Budd.indd


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

      
   

    

     

     

     
  

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and 
Student Success 

John M. Budd 

As Diane Zabel points out, the literature on information literacy is volu-
minous.1 Amidst the challenges of volume and multiple points of view, 
there are some astute observations, innovative approaches, and critical 
assessment. Of necessity, the works referred to here do not represent 
the expanse or the diversity of thought on information literacy, but they 
will offer a substantive grounding for the present study. A seemingly logi-
cal place to begin is the standards on information literacy propounded 
by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).2 These 
standards address the importance of identifying an information need, 
the skill required to use structured resources, and the critical acumen 
necessary to the evaluation of retrieved information. We can probably 
stipulate for the time being that the content of the standards is neces-
sary, but is it sufficient? That is, are the standards and the accompany-
ing performance indicators exhaustive with regard to the goals of an 
instruction program? The answer suggested here is no; there are some 
essential factors that are not included in the standards and that may 
even be at odds with some specific points articulated by ACRL.What will 
be presented here is an alternative conceptual framework that can be 
called “phenomenological cognitive action.” The framework and its name 
are original to this work, although some particular ideas are borrowed 
from a variety of philosophers and cognitive scientists. The framework 
is examined within the context of a newly created course, offered in the 
fall semester 2006 at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Since much 
of the course includes aspects that follow from the intent of the ACRL 
Standards (the necessary elements), the focus here will be on those 
elements that illustrate the framework. 

Background 
Within a substantial amount of the 
thought and writing devoted to informa-
tion literacy there is a strong, but tacit, 
reliance on an information-processing 
model of cognition. The information-
processing character of instruction is not 
explicitly recognized in the professional 

literature, but the conclusion is drawn 
from examination of the content of some 
information literacy courses. There is a 
general tendency for the content to focus 
on hierarchical procedures of identifying 
needs, searching, evaluating sources, etc. 
Karen Macpherson defined the model: “An 
information-processing model represents 

John M. Budd is Professor and Associate Director in the School of Information Science & Learning Tech-
nologies at University of Missouri–Columbia; e-mail: BuddJ@missouri.edu. 

319 

mailto:BuddJ@missouri.edu


     

    
       

     

    
    

   
  

     
      

      

      
      

   
    

      

     

     
     

    

     
     

    
      

     

      

     
 

    
     

      

     
     

     

    

    
 

    
      

       
    

       

    

    
      

    
   

    

320 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

information that is either controlled or 
automated, sequential, and iterative. The 
information-processing model caters for 
the production sequence of a procedure, 
characterized by IF… THEN decision 
points.”3 This model tends to obviate a se-
mantic concept of information and accept 
a syntactic one. In 1949 Warren Weaver 
summarized and simplified Claude Shan-
non’s complicated mathematical theory of 
communication—usually referred to as 
information theory—emphasizing that 
the objective of the theory is to help ana-
lyze the fidelity of message transmission 
across channels. As Weaver said, “One 
has the vague feeling that information and 
meaning may prove to be something like 
a pair of canonically conjugate variables 
in quantum theory, that is, that informa-
tion and meaning may be subject to some 
joint restriction that compels the sacrifice 
of one if you insist on having much of the 
other.”4 In other words, the concern at 
the heart of the theory is process rather 
than meaning. In some important ways, 
Shannon’s theory and some conceptions 
of information literacy are related to work 
done by George Zipf. He studied people’s 
efforts expended on communication, 
hypothesizing that both message senders 
and message receivers a empt to expend 
as li le effort as they can. The result is a 
heightened potential for misunderstand-
ing or lack of understanding.5 Support for 
Zipf’s hypothesis may be readily appar-
ent in everyday life, but it is observable 
in formal communication as well. The 
challenge for students (and others) may 
well be to manage effort so as to optimize 
results. Greater effort spent on some 
learning activities may lead to efficient 
expenditure of effort at later times. The 
explicit implication for information lit-
eracy is that students could be convinced 
that the cognitive effort spent in such a 
course can result in sufficient cognitive 
difference that their performance in other 
courses will be enhanced. 

The task facing information literacy 
is also complicated by a related model 
of cognition. This powerful and popular 

model is the computational theory of 
mind. Also, according to this model, the 
brain operates as an information (or data) 
processor. The model is an alternative in 
part because of the ready analogy with 
computers, which can be constructed, em-
ployed, and programmed. A substantial 
number of those working in the fields of 
cognition and philosophy of mind—in-
cluding Owen Flanagan, Jerry Fodor, and 
John Searle—have rejected the computa-
tional theory as being behavioristic and 
incapable of pointing to causes for beliefs, 
knowledge, and action. Fred Dretske got 
to the heart of the ma er in his analysis 
of the difficulties of straightforward and 
uniform computation: 

It makes li le sense, therefore, to 
speak of the informational content of 
a signal as though this was unique. 
Generally speaking, a signal carries 
a great variety of different informa-
tional contents, a great variety of 
different pieces of information, and 
although these pieces of information 
may be related to each other (e.g., 
logically) they are nonetheless differ-
ent pieces of information [emphasis 
in original].6 

Searle took the disagreement with the 
computational model even further: “Com-
putation is defined syntactically. It is defined 
in terms of the manipulation of symbols. 
But the syntax by itself can never be suf-
ficient for the sort of contents that charac-
teristically go with conscious thoughts…. 
Syntax by itself is not sufficient for semantic 
content” [emphasis in original].7 

