The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm

A strengths-based approach to Strengths-

based
widening participation students approach

in higher education
Sebastian Krutkowski 227
GSM London, UK
Received 22 October 2016
Revised 30 December 2016
Accepted 6 January 2017
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight the need for a pedagogical shift from “problems” to
“possibilities”, which will help ease the transition of students into higher education (as well as the transitions
between levels of study and employment), especially those coming from under-represented and
under-privileged backgrounds, known in the UK as the widening-participation category.
Design/methodology/approach – GSM London is the first higher education provider in the UK to
implement a strengths-based approach to staff and student development. This study looks at the delivery plan
for strengths-based education, especially how it can inform and reshape information literacy instruction in the
library and other academic skills modules.
Findings – Higher education is an important environment to help learners develop their talents into
strengths, which can be defined as “the ability to provide consistent and near-perfect performance in a given
activity” (Buckingham and Clifton, 2005, p. 20). There is a perception that widening-participation students
have more significant gaps or weaknesses upon entering university education. This case study confirms that
not remediation but a strengths-based approach has the strongest potential to enable students to better
manage their weaknesses and become independent learners.
Research limitations/implications – Further research is required, as not enough empirical data could
be collected after only one semester of strengths-based learning implementation at GSM.
Originality/value – The author attempts to re-conceptualise information literacy instruction and propose
a mapping exercise, in which library instruction is aligned to the principles of strengths-based education and
the language of 34 themes in the popular strengths assessment tool from the Gallup organisation. The
expectation is to build fluid transitions between levels of study and academic matters and extracurricular
activities that students take part in. This approach can also assist learners far beyond the library and long
after they leave university, equipping students with a skillset that enables a more meaningful participation in
society.
Keywords Information literacy, Widening participation, Transition, Critical literacy,
Pedagogy of confidence, Strengths-based education
Paper type Case study

Introduction
The education system in the UK is still considerably affected by a deficit-based mind-set, in
which students are thought to have “gaps” in knowledge that schools and universities need
to address. This affects the learners’ transition into higher education and the subsequent
student experience. The focus is on trying to fix what is “wrong”, teach what is “missing” and
neglect any talents that students already have. Forcing students to spend most of the time in
their areas of weakness is not going to make much learning happen – especially among
learners who are mature, come from low socio-economic backgrounds and schools
characterised by low progression. In the UK, these students are often referred to as the Reference Services Review
Vol. 45 No. 2, 2017
“widening-participation” category. They struggle with the difficult transition to higher pp. 227-241
education. They may also have undiagnosed (or unreported) learning difficulties that require © Emerald Publishing Limited
0090-7324
specialised support and pedagogies that emphasise the more positive aspects of student DOI 10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0070
RSR effort and achievement such as strengths-based education (Anderson, 2004; Lopez and Louis,
45,2 2009) and the pedagogy of confidence (Jackson, 2014). Both theories adopt the language of
positive psychology and appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987) – guided by
the question of “What is the smallest change that can have some, however small, positive
impact?” In other words, both theories represent a pedagogical shift from problems to
possibilities. Regardless of background, every student has innate talents that provide a basis
228 for achievement in higher education and beyond.
The strengths-based philosophy, adopted by GSM London, posits that each person has a
number of naturally existing talents that make them unique. Talents are empowering and
make it possible to master particular skillsets, move to higher levels of excellence and
towards the fulfilment of one’s creative potential. Higher education is an important
environment to help learners develop their talents into strengths, which can be defined as
“the ability to provide consistent and near-perfect performance in a given activity”
(Buckingham and Clifton, 2005, p. 20). In the long run, strengths-based education allows
people to better manage their weaknesses and become independent learners. Recognising
talents and strengths helps address different learning styles and develop appropriate
approaches – from classroom design, assessment tools, learning resources and teaching
delivery. People work most creatively when they are allowed to interact with their preferred
medium – when they are in their “element” (Robinson and Aronica, 2010). GSM London has
recently embedded strengths-testing in its personal tutoring scheme, which all Foundation/
Year 0 and first-year undergraduate students need to take. The StrengthsFinder 2.0
assessment, developed by the Gallup organisation, has been chosen as the tool to use for
discovering, exploring and maximising the strengths of GSM students.
This paper looks at ways of developing a more varied and integrated model of
information literacy instruction that caters to the strengths-based curriculum at GSM. There
is a need to reach beyond the traditional “one-shot” (and often ad hoc) library sessions on the
mechanics of online search. Students should be made active participants in their own
learning, and libraries can certainly help by empowering them to engage more with learning
technologies and critical reading for academic and professional purposes. Information
literacy instruction should go beyond the “search and locate” model and help students
stretch their understanding through exploration of a wide range of resources in multiple
formats, followed by a more critical discussion around the nature of knowledge itself.
In today’s economy, whether it is referred to as “knowledge”, “information” or “creative”,
students need to be information-literate. Yet, every individual’s information-seeking
behaviour and information needs are unique. Forster (2016) found that students of different
disciplines experience being information-literate very differently. Thinking of information
literacy as a practice or experience is in line with the strengths approach. Literacy instruction
should be oriented towards processes rather than goals. This is why the library team at GSM
will work on mapping library instruction sessions to strengths-based education and the
language of 34 themes[1] in the popular strengths assessment tool from the Gallup
organisation, hoping to build fluid transitions between levels of study and academic matters
and extracurricular activities that students take part in. The expectation is that this
approach will assist learners far beyond the library and long after they leave university,
equipping students with a skillset that enables a more meaningful participation in society.

