Define Pedagogy. Define Open. Define Open Pedagogy. If it ain’t a good fit for you say so.

Pedagogy – how one goes about teaching another

Open – as a verb it involves movement, increasing a space whether physical or cognitive; as an adjective it involves expansion of reach

Open Pedagogy – this could involve expanding the ways the teaching is done; it could also involve expanding who is doing the teaching; I would not include that it involves expanding who dictates the ways the teaching is done as the teacher and the method need to be compatible; however, I would include that the student could teach the teacher new ways that the teacher then uses.

Fit – it fits.

What comes to mind as I read this: apprenticeship, Aristotle, Lyceum. Walking down a tree-lined path listening, questioning, discussing (I have a mental image of the scene … must be from a drawing I saw long ago).

Stated five – no six (two are numbered 4) principles:

1. Production-Based – These are my personal early memories of learning from my grandmother and father. I it difficult for me not to image quality learning without a product, whether an object, a a tangible representation of the product, or impressions of the senses.

2. Privacy through Data Empowerment – I’m still thinking about the Montessori connection. Thinking over my formal education, it was the teacher/professor who control what was shared, shown, given praise (and the opposite – ignored, criticized) without regard for the student’s feelings about their own work. Thinking about the consequences – does it cause some students to withdraw from participation in learning as a way to protect/hold private what they might have produced and others to become production lines as the discovered the trick that bring accolades they relish?

3. Community is the Curriculum – Still thinking about this one. Had to look up “rhizomatic learning”.

4. Agency and Identity – “providing an avenue for the learner to explore who they are” – yes, totally get this and agree … “and share their learning journey” – but this part I believe really needs to be with feedback loops and talk-alouds with others the student chooses. I personally have not experienced much satisfaction with forced connections.

4.[sic] Leadership through Literacy – This sections seems to suggest digital literacy. And who is leading? I don’t get the underlying point or what this principle is trying to say. But then this room is like a wind tunnel I have so many fans going against this heat, maybe it is my reading that is faulty here.

5. Knowledge Quilting – I like the term. But I don’t think I agree with the image. It has boundaries, things abutting. I think more in terms of knowledge weaving. But then too many I’ve met get confused by weaving and quickly leave the conversation. The very few knowledge weavers I’ve come across I treasure for conversations.

[terrific, this won’t save-draft or publish just spinning …. argggg]

Choose a learning theory to guide your work. Explain the connections


Sociocultural interaction can take place by proxy through artifacts. In this case, I interacted with the ACRL Framework as it is relatively new and information literacy in higher education is expected to be assessed using these six frames. The literature (and professional conversations) suggested the Framework was difficult to understand and more difficult to try and implement. Searches suggested very few had tried.

The results of literature searches were sorted to be used as a scaffold to trying to understand the two sides.

During literature and Web searches a few sources (universities) turned up as starting to develop materials. So few sources were found that it was understandable why Bucknell University put their material on the Web in editable files (under Creative Commons) with the invitation to please take, edit, use. The University of Western Cape (New Zealand) posted a series of videos for teaching faculty wanting to incorporate the Frames. A few rubrics were found. All of these were used as proxies for More Knowledgeable Others and as more concrete ways of developing my understanding of at least how others interpreted the Framework.

I do have a colleague who I constantly exchange emails with and talk on the phone (several hours each week) talking through these various sources and how to to craft from all this a self-study product for Southern students.

Reflect on a time elements of COI went well or bad in a classroom

In terms of the three Presences, I’ve often been told I have a lot of social presence (we will take that as a positive). For teaching and cognitive I tended to use a lot of hands-on and Socratic Method, especially when I taught middle schoolers. Two longer-term activities involved students constructing a replication of published study that compared the effects of sugar and artificial sweetener separately and together on mice; and students constructing (and doing the math) on a study of the effect of dexedrine on mice. Student engagement and attachment to rigor in planning and carrying through and recording and interpreting data was significant as were student-derived take-away messages.

How do you feel when someone pushes you to do your best?

I generally call up a law of physics. I tend to set rather high standards for myself and tend to overdo what I put into things. And I tend to have more project going on than some think wise. So when someone thinks it’s necessary to give a push, it pretty much feels like a freight train on a fast downhill curve taking the curve with wheels only on the outside track.

Who is your favorite musician of all time? What is it about the sound?

Joplin. Hands down. The underlying grit in her style. I also saw her live … front row, small venue. Left a lasting impression.  But if I could sing, it would be like Whitney Houston.


Pedagogical Techniques

My personal preferred techniques are the flipped classroom and hands-on learning.