It is apparent that at least some thought 
on information literacy accepts the com-
putational model. William Orme has 
reported on an application of the Texas 
Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT) at 
one university. TILT is a skills-based, task-
oriented program intended to improve 
students’ effectiveness at completing 
certain kinds of assignments. He found 
that TILT demonstrates some efficacy 
when the measures of success are based 



    
 

      

      
   

    

     

 
     

     

 
    
    

   
      
   

     

 
    

     

     

   
  

     

      

     
     

    
    

  

    

       
 

      

      

   

      

      

     
     

    

       
     

     

      

 
 

     
 

    

     
     

      

    

      

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success 321 

on the kinds of tasks (such as accurately 
transcribing citation elements from an 
index) that the Tutorial includes.8 Orme 
drew upon some work done by John 
Bransford and his colleagues, who said 
that “different types of teaching environ-
ments have strong effects on transfer.… 
By placing more emphasis on the sys-
tematic development of well-organized 
knowledge in addition to executive 
processes, it may be possible to increase 
considerably the speed with which people 
can become able to think effectively in a 
variety of knowledge-rich domains.”9 In 
a somewhat similar vein, Burke, Germain, 
and Xu examined instruction as a kind of 
intervention in the actions of undergradu-
ate students. The students tended to con-
sult with librarians more frequently a er 
the instruction than prior to it.10 Perhaps 
less explicitly, Bonnie Gratch Lindauer 
has advocated assessment of information 
literacy programs that is based on learn-
ing outcomes that are grounded in com-
petencies such as those included in the 
ACRL Standards.11 These competencies 
follow, to a considerable extent, a compu-
tational or information-processing model. 
Lindauer does, however, a empt to tem-
per the computational with assessment of 
understanding (albeit understanding of 
retrieval processes more than argument, 
reasoning, and evidence). 

The ACRL Standards, which form the 
foundation of many instructional pro-
grams, have related frameworks. One, for 
example, is Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy 
of educational objectives. More than thirty 
years ago, Bloom posited a hierarchical 
taxonomy that included knowledge, 
comprehension, application, analysis, 
synthesis, and evaluation.12 As is common 
to taxonomies, there is an artificial aspect 
that cannot be avoided. The artifice is 
shared by other process schemata, such 
as Carol Kuhlthau’s work on seeking 
meaning. Her criteria for learning (formu-
lated for application in school libraries, 
but sometimes borrowed in academic 
libraries) included six stages: initiation, 
selection, exploration, formulation, 

collection, and presentation.13 There is 
apparent similarity among these concep-
tions of learning; a consistent aspect is the 
linear progression from beginning with a 
question to some kind of evaluation. The 
foundational guidelines, taken together, 
appear to suggest formulae for processes 
that can result in the advancement of 
sets of competencies. The modeling that 
Bloom, Kuhlthau, and others posit can be 
useful as tools used by educators, but the 
extension of the models to pedagogical 
methods can carry some difficulties. The 
formulaic approach is bound to fall prey 
to the kind of objectivism that George 
Lakoff warned against (fixed properties 
of things, leading to fixed relations among 
things).14 

There is work in librarianship that 
transcends the limitations of formulae for 
competencies. John Doherty and Kevin 
Ketchner, for example, presented a case 
for intentional learning that engages stu-
dents in ways that allow students to frame 
questions and seek meaningful answers.15 
James Elmborg has said that informa-
tion literacy researchers have separated 
students from the rest of their education; 
as a remedy, he suggested, “The real 
task for libraries in treating information 
literacy seriously lies not in defining it or 
describing it, but in developing a critical 
practice of librarianship—a theoretically 
informed praxis.”16 Kyung-Sun Kim and 
Bryce Allen studied students’ searching 
and integrated the individual and social 
elements that affect cognition. They found 
considerable variability among students’ 
procedures and styles, and concluded 
that the technical design of any database 
or interface must include flexibility so 
that different cognitive actions are accom-
modated.17 All of these works, though not 
necessarily deliberately, affirm the need 
for the incorporation of metacognition 
into instruction. Once a fundamental un-
derstanding of reading and assessing the 
thought of others is introduced, students 
can begin to reflect on their knowledge 
of their own cognitive actions. As stu-
dents more fully appreciate the nature of 

http:modated.17
http:answers.15
http:things).14
http:presentation.13
http:evaluation.12
http:Standards.11


    

    
     

     

 
      

     

     

     
     

     
     

      
     

     
     

      
      

     

      

     

      

       
        

 
 

    

     
    

    
      
     

 
      

    
   

     

     
     

    
     

     
    

      
      

   

    

   

      

       

322 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

knowledge and the intentional action it 
requires, they can apply metacognition 
to justification for knowledge.18 

The aforementioned writings are based 
on a particular idea of phenomenology 
that many cognitive scientists speak of. 
This phenomenology is a simple one; it is 
subjective in that introspection is personal 
(the perception of phenomena). That is, 
each of us thinks about the world around 
us and inside us in individual ways, 
filtered through individual experiences. 
Be er than anyone else, Colin McGinn 
captured the challenge and the reality of 
the simple phenomenology: 

