바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1225-598X
  • E-ISSN2982-6292

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.50 No.3

Citation Share

ACRL 정보리터러시 ‘프레임웍(2015)’의 중심 개념 고찰

Considering Core Ideas of ACRL Information Literacy ‘Framework(2015)’

한국문헌정보학회지 / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2016, v.50 no.3, pp.171-191
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2016.50.3.171
최재황 (경북대학교)
최재황. (2016). ACRL 정보리터러시 ‘프레임웍(2015)’의 중심 개념 고찰. 한국문헌정보학회지, 50(3), 171-191, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2016.50.3.171

초록

본 연구의 목적은 2015년 1월 ACRL(Association of College and Research Libraries)의 이사회에 제출되어 2016년 1월 최종 승인된 ‘고등교육에서의 정보리터러시 프레임웍’(이하 ‘Framework’)의 내용을 분석해 보는 것이다. ACRL의 정보리터러시 ‘Framework’에서 제시하는 6개 프레임의 중심 개념이 분석되었고, ‘Framework’ 작성의 기본원리가 되었던 4개의 주요 개념, 즉 문지방 개념, 메타 리터러시, 백워드 교육과정 설계 모형, 한계 공간의 개념이 분석되었다. ‘Framework’는 개념적이고 서술적인 성격을 갖는다. 또한, ‘Framework’는 학습자의 전체 교육과정동안 단발성의 일회용 정보리터러시의 수업을 위하여 설계된 것은 아니며, 체계적이면서도 다양한 수준의 학습 프로그램과 통합되기 위하여 의도된 것이다. ‘Framework’에 근거한 새로운 교과과정 개발 및 평가에 대한 연구가 앞으로의 연구 과제로 제시되었다.

keywords
information literacy, ACRL Framework, threshold concepts, meta-literacy, Liminal Space, Backward Design, 정보리터러시, ACRL의 프레임워크, 문지방 개념, 메타 리터러시, 한계 공간, 백워드 디자인

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the ‘Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education’ filed by the ACRL(Association of College and Research Libraries) Board on February 2, 2015 and adopted on January 11, 2016. Six concepts central to information literacy in Framework and four main theories or models (i.e., threshold concepts, metaliteracy, Backward Design, and Liminal Space) underpinning the Framework were analyzed. The Framework provides conceptual or descriptive approach. In addition, the Framework is not designed to be implemented in a single information literacy session in a student’s academic career. Instead, it is intended to be systematically integrated into the student’s academic program at variety of levels. This study recommends curricular development and assessment methods supporting Framework as a further study.

keywords
information literacy, ACRL Framework, threshold concepts, meta-literacy, Liminal Space, Backward Design, 정보리터러시, ACRL의 프레임워크, 문지방 개념, 메타 리터러시, 한계 공간, 백워드 디자인

참고문헌

1.

박은정. 2014. 학습경험을 바탕으로 학생들이 제시하는 고등학교 화학교과 내의 어려운 개념과문지방개념 분석 연구. 대한화학회지, 58(1), 126-139.

2.

이병기. 2011. 백워드 설계 모형을 적용한 ｢도서관과 정보생활｣ 교과의 교수설계에 관한 연구. 한국비블리아학회지, 22(3), 5-24.

3.

이영호, 구덕회. 2015. 백워드 설계 모형을 적용한 소프트웨어 교과의 교수설계에 관한 연구. 정보교육학회논문지, 19(4), 409-418.

4.

최재황. 2015. 영국 SCONUL의 정보리터러시 기준 분석. 한국문헌정보학회지, 49(2), 5-26.

5.

ACRL. 2000. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 5. 30.]<http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency>

6.

ACRL. 2012. Task Force Recommendations. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 1. 7.]<http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/ils_recomm.pdf>

7.

ACRL. 2014a. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Draft 1, Part 1. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-1-Part-1.pdf>

8.

ACRL. 2014b. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Draft 1, Part 2. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-1-Part-2.pdf>

9.

ACRL. 2014c. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Draft 2. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-2.pdf>

10.

ACRL. 2014d. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Draft 3. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-draft-3.pdf>

11.

ACRL. 2015. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Final Document. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Framework-MW15-Board-Docs.pdf>

12.

ACRL. 2016. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.]<http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework>

13.

Brunetti, K. et al. 2014. Threshold Concepts & Information Literacy: Overview & Assessment. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 22.]<http://www.ilthresholdconcepts.com/uploads/3/0/9/7/30975467/cuny_handout.pdf>

14.

Farmer, L. 2014. How AASL Learning Standards Inform ACRL's Information Literacy Framework. In Proceedings of IFLA WLIC 2014, August 16th-22nd, 2014, Lyon: Lyon Convention Centre: 1-6. [online] [cited 2016. 7. 10.]<http://library.ifla.org/831/1/072-farmer-en.pdf>

15.

Fister, B. 2015. The Liminal Library: Making Our Libraries Sites of Transformative Learning.In Proceedings of LILAC 2015, April 8th-10th, 2015, Tyne and Wear: Newcastle University:1-10. [online] [cited 2016. 5. 19.] <http://barbarafister.com/LiminalLibrary.pdf>

16.

Hofer, A. R., Townsend, L. and Brunetti, K. 2012. Troublesome Concepts and Information Literacy: Investigating Threshold Concepts for IL Instruction. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 387-405.

17.

Jacobson, T. E. and Gibson, C. 2015. Engaging with the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy. Proceedings of Engaging with the ACRL Information Literacy Framework, March 10th, 2016, Albany, NY: University at Albany. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 20.]<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4wphSmPeLWmNVFod0thdVEwSFU/view?usp=shar ing>

18.

Jacobson, T. E. and Mackey, T. P. 2013. Proposing a Metaliteracy Model to Redefine Information Literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), 84-91.

19.

Mackey, T. P. and Jacobson, T. E. 2011. Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy.College & Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78. [online]<http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf>

20.

Meyer, J. and Land, R. 2003. Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. Edinburgh: Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduates Courses. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 3.]<http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf>

21.

Morgan, P. K. 2015. Pausing at the Threshold. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(1):183-195.

22.

Townsend, L., Brunetti, K. and Hofer, A. R. 2011. Threshold Concepts and Information Literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(3), 853-869.

23.

Townsend, L. et al. 2015. What's the Matter with Threshold Concepts?. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 25.]<http://acrlog.org/2015/01/30/whats-the-matter-with-threshold-concepts>

24.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. 2004. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

25.

Wilkins, L. Reconsidering Threshold Concepts: A Critical Appraisal of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy. Proceedings of LOEX 2015 Conference, April 30th - May 2nd, 2015, Denver, Co: Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 29.]<http://www.loexconference.org/2015/sessions.html#wilkinson>

26.

Zurkowski, P. G. 1974. The Information Service Environment: Relationships and Priorities:Related Paper No. 5. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. [online] [cited 2016. 6. 19.] <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED100391.pdf>

한국문헌정보학회지

논문 투고 OA 정책