey and Marton, 2002: 235). On the other hand, in the Personal relevance frame information is viewed from a specific context that gives information a personal value, Bruce’s knowledge construction conception (1997) comes under this frame. Alternatively, information may assume a social dimension through the Social impact frame, and Lupton’s learning as a social

9 I am currently employing this six frames approach to assess the perception of information literacy from a range of views, including HE institutions, faculty and library staff as well as students (see Information literacy: from whose perspective? Available at: http://www.ilit.org/phd&conferences/index.htm). Findings from this research will be published at a later date, however, it should be noted here that the initial analysis has shown that the Competency and Content frames dominate the information literacy approach adoptedby HE institutions in the UK.

http://www.ilit.org/phd&conferences/index.htm


responsibility is an example of this (2004). In the Relational frame information assumes objective and subjective guises and the shift from the former to the latter leads to a transforming effect on the learner. This transformation was first defined by Bruce (1997) as a change in the users’ perception of information from external to internal. In the first instance information is seen as an objective, or external source which becomes subjective, that is an integrated part of their personal knowledge base, thanks to a reflective processthat leads to a sense of ownership of the information. Similarly, Bruce et al (2006) argue that internalising information promotes a change in the learner’s perspective which, in turn, initiates a transformation of the relationship between user and information. As we shall see later on in this paper, the transformative impact of thesubject-information relation is based on the work by Marton and Booth(1997) who argue that a change in the person-world relation necessarily initiates a change in the outcome of the relationship.

Furthermore, Bruce et al (2006) argue that the relational perspectivecan be employed as a way of combining a number of information literacy approaches, thus fostering variation in its provision and practice. This is in line with the phenomenographic view promoted by Marton and Booth (1997) that variation in practice encourages retention and transfer of learning which is discussed in a later section of this paper. Bruce et al (2006) illustrate how from a relational frame’s perspective the subject-information relation promotes the principle that learning operates within a content and a process, and therefore makes use of the Content and Competency frames. In addition, learning is encapsulated in the relationship between learners and their information environments, thus enabling the application of a combination of the remaining three frames. When Learning to learn is blended with Personal relevance, for example, the emphasis is on learning that develops a conceptual structure and critical thinking to complement the need to make the learning experience relevant to personal interests, while if Learning to learnis combined with the Social impact frame the conceptualisation process of the former underpins the evaluation of perspectives associated with social change.

Exploring the relationship between understanding and learning to promote ownership of learningThe studies on learning and its relationship to understanding, cited by Fazey and Marton (2002), reveal three stages of relational development between these two phenomena. This relationship is explored here because it helps illustrate the phenomenographic view of learning, and consequently provides an insight into the pedagogical rationale underpinning information literacy. In the firststage understanding refers to coming to terms with what is supposed to be learned, the next stage points to grasping, that is processing and absorbing, what is being learned, while full understanding


develops in the final stage and is reflected in an established ownership of the learning experience, what Fazey and Marton describe as making what is learned ‘your own’ (ibid.: 235). It is this appropriation of learning that is associated with the internalisationof information promoted by the relational model of information literacy (Bruce et al., 2006).

Fazey and Marton (2002) conclude that understanding and learning are inter-related. For example high-school students in Hong Kong10 use these two terms interchangeably as reflected in their explanation of both phenomena: “ when you really understood/learned something then you can do it again” (Fazey and Marton, 2002: 236). One can also detect a strong element of transfer implied in this relationship and described by the students as being able to do again the thing learnedor understood. The issue of transfer is examined in the next sectionthrough the principle of variation in practice. Here it is worth exploring the implications generated by the relationship between learning and understanding as these offer a clear rationale for the principle of variation in practice or iterative learning. First, understanding corresponds to what is learned, depending on the learner’ starting point. At this stage Fazey and Marton argue that motivational as well as environmental factors determine variations inthe way understanding occurs. Second, understanding is achieved by the learner, in other words there is no ‘correct’ way to achieve understanding. Arriving at one’s own understanding also reflects a sense of ownership of the process of learning. This point is linked to the emancipation and the empowerment of the learner fostered by information literacy education (Bundy, 2004b; Andretta, 2005; 2005c and 2006; Todd, 2006). Third, understanding enables one to do certainthings, and therefore variation in the way understanding occurs is complemented by variation in what understanding enables one to do. This point complements the principle of discernment promoted by Fazeyand Marton (2002), and adopted by the relational model of Bruce et al(2006), which is explored in a later section.