Our concepts of consciousness are 
fixed by our own introspective abili-
ties, which is why we cannot form 
the concept of a bat’s consciousness; 
in addition, we cannot grasp a 
theory that requires us to transcend 
our own introspectively based con-
cepts. Suppose you had never seen 
the color red, but to understand a 
certain theory you would need to 
possess the concept red: then you 
simply could not grasp that theory, 
period.19 

If we assume (and educators are on 
safe ground with the assumption) that 
students enter college lacking awareness 
of some facts, theories, hypotheses, and 
concepts because they have no cogni-
tive experiences though which to filter 
them, no instructional design that does 
not admit to this phenomenological state 
can succeed. Learning, according to this 
phenomenology, is not merely an infor-
mation-processing exercise wherein a set 
of inputs and a logical mechanism are all 
that is needed for full cognitive action. 
As McGinn pointed out, a genuine un-
derstanding of consciousness at this level 
is elusive; the first step is comprehension 
of the limitations of our understanding. It 
is likely that our teaching will be altered 
by the realization that instructors and 
students face limitations. The alteration 
can be profound: “To change the very 

concept of a category is to change not 
only our concept of the mind, but also our 
understanding of the world.”20 

A richer and more complex phenom-
enology is also possible. A challenge to 
its integration into information literacy 
(and into cognition in general) is the fact 
that there are a number of articulations 
and theses of phenomenology, along with 
expected discontinuities and even contra-
dictions. It is possible, though, to build a 
coherent phenomenology that is essential 
to all education, and to information litera-
cy in particular. The framework proposed 
here embodies such a coherent form of 
phenomenology. A starting point in the 
construction is a realization not unique to 
phenomenology but definitely not shared 
throughout cognitive science, philosophy, 
and education. Sensory experience is a 
potential source of knowledge, but it is 
not the only component. Evaluation and 
employment of ideas and thoughts are 
also integral. To these two components 
the phenomenological requirement of in-
tentionality should be added. Dan Zahavi 
defined intentionality thus: 

One does not merely love, fear, see, 
or judge, one loves beloved, fears 
something fearful, sees an object, 
and judges a state of affairs. Regard-
less of whether we are talking of 
a perception, thought, judgment, 
fantasy, doubt, expectation, or rec-
ollection, all of these diverse forms 
of consciousness are characterized 
by intending objects and cannot be 
analyzed properly without a look 
at their objective correlate, that is, 
the perceived, doubted, expected 
object.21 

Another addition is the fact that we 
live in the midst of other consciousnesses 
and wills. The combination of these com-
ponents (which may be reconfigured in 
a number of ways by phenomenological 
thinkers) offers an account of knowledge 
in a world where we may have some, 
although limited, experiences, where we 

http:object.21
http:period.19
http:knowledge.18


      
 

      
      

    

     

    
    

      

      
    

   

      
    

      
    

   
     

      

 

    
    

    
  

     

        
   

     

      

     

       

      

     
     

    

      
       
      

      
     

      
     

     

 

      

       
    

      

     

   

     

    

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success 323 

may have differing cognitive apparatus, 
and where what we are experiencing may 
be the ideas of someone else. A student 
who has not come across a particular 
concept will have a difficult time un-
derstanding both the concept and some 
other ideas that relate directly to it. Each 
individual exists within a lifeworld; that 
lifeworld is expandable, though, as each 
of us accumulates experiences, becomes 
conscious of a wider and deeper array of 
concepts, becomes accustomed to logic 
as an evaluative mechanism, and reflects 
on what others say. Education is a formal 
way to expand one’s lifeworld. Education 
has an additional objective—to instill in 
students a desire to understand not just 
what exists, but also how it exists (that 
is, its being). 

Combining the above features, phe-
nomenological cognitive action is the 
intentional effort to learn and to know, 
grounded in the mind’s ability to employ 
logic and reason, within the context of 
recognizing that one’s own perceptions 
are engaged in a dialogue with those of 
others. The phenomenological element 
is explicit recognition that the individual 
does not, cannot, begin to know about 
something purely through the individ-
ual’s own effort. What others say and 
teach contribute to knowledge creation 
and growth. The decisions that learners 
make are shaped by reasoning through 
arguments, along with acceptance of the 
intentional communication that writers 
and speakers are responsible for. The 
action of learning is both personal and 
social; what other people say, write, and 
show is evaluated according to logic and 
the assessment of commentators. 

Challenges in Information Literacy 
Courses 
Teaching and learning include some 
inherent difficulties that stem from 
cognition, language, symbols, and inten-
tions. The difficulties militate against 
any simplistic information-processing 
model of education. If we take a popular 
and frequently used metaphor, we can 

see the difficulties in rather stark relief. 
It is said that the human genome is an 
information-bearing system. The map-
ping of an individual’s genetic fingerprint 
is a precise arrangement of symbols that 
communicate unambiguously. To an ex-
tent the metaphor works, but the genome 
is not an intentional system; it does not 
include a subjective mental state that 
is directed at the natural world (Searle, 
12).22 The genome, in short, does not carry 
“how it exists” information; that is, the 
sequencing of genes does not relay the 
being of the person. We can extrapolate 
from the foregoing example to something 
that is directly related to information 
literacy. The Standards and much of the 
writing on information literacy urge 
making students competent information 
seekers and retrievers. Let us assume that 
a student frames a question that driven by 
a class assignment. The student may then 
retrieve a set of documents by searching 
in a database. The student must next 
read the documents and make judgments 
about them. The documents themselves 
hold no inherent relevance to the student’s 
intellectual and conscious needs. They are 
subject to the reading, understanding, and 
incorporation into existing knowledge of 
the student. A document that illustrates 
a particular point well, but by negative 
example (by being incorrect) may be more 
relevant to the student than a document 
that illustrates a point poorly by positive 
example (by being correct). 