I believe a student needs multiple passes at content in order to begin to absorb and assimilate/ integrate it into their knowledge base. By being exposed – especially if given multiple ways of approaching the material (reading, listening, viewing, manipulation/experimentation) – prior to introduction in the classroom, the student creates an awareness to a base of information from vocabulary to knowledge of what is difficult to understand that can be used as an entry into the classroom activities. This makes the student a better educated participant in the classroom activities.


Hands-on or ‘learn doing’ can involve both kinesthetic and inquiry-based learning. Students may be able to control pacing and iterations with an activity and form more concrete understandings of the involved concepts.

Because I have been asked t share the resources I collected, I’m putting them here. Immediate I ran into a problem: I moved just over 4K files from an old computer to a new one and I’m getting a lot of alias errors and fixing isn’t working so I need to go back and recollect items – bother. Also the new laptop is only a 13″ screen (old one was 16″ and what a difference it made) and I’m having a difficult time adjust the way I work. In addition to the links below, I have Joanna Burkhardt’s 2016 book of sample exercises – Teaching Information Literacy Reframed.

The project begins from the need to turn a 2016 Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education that replace ** into a self-study product. Let’s see if I can add the actual Framework document – bother; okay, here is the link to the Framework document. For articles, following is the bibliography of items available through Buley databases or directly on the Web: 

Badke, W. (2015). The effect of artificial intelligence on the future of information literacy. Online Researcher, 39(4), 71-73.

Battista, A., et al. (2015). Seeking social justice in the ACRL Framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(2), 111-125.

Branch, N. A. (2019). Illuminating social justice in the Framework: Transformative methodology, concept mapping, and learning outcomes development for critical information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 13(1), 4-44. 

Bruce, C., et al. (2017). Information literacy and informed learning: Conceptual innovations for IL research and practice futures. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1), 4-22.

Carter, S., Koopmans, H., & Whiteside, A. (2018). Crossing the studio art threshold: Information literacy and creative populations. Communications in Information Literacy, 12(1), 36-55.

Curtis, R. (2016). Information Literacy Advocates: developing student skills through a peer support approach. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 33(4), 334-339.

Elm, J. (2017). Lessons from forty years as a literacy educator: An information literacy narrative. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1) › JIL › article › download › PRA-V11-I1-2

Gammons, R. W., & Inge, L. T. (2017). Using the ACRL Framework to develop a student-centered model for program-level assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 168-184.

Garcia, L., & Labatte, J. (2015). Threshold concepts as metaphors for the creative process: Adapting the Framework for Information Literacy to studio art classes. Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 34(2), 235-248.

Gersch, B., Lampner, W., & Turner, D. (2016). Collaborative metaliteracy: Putting the new information literacy Framework into (digital) practice. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 10:3-4, 199-214, DOI: 10.1080/1533290X.2016.1206788

Goldstein, S. (Ed.). (2020). Informed societies: Why information literacy matters for citizenship, participation and democracy. London: Facet Publishing. Review:

Gregory, L., & Higgins, S. (2017). Reorienting an information literacy program toward social justice: Mapping the core values of librarianship to the ACRL Framework. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 42-54.

Greer, K., & McCann, S. (2018). Everything online is a website: Information format confusion in student citation behaviors. Communications in Information Literacy, 12(2), 150-165.

Haren, S. M. (2019, April). Reframing from the ground up: Redesigning a credit-bearing information literacy course using the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. C&RL News, 212-215.

Hess, A. N. (2015). Motivational design in information literacy instruction. Communications in Information Literacy 9(1), 44-59.

Levitcv, D. (2017, April). Using the Women’s March to examine freedom of speech, social justice, and social action through information literacy. Teacher Librarian, 44(4), 12-15.

Mery, Y., Newby, J., & Peng, K. (2012). Why one-shot information literacy sessions are not the future of instruction: A case for online credit courses. College & Research Libraries, 73(4), 366.

Rivano Eckerdal, J. (2017). Libraries, democracy, information literacy, and citizenship: An agonistic reading of central library and information studies’ concepts. Journal of Documentation, 73(5),
1010-1033. DOI 10.1108/JD-12-2016-0152

Saunders, L. (2017). Connecting information literacy and social justice: Why and how. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 55-75.

Sånchez Vanderkast, E. J. (2013). Information literacy, a cornerstone of democratic society: A component of an information policy. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 397, 79-85.

Schmidt Hanbidge, A., Tin, T., & Sanderson, N. (2018). Information literacy skills on the go: Mobile learning innovation.  Journal of Information Literacy 12(1), 118.

Todd, R. J. (2017). Information literacy: Agendas for a sustainable future. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1), 120-136.