Variation in practice: fostering retention and transfer through the learning to learn attitudeFazey and Marton (2002) promote variation in practice as a way of addressing the relational development between understanding and learning in order to foster deep, and therefore transferable learningpractices. A similar view is presented by the promoters of information literacy through iterative and reflective learning strategies (Edwards and Bruce, 2002; Andretta, 2005b). Fazey and Marton warn, however, that variation in practice does not simply meanrepetition. On the contrary, this iterative approach creates conditions where the learners are able “to create, invent, adapt and

10 A more detailed account of this study can be found in Marton and Booth, 1997: 39-40


progress, in the light of previous experience.” (Fazey and Marton, 2002: 240)

Variation in practice is seen by the learners as having an impact on: their motivation to learn, their expectation of success, the sense of value placed on their learning, the sense of mastery of the content.

An example of iterative variation is exemplified by Fazey and Parker’study11 (quoted in Fazey and Marton, 2002: 240) of final year undergraduate students at Bangor, University of Wales. Here the students were introduced to variation with the aim of fostering a “learning to learn attitude” (ibid.) through activities such as mind-mapping, writing and editing papers as well as reviewing drafts in group-based settings. This research illustrates that the students experienced a profound change in their attitudes towards studying that moved away from simply storing facts to understanding in a meaningful way. There is substantial overlap between this approach and the learn-how-to-learn perspective that underpins information literacy education (ACRL, 2000; Bundy, 2004b), in that they both foster the development of high-order thinking that leads to more confident learners, as their attitudes towards learning, and their ability to learn change.

To validate the concept of variation in practice Fazey and Marton (2002) draw from research on motor skills which promotes a strong correlation between practice and skilled performance. Such a perspective, they argue, is supported by the common-sense view that one has to practice something to gain full mastery of it. They conclude that practice is what initiates the shift in the learner’s perception of a task from unfamiliar that is unpredictable and therefore difficult, to familiar, and therefore easily accomplished.

The progress from beginner to expert, from novice to skilled performer, involves a progression in accurately anticipating when and what will happen and matching that to appropriately selected actions. Such a progress can be expressed, from the learner’s point of view, as the change from something being difficult to it becoming easy. (ibid.: 243-4)

The shift from the unfamiliar to the familiar is confirmed by research examining the impact of information literacy on first year undergraduate students at London Metropolitan University (Andretta, 2005). This study shows that, when first introduced to the online newspaper database, the students expected the task of finding information to be difficult because they had never used this 11 Fazey, J. A. and Parker, S. (2001) Variations in Practice: Testing a Strategy for Promoting Understanding, in Rust, C. (ed.) Improving Student Learning Strategically. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium. Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford.


information system before: “Being a first time user of the database Iassumed that locating the information I needed would be difficult” (ibid.: 90) However, as soon as the hurdle of unfamiliarity is overcome, the resource is described as a fruitful source for articles“At the beginning this was very unfamiliar. It soon became one of my favourite databases and was especially useful for my research into the history of the press.” (ibid.) It should also be emphasised that,in this case, increased confidence generated by variation in practicethrough familiarisation with the database is complemented by the usefulness of the resource in accomplishing an academic task, i.e. anessay. This, in turn, strengthens the student’s motivation to engage with the newspaper database because he/she perceives it as a useful source of information.