We can also back up to the assumption 
that began the example—the student 
framing the question. If the ideas of 
cognition articulated by McGinn, Searle, 
and others are correct, entering college 
students may not be cognitively ready to 
ask questions that are based in complex 
concepts and multifarious experiences. 
This realization is in no way a criticism 
of the students; they are at stages in life 
where they are still accumulating and 
reflecting on experiences and ideas. No 
one has captured the challenge of cogni-
tive and phenomenological framing of 
questions, perceptions, knowledge, and 



      

     
      

      
      

      
 

    
      

       
 

     

    
      

   

   
    

   

      

    

      
      

      

     
   

      

      

    
      

      

    
     

     
    

    

    
    

     

    

     
      

    
      
      

      

    

 

    
   

   
    

    

324 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

so on more completely or more deeply 
than does Erving Goffman. People who 
interact frequently still assess situations 
from their own vantage points, their own 
perspectives. There is a natural aspect 
to perspective; if one views the Grand 
Canyon from the South Rim, one has a 
specific view. If one were to view it from 
the North Rim, one would see certain 
physical features, but not the ones dis-
cernible from the South Rim. Of only one 
vantage point is available to a person, 
that person cannot know about the view 
from another vantage point. To illustrate 
a phenomenological sense of perspective, 
Goffman used an example: the fans of 
opposing football teams can watch their 
teams play each other, but not see the 
“same” game.23 If a class assignment for 
a student is to write a short paper on the 
familial ties among Amish people, the 
student will learn more about the topic 
if she a empts to understand as much as 
possible about the cultural framework 
of Amish society. That response, too, is 
phenomenological. 

The phenomenological cognitive ap-
proach illustrates the pedagogical neces-
sity of locating the intersection between 
materialism and constructivism. The 
intersection, as metaphor, admits that 
both materialism and constructivism 
exist and describe how we think and act 
(at least to some degree). Humans do 
construct what they believe, but must do 
so in some formal fashion. That is, there 
is a need for information, but knowledge 
construction is enhanced by presenta-
tions, amounts, and kinds of information 
that make the most sense cognitively for 
the learner. Another way to look at the 
construction of learning is that the student 
is the builder. As builder, the student 
may benefit most by having a particular 
challenge or problem to solve, using the 
materials that best suit the task at hand. 
The phenomenological responsibility of 
the teacher is to comprehend and pres-
ent the challenge or problem that best 
fits the builder’s capabilities. Further, the 
teacher can introduce the student to the 

materials that can be useful to construc-
tion. One important element must be 
emphasized—the challenge or problem 
must make sense to the student/builder; 
it must be something that is connected 
to other things the student believes are 
important. That element is key to the 
phenomenological relationship between 
teacher and student. 

This constructivist aspect is necessarily 
accompanied by a materialist one. A clear 
example of materialist considerations is 
offered by Fred Paas and colleagues in 
their discussion of cognitive load theory. 
According to the materialist theory, 
working memory is limited in capacity 
when individuals are presented with new 
information. The cognitive apparatus can 
only accept, comprehend, assimilate, and 
retrieve a limited amount of information. 
Further, learners can be overwhelmed 
in situations where complex cognitive 
tasks are presented, where a considerable 
amount of information is presented, and 
where there are numerous interactions 
among the information elements.24 

The effective combination of material-
ist and constructivist elements of learning 
and knowledge may be the most profound 
challenge facing information literacy (and 
all teaching and learning). It is customary 
for schooling from early years to have 
entailed students reacting to what teach-
ers do. Teachers may frame questions and 
expect responses that fit that framework. 
Melissa Gross has shown that “imposed 
queries” are problematic for students, 
since they do not originate the question 
and may not be fully aware of the fram-
ing in which the teacher engaged.25 The 
move to active learning, stressed in some 
of the work on information literacy, is an 
answer to student-reactive schooling. The 
materialist-constructionist connection is a 
particular conceptual grounding wherein 
learning can thrive. The philosopher 
Alvin Goldman has urged a transforma-
tion of traditional epistemology so as to 
accept the impact of human psychology 
on knowledge. His epistemological-psy-
chological connection is very closely 

http:engaged.25
http:elements.24


    

     

   
    

   
    

     
    
    

     
 

  
    

    

     

    

      
      

        
    

      
       

       
     

       
       
    

    
      

    

      
     
      

       
       

     
     

     
     

        
     

      
      

     
   

       
       

     
    

      
    
      

       
      

       
      
       

      
      

      
      

       
    

 

     
      

     

      
     

      
     
     
      

     
     

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success 325 

related to the materialist-constructionist 
one. He has wri en: 

The solution of intellectual problems 
o en involves (a) speech, (b) writ-
ing things down, either in words, 
diagrams, or formulas, (c) physical 
manipulation of experimental ap-
paratus, and (d) physical interaction 
with machines and devices, such as 
computers, calculators, and abaci.… 
First, the purpose of employing 
physical aids, such as diagrams and 
other inscriptions, is ultimately to 
guide one’s psychological states, i.e., 
to produce belief or understanding (in 
any of their specific psychological 
manifestations. Second, one needs 
appropriate mental operations 
to guide these physical activities. 
Which activities should be ex-
ecuted? When? And in what order? 
These pose problems for the mind, 
problems of the structure and re-
trieval of plans and subroutines, to 
which psychology is clearly relevant 
[emphasis in original].26 

As Goldman argues, his idea is a 
rather radical one within the realm of 
philosophy. 