GSM London
GSM London is an independent provider of higher education that puts an emphasis on social
mobility and inclusion. The college is a rich and diverse learning hub, home to many students
coming from the “widening participation” groups that are typically under-represented in UK
universities. Widening participation is a strategic priority for the higher education sector in Strengths-
the UK. It is about promoting equality and diversity. More importantly, however, it is about based
raising aspirations of students, improving their employment prospects and enhancing social
mobility. GSM helps to transform the take-up of higher education opportunities among
approach
different social groups. In contrast to some more established institutions, 88 per cent of
students enrolled for GSM programmes are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) origin
and 79 per cent are mature students. The GSM student body is ethnically diverse and
economically challenged. Many students are the first in their family to consider higher 229
education, and are more likely to have encountered significant obstacles in their previous
academic experiences.
This paper does not focus solely on high school to college transitions, and it does not refer
to college transfers, as these are rare in the UK context. Many GSM London students have
gone through a period of interrupted study due to childcare commitments or employment.
However, many of the issues that both “transfer” students and “widening-participation”
students experience are very similar and hopefully some of the approaches to support
admission, transfer and retention put forward in this paper will be of interest to higher
education professionals and academic staff from outside the UK.
There is a perception that widening-participation students have more significant gaps or
weaknesses. However, according to Jackson (2014), such learners should be considered
under-achievers rather than low achievers. Under-performing students are essentially
educated out of their creative potential because of standardised tests throughout secondary
education (Robinson, 2006). Once they enter university, the enduring conservatism in
education systems prescribes remediation, neglecting the students’ additional skills and
talents. This deficit model crushes student aspirations. Recruiting among non-traditional
students entails forming honest partnerships, building their confidence and sense of
belonging in the new challenging environment of university education. It also entails
building fluid transitions between students’ lives outside the college, undergraduate and
postgraduate studies and employment.
The decision to build a strengths approach into the entire university curriculum is a
combination of institutional goals (boosting retention) and wider societal agenda (social
inclusion). For this to succeed, it is important to have a common language across the
campus – building a community, fostering friendships and a deeper understanding of others.
All GSM staff will gradually be asked to undertake the same StrengthsFinder test that
students do, and each department will embed the strengths approach into learning activities,
intended learning outcomes and so on. At present, strengths are used primarily through the
Personal Tutoring scheme and by the First-Term Engagement team as a mechanism to
support transition to GSM. There is, however, a proactive involvement on the part of library
services (hence this case study) and the careers department. The careers team has designed
the Horizon Award Programme – a co-curricular employability award to engage students in
activities beyond the classroom. The outreach and recruitment teams use the language of
strengths when meeting prospective students. As part of the university admission process,
all students in the UK need to write a personal statement. GSM London plans to encourage
applicants to make this statement strengths-focused, thus building awareness of the
strengths-based education at an early stage.