Fazey and Marton (2002) conclude that as the experience of variation increases so does the effectiveness of this practice in achieving retention and transfer. Similar claims are found in the literature about the positive impact of information literacy education, exemplified by the enhancement of student learning experience, and the consequent feeling of empowerment generated by increased confidence in their ability to learn (Lupton, 2004). Lupton’s research shows that as students’ confidence grows their level of motivation also increases, giving opportunity for greater retention and transfer of learning to new experiences (ibid: 190). However, Fazey and Marton argue that the process of transfer, promoted by the motor-skills perspective, cannot explain how a learner can do something that is different from the activity learned through practice. In this case, they claim that what is learned differs fromwhat appears to be learned, and that the phenomenon of transfer is fully realised only when the learner has mastered the process of variation itself (Fazey and Marton, 2002: 245). This point is supported by information literacy promoters such as McInnis and Symes (1991) who argue that the emphasis in education should be movedfrom “what one learns [to] how one learns” (ibid.: 225). In addition,Bruce (1997) claims that the pedagogical shift from ‘what’ to ‘how’ requires a parallel shift in provision from content to process orientation, where the ability to learn takes priority over the amount of content learned. A specific example of this is given by Andretta and Cutting (2003) who integrate information literacy in learning outcomes that promote the development of transferable skillsby articulating these in terms of the ‘know how’, rather than the ‘know what’. “Examples illustrating this transferability include competences in searching that can be used to query the Internet or a subject-specific database.” (ibid: 204)

Focusing on the learner’s conceptualisation of the process rather than on the specific task is also promoted by Laurillard (1993) who argues that educators need to be clear of what the conception actually means to the learner in order to fully understand how learning is experienced, and employ the appropriate type of support


to further enhance this experience. She uses research on subtraction procedures to illustrate this point and claims that this study identified over 80 ways of doing subtraction wrongly. However, as soon as the focus of the research shifts to the level of understanding the findings show only two ways of misconceptualising the subtraction process. It is at this level that the problem must betackled so that if a student incorrectly borrows across zero then he/she needs to learn what borrowing means rather than focus on the actual task of borrowing across zero.

It makes no sense to remediate a faulty procedural skill with reference to the procedure alone; we have to appeal to the conceptual apparatus that supports it as well. […] knowledge issituated in action, and by the same token, action manifests knowledge; and this ‘buggy’ behaviour manifests an underlying conceptualisation that itself needs remediation. (Laurillard, 1993: 37)

In summary, Fazey and Marton define the phenomenographic view of learning as a change in the person-world relationship (ibid.: 246) and explain the dynamics of this relationship as the discernment of aspecific aspect of reality which is followed by either the establishment of a sensitivity from the learner towards this aspect, or by making this reality a central feature in the learner’s world. The first year student who came to define the newspaper database as one of his favourite sources of information would subscribe to both of these categories. These permutations illustrate that either the relationship has changed, or alternatively that the person or the world perceived by the person have changed, thus influencing the outcome of the relationship.

In throwing a ball, for instance, distance, ball weight, ball size, air movement etc are all discernible and discerned, thanks to our previous [.. ] varied experiences. What the person can then do (or say, or imagine) in a relationship with the world has also changed in some way that is intimately linked to the variation in those experiences. This relational view of learning – the emphasis on the one-ness of person and world – implies that we are not aiming at describing what is taking place in terms of the interplay of any underlying mentalmachinery. We aim at describing the nature and dynamics of awareness – the subject-object relation is our unit. (Fazey andMarton, 2002: 247)

The principle of discernment is fully articulated in the perspective of information literacy proposed by the relational model (Bruce et al, 2006) and demonstrates the person-information relationship:

Users of the Relational frame are oriented towards the ways in which learners are aware of information literacy or specific relevant phenomena associated with information literacy. They are interested in designing experiences that help learners


discern more powerful ways of seeing the phenomena in question.(ibid.)