Content of the Course 
The design of the course began with the 
collaboration of individuals affiliated 
with the Columbia, Kansas City, and 
St. Louis campuses of the University of 
Missouri. The course was offered at the 
University of Missouri-Columbia for one 
credit hour and met for one one-hour 
class period each week during the fall 
2006 semester. The phenomenological 
cognitive action approach, described 
above, is the unifying design imperative. 
All presentations, discussions, exercises, 
and assignments begin with understand-
ing of the cognitive state of undergradu-
ate students, including awareness that 
the students may not have experienced 
some of the concepts that define the sub-
ject ma er they are working on within 

their academic programs or the meta-
cognitive perception that underlies their 
own learning. A particularly problematic 
aspect of some species of phenomenol-
ogy is the insistence on the absence of 
presuppositions. In the extreme, the pre-
suppositionless requirement is akin to a 
black slate; the requirement is unrealistic 
and unsustainable. Students enter college 
with numerous presuppositions—some 
of which are very helpful to learning, 
but some of which are erroneous and 
inhibitory. Teachers cannot assume a 
presuppositionless state for students, 
but teachers can a empt to subordinate 
their own presuppositions regarding 
what the students come in knowing 
and what their capacities are. Such a 
starting point is advocated by Carolyn 
Willis and Wm. Joseph Thomas.27 It is 
that kind of absence of presuppositions 
that guides instructors in this course. In 
pedagogical terms, the challenge is to 
introduce students to new concepts and 
a new awareness of metacognition that 
is seamless with their complete learning 
experience. 

The first goal of the course is to 
enhance students’ abilities to frame 
meaningful questions. A strategy that is 
employed to achieve the goal is to urge a 
critical reading of documents (or viewing 
of images) as dialogic. The author and 
the reader/viewer can be in a conversa-
tion; the students can imagine asking 
the author questions that are prompted 
by the document. Instructors present the 
following to students: 

As we read we may question the 
author: What made you come up 
with this idea? Why did you ask 
the question this way? How are 
you coming up with the conclusions 
you reach? Why did you use the 
particular evidence you did, and not 
some other sources of evidence? Are 
you genuinely seeking an answer, 
or are you trying to convince me of 
something in particular? What may 
be the most pertinent question for 

http:Thomas.27
http:original].26


    

     
       

      
       

      
       

      
        

     
     

    
       

     
      
     

  
       

     

    

      

     
 

    
       

       
      

     

      

     

     

      
     
     

     

     

    
 

   

    

     
  

    
    

   

     
      

    
    

      

     

326 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

the students is, “What is the author 
saying to me?” In other words, we 
don’t necessarily take everything we 
read or view at face value; we take 
a skeptical a itude. 

The questioning and the skepticism 
are themes that recur in every class 
meeting. The dialogic form is employed 
within that course as students discuss the 
assignments they are working in their 
other courses. The objective is to enable 
students to examine the assignments so 
as to foster a deeper and more complete 
understanding of the assignments. The 
understanding is intended to help stu-
dents complete their assignments suc-
cessfully. As a preface to working with 
actual assignments, the course instructors 
bring in some items from newspaper 
and/or popular magazines and the stu-
dents can ask: 

• Were you aware of this (the topic of 
the item) in general? 

• Are you familiar with the particu-
lars of this piece? 

• What questions does it raise for 
you? 

• How would you transform that 
question into a search? 

• Where would you go to find out 
answers to your question? 

Another element of the course is the 
inclusion of reasoning based on some 
elementary linguistic analysis. Building 
upon the practice of questions, of engag-
ing in dialogue with others, students are 
presented two statements: (a) Poverty 
is the cause of violence in urban areas, 
and (b) Poverty is a cause of violence 
in urban areas. The students are asked 
about the difference between the two 
statements and the task of searching for 
support or refutation of each statement. 
This exercise is one of practical reasoning; 
the structure of a search is based on the 
logic of the statement. The exercise also 
serves as a prelude to discussion about 
categorization in general and structured 
classification in particular. Examples that 
build on common experiences (such as 

the arrangement of a grocery, music, or 
video store) introduce presentation of the 
ways documents are actually described 
in indexes and library catalogs so that 
the nonstandard state of indexing (in 
the sense that indexes and aggregators 
adhere to their own structures but do not 
necessarily share them among each other) 
is covered. One item that is included in 
two databases illustrates the kinds of 
categorical differences that can occur: the 
following article: 

Andrew Calabrese, “The Promise of 
a Civil Society: A Global Movement 
for Communication Rights.” Con-
tinuum: Journal of Media & Cultural 
Studies 18 (Sept. 2004): 317–29 
is assigned different subject head-

ings in different databases. In Academic 
Search Premier the subjects are: Civil 
society, Communication, Communication 
policy, Consensus (Social sciences), Social 
contract, and Sociology. In Sociological 
Abstracts the subjects are: Civil society, 
Rights, Communication policy, Participa-
tion, and Social Movements. Categoriza-
tion is explored more expansively with 
an in-class exercise. While the exercise 
does not cover subject differences as such, 
the features of a database are illustrated 
clearly as students complete the exercise 
(collaboratively): 

The following can be done in real 
time in class: 

For example, the students can 
search for items on “communica-
tion policy.” 