Inspirations
GSM London modelled its design and delivery plan of strengths-based initiatives on the
experience of a number of US institutions such as Azusa Pacific, Saratosa and the University
of Arkansas. However, the most valuable example was the University of Minnesota – one of
RSR the largest and most well-known strengths-based approaches to college student
45,2 development in the USA. It offers a robust set of data and research to learn from – the
university has undertaken a comprehensive two-year assessment of its strengths initiative.
More than 17,000 first-year and transfer students completed the StrengthsFinder
assessment. The initial goals were to enhance student engagement and well-being. Three
areas where the initiative has been most successful were retention, academic attainment
230 (grade point average data) and an improved sense of community on campus (first two being
measured, while the third one being self-reported in student reflections). The University of
Minnesota’s Strengths at the U initiative has been invaluable in easing transitions between
subsequent levels of undergraduate studies. Additional student learning and development
outcomes identified in the executive summary include increased self-awareness, increased
appreciation and understanding of others, improved coping and problem-solving skills and
more effective communication skills (Stubblefield et al., 2014).
GSM London plans to build on what the University of Minnesota has achieved. One
crucial lesson is that students who had discussions about their strengths had significantly
higher engagement, on average, than their peers (Stubblefield et al., 2014, p. 14). Strengths’
interactions can be recorded in personal tutoring, workshops or student organisations.
However, they also involve a range of interactions that do not get reported – it is important
to create a conducive environment in which students feel confident to discuss their personal
development. GSM aims to provide as many meaningful interactions with strengths as
possible so that this permeates the entire student experience at university.
To create these opportunities for students to maximise their talent themes, the GSM
library will do a mapping exercise that is similar to the University of Minnesota’s “34 in 34”
report – an online archive of one-page summaries featuring each theme and how these
personal strengths can be applied in academic and extracurricular activities. Each story is
about how students, staff, faculty, alumni and employers are using individual strengths to be
successful in their daily lives. There are also tips on how to work with others who have
specific themes. Buchanan et al. (2015) strongly recommend a curriculum mapping exercise
because this process systematically allows to evaluate components of an instructional
programme for cohesiveness, proper sequencing and goals achievement. In other words, it
gives a clear overview of who is doing what and how one faculty’s or department’s goals
align with the wider institutional strategy. This ensures that everyone at the university
operates efficiently and effectively. It is therefore plausible for GSM to compare the
components of the strengths-based curriculum and existing information literacy
frameworks that inform library workshops.

Strengths assessment tools

Although initially concerned primarily with the business and management context or
workplace learning scenarios, the Gallup Organization now partners with institutions of
higher education because the university campus environment is a very important setting for
students to discover, develop and apply their strengths. Gallup trains faculty leaders to take
ownership of further organisational training and lead on the eventual implementation of the
StrengthsFinder tool along with a programme of opportunities for strengths interactions.
Through the online StrengthsFinder assessment, Gallup assists students in discovering
their talents and building upon them for academic success. A Gallup StrengthsFinder report
consists of the following sections:
• Awareness: A shared theme description for each of the top five themes and additional
guiding questions to reflect on the themes.
 • Application: Ten ideas for action for each of the top five themes along with questions to Strengths-
help apply one’s talents in specific situations. based
• Achievement: Examples of what each of the themes “sounds like”, i.e. real quotes from approach
people who also have them in their top five.

Lopez and Louis (2009, p. 2) provide an effective overview of the processes that follow. After
the measurement of strengths (via StrengthsFinder), each student’s report is then analysed
and discussed in personal tutoring sessions. Trained, strengths-oriented tutors advise on the
231
dominant clusters of talent and possible applications of each learner’s signature themes.
Such personalised pathway makes academic pursuit more successful. Students are also
encouraged to engage in additional strengths interactions. For example, discussing their top
themes with friends helps to think of other people in terms of their strengths. Throughout the
term, students are encouraged to apply their strengths in and out of classroom. There is a
potential here for library workshops and careers events to contribute to college-wide
strengths development. Working on and with one’s strengths from semester to semester will
help students progress and manage transitions more effectively. The final efforts require
remaining pro-active and independent learners that can capitalise on their personal
strengths and academic achievements.