To contextualise the concept of learners’ discernment within the relational model of information literacy Bruce et al use the example of searching a database. Only when the user becomes aware that the structure of the source has an impact on searching, and can distinguish the effect of this from searching that not does take intoaccount the structure of the database, will he/she have discerned thefull implications of searching, and will become acquainted with the variation of this experience.

ConclusionThis paper has reviewed some of the main tenets of phenomenography with the aim of presenting learning from the learner’s perspective. As we have illustrated, phenomenographic studies on the relationship between learning and understanding promote a strong correlation between practice and skilled performance, and claim that variation inpractice, that is the act of learning, has a positive effect on retention and transfer of the learning process. There is a parallel between this approach and the impact of iterative and learn-how-to-learn practices supported by information literacy education, in that both demonstrate that variation in practice fosters ownership and mastery of learning that shifts the person-information relationship from unfamiliar to familiar. This shift is complemented by the learners’ increased awareness of more complex ways of experiencing a phenomenon which translate into deep, and therefore transferable learning.

In addition, by exploring learning from the learner’s point of view, and by focusing on the relationship between user/learner and information, the relational model proposes an holistic evaluation of learning exemplified by the qualitative changes in the way a person conceives and interacts with the world, rather than the testing of the amount of knowledge, or measuring the set of skills a learner acquires. The relational model promoted by Bruce et al, explores the dynamic relationship between learner and information within the context of information literacy, although the conceptual framework ofthe six frames of information literacy could be applied to any subject-specific scenario. This perspective necessarily calls for a shift of emphasis in Higher Education provision away from a ‘learning what’ approach and towards a ‘learning how’ attitude. To facilitate this shift Bruce et al suggest that the relational model can be used to moderate other approaches to information literacy, thus promoting a pedagogy based on variation of learning that fostersindependent and lifelong learning attitudes.


ReferencesAbid, A. (2004) Information literacy for lifelong learning. Paper presented at the World Library and Information Congress: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, 22-27 August 2004: 1-38.

American Library Association, (1989) ALA Presidential Committee on InformationLiteracy. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.htm (Accessed: 7 March 04).

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) InformationLiteracy Competency Standard for Higher Education, American Library Association. Available at: http:www.ala.org/acrl/il/toolkit/intro.html (Accessed 12 December 2002).

Andretta, S. (ed.) (2006) Information literacy: challenges of implementation, Italics, 5 (1). [Online]. Available at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss1.htm (Accessed: 16 January 2006).

Andretta, S. (2005) Information Literacy: a practitioner’s guide. Oxford: ChandosPublishing.

Andretta, S. (2005b) Applied Information Research helping students learn how to learn. Library + Information Update, 4(7-8), July/August: 54-55.

Andretta, S. (2005c) Empowering the learner "against all odds”. Paperpresented at LILAC 2005: Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference. April 4-6 2005, Imperial College, London. Available at: http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/%7Epolaw/tangentium/may05/feature3.html (Accessed: 16th January 2006).

Andretta, S. & Cutting, A. (2003) Information Literacy: a plug and play approach. Libri, 53(3), September: 202 –209.

Bruce, C.; Lupton, M. & Edwards, S. L. (2006) Six Frames for Information literacy Education: a conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice, in Andretta, S. (ed), Italics, 5 (1). [Online]. Available at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss1.htm (Accessed: 16 January 2006).

Bruce C. (2002) Information Literacy as a Catalyst for Educational Change A Background Paper, White Paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information


http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~polaw/tangentium/may05/feature3.html

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~polaw/tangentium/may05/feature3.html



Literacy, Meetings of Experts, Prague, The Czeck Republic, July 2002. Available at:http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf (Accessed 7 April 2004).

Bruce, C. (1997) The Seven Faces of Information Literacy, Auslib Press, Adelaide.

Bundy, A. (ed) (2004) Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework. Principles, standards and practice. Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy, Adelaide, Second edition.