First: they can enter this as a basic 
search. 

Second: they can enter it in advanced 
search mode (no difference). 

Third: they can enter it as a subject 
(far fewer). 

Fourth: they can narrow by date 
(say, January 2001 to date). 



     

    

   

    

    
    

    
      

      

      

     
     

     

      
    

     

    

    

   
    

      

      
     

   
      

      

     

      
      

       

       
      

      

       

    

    
    

 

     
    

      
      

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success 327 

Fifth: they can limit to scholarly 
journals (becoming more manage-
able). 

Sixth: they can limit to full text. 

Ask them to tell you what the dif-
ferences are. The progressive re-
duction in hits can become readily 
apparent. 

Since undergraduate students may 
be tempted to turn to Internet resources 
first, locating useful and meaningful 
information on the Web is a component 
of the course. The structure of tools, such 
as Google, is explained; the technique of 
harvesting, Google’s page ranking, and 
the commercial element are included. 
Refinements, like Google Scholar, are 
introduced as a different kind of informa-
tion container. This container is no longer 
everything; it is a subset of the entirety 
of accessible sites. For example, a search 
of Google (advanced, all the words) of 
the words “music download copyright” 
results more than 146 million hits (search 
executed October 22, 2006). The same 
search structure in Google Scholar results 
in 12,500 hits (search executed October 
22, 2006). The ma er of questioning and 
skepticism is vital to the discussion of 
Internet resources, particularly within the 
context of learning and success (the la er 
determined by the instructors of their 
courses). Among other things, the ques-
tioning turns on the ma er of authority: 

One criterion related to this topic is 
authority. If information is going to 
be trusted, you may want to know 
on what basis someone speaks. Has 
the author done work in this area 
before? Does the author appear to 
know how to investigate the topic? 
Authority may also have institu-
tional connection. For example, an 
item retrieved may be a report by a 
panel of experts. It is still important 
to examine the institutional source. 
Is this a political institution? Is it a 

partisan group? Source also affects 
authority. Is a blog as authoritative 
as a peer-reviewed journal? 

To augment students’ understanding of 
authority, the practice of peer reviewing 
in academic publishing is explained. 

Translating “relevance” into something 
undergraduate students can readily grasp 
is a challenge. In our profession we tend 
to think of relevance, but that thinking 
may not translate to a group of students. 
Students, however, do want to find mean-
ingful information that is connected to 
what they want to know and do. Finding 
something meaningful requires think-
ing about what might be some criteria 
of information. This is only a starting 
point, but it is an essential one; a search 
cannot be designed without some criteria. 
The criteria for students are cognitively 
grounded. So the starting point of any 
query is not possible search terms but 
what the searcher wants to find out. This 
means it is very important for the students 
to give some thought before searching to 
the nature of an assignment, the require-
ments for a paper, and other factors. Most 
important, this is a chance to demonstrate 
to the students that, if they spend some 
time and effort conceiving what they want 
and/or need to know at the outset, they 
can save time and effort further down the 
road. The context that is created by an as-
signment is one criterion; others include 
terminology understandable to the stu-
dent, concepts that have been perceived 
and experienced, inclusion of evidence, 
argument that follows practical reason, 
effective use of background literature, 
and authority. A decision about the rel-
evance of a document is one that follows 
the application of the criteria as evalua-
tive mechanisms. Further, the relevance 
decision includes the phenomenological 
assessment of an author’s intention; this 
entails the students’ assessment of the 
criteria alongside the author’s persuasive 
rhetoric. The questioning and skepticism 
a une students to the intention of persua-
sion and enable them to inure themselves, 



      
       

    
    

     
    

    

    
    

      
       

     

     
      
    

    

     
   

     

      

     
     

    

   
     

   

    
    

     

   
     
      

     
     

 
    

       
     

 
     

      

    

     

    

     
     

 

328 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

to some extent, to the rhetorical force of 
persuasion. 

Course Evaluation 
Assessment of the course took place at 
the end of the fall 2006 semester. Fi y 
students were in the three sections of the 
course; students completed the univer-
sity’s standard form. Additionally, the 
students were interviewed during finals 
week. As could be expected, students 
expressed some dissatisfaction with a 
few specific elements of the course. The 
element mentioned most frequently was 
the set of tutorials that librarians at other 
institutions have created. The students 
needed a clearer context so that under-
standing of database structure, search 
strategies and protocols, and information 
production would be enhanced. It is very 
likely that the tutorials are used by their 
creators within a context that makes their 
application clear; the use in the course de-
scribed here did not have that particular 
application. This feedback from students 
enforces the premise, though, that they 
are engaged in connected cognitive activ-
ity, so context is vital to understanding. 
Some of the students also expressed 
the desire for a few more operational 
and functional elements, including the 
workings of interlibrary loan services 
and other specific services offered by the 
MU Libraries. These comments will be 
incorporated into ongoing refinements 
of the course. 