Personal tutoring
A key part of the delivery of strengths-based education at GSM is the personal tutoring
scheme, which has been established to improve student retention and progression through
timely academic guidance. The introduction of personal tutoring has several benefits: it
allows progression and performance issues to be captured before reaching crisis point; it
ensures that mentoring and support can be targeted; it ascertains that the student is known
to an academic member of staff; and it allows the building of a bond between the academia
and student.
At present, strengths-testing is only rolled out to Level 3 and Level 4 students
(Foundation/Access to HE and first-year undergraduates, respectively). All students in these
levels are enrolled to a number of core modules that have the learning outcomes informed by
the strengths philosophy. The strengths delivery plan at GSM starts with building strengths
awareness, followed by completing the StrengthsFinder assessment. Further context is
provided in personal tutoring sessions, in which trained educators (this might include library
staff):
• Define strengths and situate the approach within the GSM context.
• Explain the value of strengths quoting evidence from Gallup that people who focus
attention on using their strengths daily are six times as likely to be engaged in their
jobs (Sorenson, 2014).
• Run a simple activity called Feeling your strength: students are asked to write “I use
my strengths every day” for three times using their non-dominant hand, take note of
time and then re-do it with their dominant hand (also noting the time needed to
complete the task). This is then discussed and reviewed by the teacher who asks
students – how they felt using performing the task, what was different about using
different hands, and what the point of the activity was in their opinion.

During one such session observed by the author, students mentioned “struggle” and “lack of
control” when the task was to use their non-dominant hand. Whereas using one’s dominant
hand in the second part of the activity always felt “natural” and much more “positive”. The
positive emotions that students feel when using a skill that they already have or when doing
RSR things that they are already good at translate into a greater capacity for problem solving and
45,2 creativity. For example, students become more likely to persist with the academic
assignments. The strengths approach thus develops students with more motivation and an
improved set of coping skills and strategies for university life and beyond. Based on the data
from the summer semester when StrengthsFinder assessment was first used in GSM, 93 per
cent of respondents (n ⫽ 212) understand the purpose of strengths testing and the benefits of
232 strengths-based learning. The main outcomes now sought by GSM in relation to the
strengths approach are:
• improved retention (to be based on improved attendance, grades, and progression);
• students maximise their university experience, are not passive recipients of
knowledge;
• students learn “how to learn” effectively and become independent learners; and
• students develop confidence and strengths of character and academic excellence

Particularly in the GSM context, engagement with strengths can also improve pathways to
academia for students of non-traditional backgrounds, especially the BAME category. In
2014, GSM first introduced a Teaching Fellow Programme, which brought two graduates
into full-time work combining on-the-job training in teaching and learning, mentoring and
coaching support and study towards a postgraduate teaching qualification. The initiative
has grown to include eight graduates per year, and the programme is now over-subscribed –
highlighting the demand among widening-participation students for clear entry pathways
into academia.

Strengths interactions
While carrying out a student-centred information literacy instruction, the GSM library also
wants to enrich the delivery of the strengths-based curriculum by providing additional
opportunities for strengths development and interactions. According to Bruce (2004),
information literacy is effective in a curriculum that stimulates engagement in learning
activities that require ongoing interaction with the information environment. To ensure
success in both areas, it is important to know the learners that attend library instruction. The
traditional one-shot model does not allow teaching librarians to have the same amount of
contact or develop the same degree of understanding with students that module leaders and
lecturers enjoy. Knowing the students’ StrengthsFinder reports will help design information
literacy support that is tailored and plays to learners’ strengths. A closer cooperation with
personal tutors could also open opportunities to run audits of student submissions. For
example, samples of assignments submitted by Level 3 (i.e. Foundation Year) students could
be analysed based on the use of evidence (range of sources cited) and style of referencing.
This additional knowledge of Level 3 students and their academic work would help to ensure
they receive suitable support to progress to the next levels of study.
Pavey (2013, p. 2) reports that there is a considerable “copy and paste” culture in high
schools – student work shows little evidence of evaluation, synthesis and understanding.
Assignments are made to “look nice” – there is an abundance of irrelevant images and zany
fonts. Students from schools that do not address these issues will face a difficult transition to
university where the expectation is to show research skills and critical thinking. While the
assumption that many students are not ready for the more research-intensive learning at the
university level may be true, it is not just under-preparedness that hinders their information
literacy competencies. It is also simple insecurity (Ryan, 2013). Applying a strengths-focused
approach to information literacy instruction can help understand the individual learner and Strengths-
design more appropriate forms of support and guidance. based
The author has actually run an “assignments audit” across a sample of Level 3 and Level
4 modules at GSM already, obtaining 148 assignments submitted by students for
approach
assessment. The initial observations reveal that students submit very short bibliographies
and predominantly refer to popular sources of information online. This is an important
lesson. Internet users today need specific guidance – i.e. they need to realise that, for example,
Facebook and other social media platforms, harvest data and present it to them in a certain 233
(arbitrary) way – based on what they previously clicked or commented on. According to
Ofcom’s 2016 Media Use Report, 51 per cent of UK searchers cannot spot a paid ad, i.e. only
half identify sponsored links on Google as advertising (Skelton, 2016). Scholarly content and
popular content (e.g. entertainment or trivia) now occupy the same screen space and students
need additional guidance in navigating the information overload. This highlights the wider
need for information literacy in the curriculum and for keeping abreast with the information
seeking behaviour of students new to higher education.