Bundy, A. (2004b) Zeitgeist*: information literacy and educational change. Paper presented at the 4th Frankfurt Scientific Symposium, Germany, October 4, 2004. Available at: http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/about/papers/abpapers.asp. (Accessed,16 January 2006).

Bundy, A. (2001) Information Literacy: The Key Competency for the 21st Century, available at: http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/papers/inlit21.htm (accessed 8 November 2001).

Edwards, S. (2006) Panning for Gold. Information literacy and the Net Lenses Model. Adelaide: Auslib Press.

Edwards, S.L. & Bruce, C. (2002) Reflective Internet searching: an action research model. The Learning Organisation, 9(4): 180-188.

Fazey, J. & Marton, F. (2002) Understanding the space of experiential variation, Active Learning in higher education, 3(3): 234-250.

Grafstein, A. (2002) A Discipline-based Approach to Information Literacy, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28,(4) July: 197-204.

Hasselgren, B. and Beach, D. (1996) Phenomenography: A "good-for-nothing brother" of phenomenology? Department of Education and Educational Research, Göteborg University, Sweden, Report No. 1996:05. [Online]. Available at:http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/misc/constr/goodno2.html (Accessed22 January 2006).

Lantz, A. & Brage, C. (2006) Towards a Learning Society – Exploring the Challenge of Applied Information Literacy through Reality-Based Scenarios, in Andretta, S. (ed), Italics, 5 (1). [Online]. Available

http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/misc/constr/goodno2.html

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/about/papers/abpapers.asp

http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf

http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf


at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss1.htm (Accessed: 16January 2006).

Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching. A framework forthe effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

Lupton, M. (2004) The Learning Connection. Information Literacy and the student experience, Auslib Press, Adelaide.

Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography - Describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10: 177-200. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/misc/constr/phegraph.html (Accessed: 16 January 2006)

Marton, F (1994) Phenomenography, in The International Encyclopedia of Education. Secon edition , Volume 8. Eds. Torsten Husén & T. Neville Postlethwaite. Pergamon. [Online]. Available at:http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/main/1res.appr.html (Accessed 20 January 2006)

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and Awareness, Mahwah, New Jersey,LEA

Marton, F. and Ramsden, P. (1988) What does it take to improve learning?, in Improving learning: New Perspectives, Ramsden, P. (ed.), London: Kogan Page: 268-286

McInnis,R. & Symes D.S., 1991. Running Backwards from the Finish Line: A new concept for Bibliographic Instruction, Library Trends, 39 (3) 1991: 223-237.

Mellon, C.A. (1988) Information Problem-Solving: A developmental approach to Library Instruction, in Oberman, C. & Strauch, K. (eds) Theories of Bibliographic Education, Bowker: 75-89.

Orr, D. & Appleton, M. & Wallin, M. (2001) Information Literacy and Flexible Delivery: Creating a Conceptual Framework and Model, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, 6, November: 457-463.

Pramling, I. (1994) Becoming able. Testing a phenomenographic approach to develop children’s ways of conceinving the world around us. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Phenomenographica. Available at: http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/graphica/oth.su/praml94.html(Accessed: 20 February 2006)

Todd, R. (2006) It’s all about getting ‘As’. Library + Information Update, January/February, 5(1-2): 34-46.

http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/graphica/oth.su/praml94.html

http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/civil/main/1res.appr.html

http://www.ped.gu.se/biorn/phgraph/misc/constr/phegraph.html



Susie Andretta, Senior Lecturer in Information Management, London Metropolitan University.62-66 Highbury Grove, London N 5 2AD+44 (0) 20 76072789 [email protected]

BiographySusie’s publication profile covers the impact of information literacy education, using textual and visual means, at different levels of provision and in a range of disciplines. She is currently completing a PhD at the Institute of Education, University of London,on mapping students’ conceptions of information literacy and independent learning.

mailto:[email protected]

Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacy education

Documents

Transcript of Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacy education