RPL for CULLB602C & Library2.0

Have you ever applied for RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning)... would you describe it as Fun Fun Fun? Hm, not sure I would either :D

Still, that's what I've been doing for the past few months...and much of the process has been Fun.

Since I began studying for an Advanced Diploma in Library and Information Services I have been avoiding one particular subject: "CULLB602C Use, evaluate and extend own information literacy skills". Why?

Because the major assessment task for the unit appeared to be even worse than the nature of assessment I detested in undergraduate degree courses: not just a trivial essay but a completely irrelevant (to the industry) trivial essay. To be produced just for the sake of demonstrating "conducting research", "communication skill" and "appropriate referencing" - as if none of these attributes have been demonstrated in any of our other unit assessments. Only this was the longest individual piece of writing required in the course. (Other units' assessment tasks often had no number-of-words constraints and depending on the student's extent of research may (in fact for me did) produce longer pieces of writing.)

All this time I have wondered in what way that kind of assessment related to the title & purpose of the unit. So in 2009, facing the prospect of having to do the unit in 2010, I asked a current student of the unit for the elements of competence. The elements and criteria of competence (pdf) of this unit are interesting - they are relevant to the industry and competence in them is I believe important for performance as librarians. (By librarian I mean the Cambridge and Oxford definition not the more recent and questionably-motivated redefinition). Unfortunately I did not and do not believe that the assessment tasks used in recent years appropriately challenged students or allowed them to develop and substantiate even half of the criteria of competence that the unit appeared designed to achieve and which would be valuable for their careers.

Also while I read it occurred to me that as a result of my work and play I could already demonstrate competence in all of those elements and their criteria: I would apply for RPL.

Along the way I would wrestle with a term I have long detested: "information literacy" - I refuse to append the third word often thrown on the end as it is in the name of the unit, because the effect makes me shudder. Naturally it is a fight I am in no position to win, but the attempt involved research, reflection and writing. All of which I felt would be constructive: personally, professionally, and for my application for RPL.

Do you think a series of posts could be good evidence? I wasn't brave enough. Not that I have an audience of whom to be shy, after all I write randomly, and for myself mainly. I did not know who would assess my application so I could not check whether they would be comfortable with that sort of evidence, although I did eventually refer to some of my posts (particularly those on citing online sources). Although it wasn't just the assessor's comfort... the thought of having what I hoped would demonstrate my competence available for anyone to view (and potentially question) was a little too scarey. Now I wish I had tried it because I have come to feel that blogging would be an excellent medium through which students could explore, develop and demonstrate the competencies of the unit.

I'd still like to post some of the thoughts I had during my application, and the assessor has since given approval, but I'm not sure how to or even whether it is worth doing so retrospectively.

Amongst other evidence, I referred to my explorations and subsequent use of web2.0 tools. I kept fantasising how a program somewhat like 23 Things could might help library students to "use, evaluate and extend" their "information literacy".

Excitingly, during my interview, the assessor indicated that my application for RPL and its reasons (ie the poor relevance of the assessment task) had contributed to a review of how the unit is presented at UB. Apparently it will now be restructured and among other changes will involve aspects of ... oh let's call it "Library 2.0 stuff" for want of a better phrase. I hope I get to see how it changes.