Library assessment
The library is an environment where students come to make sense of the knowledge gained
in class. Librarians, even when they do not assess student work on a regular basis as course
teachers do, can still create activities and workshops that would play to students’ strengths.
Appendix outlines additional assessment types for co-curricular activities encompassing
information literacy and fostering strengths development. Students ought to be able talk
about what they learn, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences and apply it to
their daily lives. In other words, they must make what they learn part of themselves
(Chickering and Gamson, 1987) and take the ownership of their need to learn (Race, 2014).
Each library workshop could end, for instance, with a “minute paper” (Angelo and Cross,
1993). In this effective assessment method, the teacher asks students to respond briefly to
some variation on the following two questions:
Q1. What was the most important thing you learned during this class?
Q2. What important question remains unanswered? (Angelo and Cross, 1993).
This is an excellent way of collecting timely feedback from student that can inform
subsequent learning sessions. Similar to the minute paper is the “AQCI” method (argument,
question, comment and implications), which asks students to synthesise recommended
readings before class (usually a tutorial or seminar type). The AQCI helps to instil critical
thinking and ability to synthesise information from different sources. Finally, students can
also be asked to write more substantial pieces of personal reflection. Sharing personal
experiences and opinions helps students feel that their own background is relevant and
makes it easier for other students to acknowledge alternative perspectives (Lau-Bond, 2016,
p. 83).
Further examples of how the library can support a strengths-based curriculum include a
“train the trainer” type of workshop (so that students can learn off each other) or a series of
sessions about digital citizenship – highlighting the growing need for managing one’s digital
footprint (social media profiles, e-safety and “netiquette” – a set of social conventions that
facilitate appropriate online behaviour and interaction of users over networks). At GSM, the
library department recently merged with the technology-enhanced learning team, which
creates further opportunities to deliver meaningful workshops to students, e.g. using Google
Apps for education, so that students can connect, share and communicate effectively online –
a skillset required in many modern work situations. In fact, moving learners online is
RSR important because most employers demand new workforce to be creative and digitally
45,2 literate. The policy paper Digital Skills for the UK Economy (Vaizey, 2016) states that the vast
majority of the workforce increasingly need the confidence, skills and competencies to use
digital resources in the workplace. A recent internship advert in The Spectator said “If you
write well but can’t edit an audio file or make short video (or work out how to), then this
internship is probably not for you” (Nelson, 2016). Therefore, there is a need for a curriculum
234 that equips students with the ability to use an ever-increasing range of digital platforms,
technologies and environments.

Inclusive assessment
Another opportunity for meaningful strengths interactions is “inclusive” assessment, which
entails involving students in giving feedback to their peers. The HEA (2016) framework for
transforming assessment in higher education discusses the use of peer assessment as
fundamental to student learning. This approach also incorporates the idea of students as
partners, co-creators of knowledge and co-designers of instruction (Healey, 2005). The
library team at GSM plans to promote a resource successfully applied in universities in New
Zealand called PeerWise – a student-generated repository of multiple choice questions.
PeerWise has a great potential for deep learning because students actively engage with
course content by creating course-related assessment questions, writing explanations,
considering common misconceptions and evaluating the quality of questions created by their
classmates. It is a great tool to encourage students to own their own learning, self-reflect
more and communicate their ideas more effectively. Writing questions and making multiple
choice tests requires a much higher level of understanding than simply taking them.