The positive comments were greater in 
number and were shared by the majority 
of students. Students were not prompted 
to respond according to the goals of the 
course, but the most consistent remarks 
related to their ability to read assign-
ments in other courses more closely and 
to understand the relation of the content 
of information sources to those assign-
ments. Some students added that they 
were already seeing enhanced ability to 
write successful papers. The exercises in 
the course repeatedly asked students to 
examine discursive practices (the content 
of the materials they read) from multiple 

perspectives. Granted, the self-assessment 
of the students may inflate perceptions 
of competency; some evaluation of their 
performance in other courses—includ-
ing courses taken in semesters following 
the instruction—would be needed to 
provide authentic evidence of impact. 
As Rui Wang explains, existing assess-
ment methods demonstrate inconsistent 
outcomes.2 8 Respondents stated that 
they saw clear benefits from adopting 
that kind of critical response to what 
they read. Some, for example, said they 
began to think differently about news 
reports and Web sites. This response 
signals a shi  in students’ lifeworld (in 
the phenomenological sense). That is, 
there is a change in the intentional ways 
in which students assess their cognitive 
apprehension of information. One of the 
goals for the courses appears to have been 
at least partially achieved. The evaluation 
that the students engaged in is an indica-
tion of the mix of material (the physical 
reality of the sources they perceive) and 
subjective (their informed interpretation 
of those sources). 

A few respondents noted that the as-
signments and exercises they found most 
helpful were those that involved formu-
lating a question, refining their searches, 
and employing what they learned about 
peer review. Again, the students were not 
prompted for responses; the assessments 
were made independently of questions 
asked of them. This, too, is related to the 
phenomenological cognitive framework. 
The questioning, especially the critical as-
sessment of their own questions, reflects 
students’ growing abilities to suspend 
the final approval of their searches. Peer 
review also reflects this kind of suspen-
sion. In general, the sentiment was that 
they gained a greater understanding of 
the processes that researchers employ and 
that they could use that understanding 
in their own work. There is an implica-
tion to students’ confidence that should 
be mentioned and must be addressed in 
future offerings of the course. The teach-
ers in other courses the students take can 

http:outcomes.28


       
     

     
       

        
        

         
      

     
     
         

       
          

         
      

      
        
      

       
        

     
     

      
       

       
       

        
     

      
      

        
     

     
       

      
      

     

      
     

 
      

     

     
      

      

   
       

     

   
    

     

     
        

      
        

    
       

        
      

      
     

       
        

      

  

          

 
 

           

  

  

Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success 329 

be envisioned as authorities, not just re-
garding course content and topic but also 
regarding the processes of the courses 
and the students’ outputs (assignments, 
papers, exams, and so on). The course 
described here tacitly urges acceptance of 
content and topic authority but also tac-
itly fosters some challenge to the process 
authority. That is, as students more fully 
comprehend the framing of questions and 
the critical apprehension of the thought of 
others, they exercise a kind of intellectual 
and cognitive autonomy as well as alter-
ing the phenomenological relationship 
with the teacher. This is a factor that 
must be explored more deeply. Another 
consistent comment was that the students 
appreciated the interactive nature of the 
course (in each session there were class 
discussions, hands-on exercises, and 
conversations about what was effective 
and what was not). These elements of the 
course will be featured more prominently 
in future offerings of the course. 

Esther Grassian and Joan Kaplowitz 
write, “It is the librarian’s job to help 
the critical thinking process become a 
routine and natural part of each step of 
the information-seeking process.”29 Their 
observation could be taken a bit further; 
it is the librarian’s job to ensure that stu-
dents in their instructional programs gain 
a greater and more precise understanding 
of the necessary metacognitive processes 
that make learning possible. A basis for 
this claim is suggested by Derek Bok: “The 
ability to think critically… is the indis-

pensable means of making effective use of 
information and knowledge, whether for 
practical or purely speculative purposes. 
What is remarkable, then, is not the pro-
fessors place so high a value on critical 
thinking; the wonder… is that they do not 
do more to act on their belief.”30 The course 
described here represents one a empt to 
make the step toward integrating cogni-
tive growth into students’ experiences. 
One way to appraise the course is that it 
is an a empt to enable students to under-
stand, not only what is but also how it is. 
The idea is based on Fodor’s claim that “as 
far as anyone knows, relevance, strength, 
simplicity, centrality, and the like are prop-
erties, not of single sentences, but of whole 
belief systems.”31 Knowledge rests on a 
particular kind of belief system, one that 
is shaped by what we can call testimony 
(what others, especially authorities, have 
said), individual and collective (social) 
evaluation of what is heard, empirical 
evidence, and other things that can help 
justify beliefs. The development of such a 
belief system cannot be taken for granted 
or presumed; it is an integral part of hu-
man growth. Instructional programs in 
libraries are not separate from the devel-
opment of belief systems. Assessment of 
what is wri en and said, as a component 
of instructional programs, can become 
more intentionally rooted in the develop-
ment of the justification for beliefs. The 
present course tries to accomplish that 
goal; further improvements to the course 
will have the goal in sight. 

Notes 

1. Diane Zabel, “A Reaction to ‘Information Literacy and Higher Education,” Journal of Aca-
demic Librarianship 30 (Jan. 2004): 17–21. 

2. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards 
for Higher Education. Available online from www.ala.org/acrl. [Accessed 26 December 2006]. 

3. Karen Macpherson, “An Information Processing Model of Undergraduate Electronic Da-
tabase Information Retrieval,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 55 (Feb. 2004): 
336. 

4. Warren Weaver, “The Mathematics of Communication,” Scientific American 181 (July 1949): 
15. 

5. George K. Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Cambridge, Mass.: Ad-
dison-Wesley, 1949). 

6. Fred I. Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981): 
72. 

www.ala.org/acrl


           

 

 

 

           

  
          

  

  
 

 

 

  

 
 
 
 
 

  

  

 

                

              

          

 

330 College & Research Libraries July 2008 

7. John R. Searle, Consciousness and Language (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 
2002): 16. 

8. William A. Orme, “The Study of the Residual Impact of the Texas Information Literacy 
Tutorial on the Information-Seeking Ability of First-Year College Students,” College & Research 
Libraries 65 (May 2004): 205–15. 

9. John Bransford, Robert Sherwood, Nancy Vye, and John Reiser, “Teaching Thinking and 
Problem Solving: Research Foundations,” American Psychologist 41 (Oct. 1986): 1088. 

10. Gerald Burke, Carol Anne Germain, and Lijuan Xu, “Information Literacy: Bringing a 
Renaissance to Reference,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 5 (July 2005): 353–70. 

11. Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, “The Three Arenas of Information Literacy Assessment,” Reference 
& User Services Quarterly 44 (Winter 2004): 122–29. 

12. Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1984). 
13. Carol C. Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 

1993). 
14. George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind 

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987): 9. 
15. John J. Doherty and Kevin Ketchner, “Empowering the Intentional Learner: A Critical 

Theory for Information Literacy Instruction,” Library Philosophy and Practice 8: 1 (2005). Available 
online from www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/. [Accessed 26 December 2006]. 

16. James K. Elmborg, “Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice,” 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (Mar. 2006): 192–99. 

17. Kyung-Sun Kim and Bryce Allen, “Cognitive and Task Influences on Web Searching Be-
havior,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 53 (Jan. 15, 2002): 109–19. 

18. Barbara K. Hofer, “Epistemological Understanding as a Metacognitive Process: Thinking 
Aloud During Online Searching,” Educational Psychologist 39 (Mar. 2004): 43–55. 

19. Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World (New York: Basic 
Books, 1999): 53–54. 

20. Lakoff, 9. 
21. Dan Zahavi, Husserl’s Phenomenology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003): 14. 
22. Searle, 12. 
23. Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis (New York: Harper, 1974): 9–10. 
24. Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller, “Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional 

Design: Recent Developments,” Educational Psychologist 38 (Winter 2003): 1–4. 
25. Melissa Gross, “The Imposed Query,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 37 (Spring 1998): 

290–99. 
26. Alvin I. Goldman, Pathways to Knowledge: Public and Privated (Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 2002): 236. 
27. Carolyn N. Willis and Wm. Joseph Thomas, “Students as Audience: Identity and Informa-

tion Literacy Instruction,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6 (Oct. 2006): 431–34. 
28. Rui Wang, “The Lasting Impact of a Library Credit Course,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 

6 (Jan. 2006): 79–92. 
29. Esther S. Grassian and Joan R. Kaplowitz, Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice 

(New York: Neal-Schuman, 2001): 115. 
30. Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006): 

109–10. 
31. Jerry Fodor, In Critical Condition: Polemical Essays on Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of 

Mind (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998): 206. 

www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin


      

 

 

 

 

 

NEW ACRL PUBLICATIONS 
NEW! Life-Work Balance 

Melanie Hawks 

Life-Work Balance is the first issue of a new occasional 
series published by ACRL. This series will provide practical 
guidance on workplace and professional issues. Life-Work 
Balance helps you assess your current balance and provides 
tools for planning and making changes. This active guide 
will give you a chance to reflect on your priorities and hon-
estly assess the choices you are making about your time and 
energy. Defining what balance looks like for you, recognizing 
what you can change, and creating an action plan will bring 
you closer to achieving your personal and professional goals. 
You can begin by trying out a few of the simple but powerful 
ideas and exercises here. 
$15.00 (ACRL members less 10%); 44p., 978-0-8389-8478-9 

Practical Pedagogy for Library Instructors: 
17 Innovative Strategies to Improve Student Learning 
Douglas Cook and Ryan Si ler, editors 

Seventeen case-studies using unique instructional method-
ologies framed by sound pedagogical theory are gathered 
here. As the mission of academic libraries has moved away 
from maintaining collections toward educating users in re-
search methodologies, a need for new approaches to teach-
ing are required. Many librarians come from disciplines oth-
er than education and therefore need to upgrade their skills 
in the area of instruction. This practical casebook is of great 
advantage to librarians who have had li le formal training 
in education. Cases included cover the broad spectrum of 
education from behavioral to cognitive to constructivist. 
Each chapter is grounded in the educational and library 
literature and explores the potential of using pedagogical 
approaches which closely match instructional aims. 

NEW! 

$32.00 (ACRL members less 10%); 192p., 978-0-8389-8458-1 

Visit our online publications catalog for more information. 

www.ala.org/publications 

50 East Huron Street • Chicago, IL 60611 
(800) 545-2433 ext. 2529 • acrl@ala.org