Video-based assessment
Assessment drives learning (Biggs and Tang, 2011) and therefore it is essential that
university creates assessment in a variety of formats. Ryan (2013) looked at an interesting
case of students as producers of digital video-based knowledge, which was an assignment
for a class of second-year UG biochemistry students over the course of one semester.
Students were to choose a biochemical area of interest and present it in an educational video
to their peers. Students did not have to passively wait to sit an exam at the end of the
semester. They could apply different skills and immerse themselves in a creative group
work.
Ryan, who was also the teacher of the said study group, reported that many students have
found their element and thoroughly enjoyed the assessment, which to many students in class
“did not feel like an assessment” at all (Ryan, 2013). The video project brought back the
critical element in learning – emotions. Initially, there were recorded feelings of fear, anxiety
and unease. As the students moved through the project, however, most noted feelings of
excitement and enjoyment, especially in the part where students brainstormed for ideas.
Over half of the students replied they felt “safer” working with peers on their projects. At the
end of the project, many students also reported being able to overcome their fear of
technology. This particular choice of assessment clearly played to individual students’
strengths – some of them were able to excel in project management and ensure all group
members contribute to the video, while others enjoyed the research of information part or
editing of footage. Unlike traditional types of assessment (e.g. tests or exams), which
measure achievement gaps (or what one knows at a particular time), videos can provide a
more genuine indication of one’s potential. Because of tasks like this, students are inclined to
reflect on what they are interested in doing and what they are good at, and they make
students think about their potential. Ryan concluded that, overall, students derived most
learning from their brainstorming, independent research and group-based discussions on
their own topic (i.e. not the final product). Interestingly, one of the most positive outcomes Strengths-
was that students additionally developed tangible soft skills such as communication, based
collaboration and project management, which are all are key employability traits (Ju et al.,
2012).
approach

The potential of gamification

The aforementioned case study presented students a chance to “personalise” their learning
pathway and proceed at their own desired pace. This is also exactly what game designers do.
235
What makes games engaging can also boost engagement in learning situations (Kapp, 2014).
People are motivated by autonomy, feeling competent and “relatedness” (e.g. progression,
comparison to other players). Games demand action, have specific rules and objectives and
provide lots of interactivity. Players (learners) navigate some sort of risk, solve problems and
make decisions. The immersive environment of learning games is also a “safe to fail”
environment that gives users control over time, order of events or questions and so forth.
Figure 1 provides a useful comparison between a learner in a typical knowledge transfer
setting (which is passive) and a gamified learning experience.
The popular app for language courses DuoLingo is a good illustration of the above
distinction. DuoLingo allows the learners to decide how much time they want to allocate
daily to learn a new language. The exercises are varied. Points gained during the game can
be used to uncover additional lessons. Most importantly, students learn at their own pace.
Content is fun, but pedagogically sound, and there is an element of competition (leader
boards) that learners can opt out if they want to. According to Livingstone (2016), Games
Workshop founder, when students play games (and most of those from the younger
generation do or have done), they experience interactivity, problem-solving, the critical
thinking, the analysis, the social aspects – which are all “real skills for the real world”
(Livingstone, 2016).
GSM Library currently provides interactive quizzes and activities using e-learning
authoring tools and technology products with a look and feel and functionality that today’s
students are most familiar with. Very popular among students attending library instruction
at GSM is the Kahoot platform. A “Kahoot” is not more than a collection of questions created
by teachers, students or social users. When “played”, these questions are asked in real-time
to an unlimited number of “players”, creating a social, fun and game-like learning
environment. Kahoot quizzes engage learners of all ages and backgrounds with its simple
design and element of competition. Students see it as fun, but they also stress they are
learning at the same time. Kahoot allows for timed questions and a points system, and
players (learners) get to see a leader board after each round of questions. The platform’s key
advantage is that it provides immediate, on-screen feedback and brings emotions back into

Figure 1.
Learner vs Player
(2016)
RSR learning. Another interesting application of game-based learning is the Jeopardy Labs idea,
45,2 introduced by Charissa Jefferson from California State University (Northridge) at the 2016
LILAC conference in Dublin. Jeopardy Labs is based on a popular US show where
contestants give answers in form of questions (Jefferson, 2016). This reversed approach
(formulating questions to known answers), can teach students the skill of creating keyword
search strategies in their academic work.
236
Critical literacy
Meaningful strengths interactions can also be facilitated by introducing critical thinking
skills, especially at an earlier stage in instruction. Critical literacy can help to map specific
exercises and activities to the 34 themes of StrengthsFinder because strengths can only
flourish in active learning contexts. Current assessment regimes often reward conservatism
(i.e. assignments are predominantly goal-oriented). Yet some knowledge and skills cannot be
transmitted. Understanding the complex issues of power, inequality or injustice requires
information to be read and processed in an active, reflective manner. Without critical lenses,
information literacy risks to be about students only discerning existing (or intended)
meanings, not challenging them and forming new interpretations.
Critical literacy is a learner-centred approach – it turns the lens back on the individual
student, as the constructor of meaning (Critten, 2016, p. 19). This is empowering to the
student because knowledge is not treated as external. Individual experience and prior
knowledge also does count, and helps the reader (learner) to “negotiate” the meaning of a
given information source. Depending on one’s strengths, the construction of meaning will
manifest itself differently because a reader’s relationship with information is a discourse in
which meaning is continually negotiated and filtered through one’s lived experience and
values (Ryan, 2013).
The first step in critical literacy instruction is to challenge the assumption among
students that librarians are fact providers or gatekeepers to knowledge and its technologies
(Forster, 2016). Librarians assist students in experiencing information literacy in more
complex (and more critical) ways. Libraries are not merely repositories of knowledge. Most
importantly, the library environment is central in helping students make sense of what was
learned and discussed in class. Libraries today are increasingly places that cater to
collaborative learning, even serving as “makerspaces”. Ultimately, “the library classroom
should be a place where students confront their prejudices […] and prejudices presented in
text” (Critten, 2016, p. 25).
The next step is to remove the enduring distinction that almost every teacher and every
librarian is tempted to make – dividing information sources into “good” and “bad” camps, i.e.
scholarly and popular. Sources of academic origin are treated as more privileged, but the
assumption is based almost entirely on authorship (Critten, 2016, p. 28). Moreover, scholarly
information is still largely behind the pay walls of subscription databases – once students
graduate, they lose access to it, but we cannot ignore that they will still have (a need) to
navigate the information overload in the digital.
Lecturers are interested in the originality in the use of evidence when grading
assignments. Likewise, employers are interested in what stands out – creativity, novel
approaches, experimentation. Academic libraries should encourage a more critical response
to information among students. For example, students can be encouraged to critique text and
media address some fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge such as:
• Why was this article written?
• Whose voice is this?
• Whose voice is missing?
An author decides to include or exclude information all the time. Every piece of information Strengths-
has specific purpose and serves particular interests. Learners should be aware of the social based
and cultural contexts in which it is created and read (McNicol, 2016). This more questioning
approach will help them make more informed decisions in different stages of their university
approach
journey and beyond – fostering lifelong learning. Essentially, a critical literacy approach
allows instructors to focus less on spoon-feeding and more on scaffolding – not teaching one
“correct” or “preferred” way of doing things. Students are not discerning existing or intended
meanings, but are encouraged to arrive at conclusions on their own. 237

Limitations
Libraries typically have less authority to make binding changes in the university curriculum.
One of the enduring limitations of information literacy programmes (and assessment types
mentioned above) is measurement of impact. However, Champlain College – a small
institution in Burlington, VT – is a good example why it is beneficial to advocate for a greater
recognition of library services in higher education teaching and assessment. The Champlain
College has been a frontrunner in embedded information literacy instruction. Library
instruction has been embedded throughout the core curriculum for nearly a decade now – in
a blended, scaffolded, sequential model of inquiry-based pedagogy (Carbery and Leahy,
2016).
A team of librarians at the college devised a developmental rubric for information
literacy. The framework has been designed to be used as an assessment tool for any piece of
student work appropriate for demonstration of information literacy performance. It defines
four stages of development. First-year students beginning their information literacy journey
can be expected to perform at the first level – labelled “emerging”. Second- and third-year
learners might be expected to perform at the “developing” stage. Final-year students are in
turn expected to reach “proficiency” by the time they graduate. “Mastery”, the fourth and
final level, is considered as aspirational and typically reached by just few learners.
Champlain’s rubric would translate well into GSM context (and other institutions
considering the strengths approach). The names for categories would be in line with the
spirit of strengths-based education, i.e. “emerging”, and does not have the negative
connotations that “poor” or “limited” or even “adequate” bring to mind. This model can later
be cross-referenced other literacies, for example, Mozilla’s Web literacy framework, which
provides a useful visual representation of the crucial digital skills needed in today’s
economy.

Research skills training and inquiry-based learning

The library can also support the strengths-based initiative at GSM is in modules where there
is a strong and articulate research skills component and inquiry-based learning. Independent
inquiry into conflicting viewpoints and alternative information sources is often in contrast
with traditional assessment techniques which centre around “right answers” (Heinström and
Sormunen, 2016, p. 325). Strategic students approach their learning process more through
achievement-orientation than intrinsic motivation. They typically orient towards the final
grade, instead of the ongoing process of inquiry. They may therefore focus less on learning
about the subject area in source-based assignments and pay particular attention to
project-specific elements in their ambition to gain a good grade (Heinström and Sormunen,
2016). Ryan’s (2013) study revealed that students learn most in the early stages of a creative
task (such as the video-based assessment), not from the final mark. This highlights the many
reasons for advocating for learning to always be in “research mode” as indicated in Healey’s
research-teaching nexus (Figure 2).
RSR STUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS
45,2

Research-Tutored
Curriculum emphasises
238 learning focused on students
wring and discussing essays
and papers
EMPHASIS ON
RESEARCH
CONTENT
Research-led
Curriculum is structured
around teaching current
knowledge construcon in
subject content
Research-based
Curriculum emphasises
students undertaking
inquiry-based learning
EMPHASIS ON
RESEARCH
PROCESSES
AND PROBLEMS
Research-oriented
Curriculum emphasises
teaching processes of
the subject

Figure 2. STUDENTS AS AUDIENCE

Curriculum design and
the research-teaching
nexus Source: Based on Healey (2005, p. 7)

Conclusion
There are many purposes to higher education. One is to let people determine who they want
to be for themselves, not just get stuck as the person that they have always been told they are.
Students’ innate talents provide the most effective basis for achievement, and it is essential
that every department at GSM works out how it can best support the strengths-based
curriculum – so that it becomes a campus-wide endeavour. Studies show significant
correlation between library use and a higher-degree classification and employability (Stone
and Ramsden, 2012). Incorporating strengths in library activities could potentially enrich
student outcomes even further.
As “old careers become replaced by new ones, creativity becomes the salient
differentiating factor between people competing for jobs” (Krutkowski, 2014). The strengths
approach at GSM will address diverse learning styles and needs of the student population.
The focus on more “critical” information literacy and a more varied learning experience with
practical workshops will re-awaken the creative potential of students, enhancing their
graduate attributes. Strengths-based education will also enable teachers (as well as
professional staff in student support roles) to play to their own strengths and to manage
students according to their own. The ultimate goal is to empower students to stop being
risk-averse and encourage learners to experiment with ideas to arrive at new ways of
performing work in an increasingly digital economy.

Note
1. The Gallup StrengthsFinder measures the presence of 34 “talent themes” (strengths), i.e. the naturally
recurring patterns of thought, feeling or behaviour that each individual should be encouraged to apply
productively in everyday life. The more dominant a theme is in a person, the greater the theme’s impact
on that person’s behaviour and performance. The themes have unique names such as “learner”,
“positivity” or “maximiser”.
References Strengths-
Anderson, E.C. (2004), “What is strengths-based education? A tentative answer by someone who strives based
to be a strengths-based educator”, unpublished manuscript, available at: http://strengths.uark. approach
edu/documents/what-is-strengths-based-education.pdf (accessed 12 July 2016).
Angelo, T.A. and Cross, K.P. (1993), Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College
Teachers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 239
McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead.
Bruce, C.S. (2004), “Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: a background paper”, in
Danaher, P.A. (Ed.), Lifelong Learning: Whose Responsibility and What is Your Contribution?,
Proceedings from the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference, 13-16 June 2004,
Yeppoon.
Buchanan, H., Webb, K.K., Houk, A.H. and Tingelstad, C. (2015), “Curriculum mapping in academic
libraries”, New Review of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
Buckingham, M. and Clifton, D.O. (2005), Now, Discover Your Strengths: How to Develop Your Talents
and Those of the People You Manage, Pocket Books, London.
Carbery, A. and Leahy, S. (2016), “Are they learning? Building a longitudinal model of information
literacy assessment”, presented at LILAC (Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference),
21-23 March 21, University College, Dublin.
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987), “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education”, AAHE Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 1-6.
Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987), “Appreciative inquiry in organizational life”, in
Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development,
Vol. 1, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 129-169.
Critten, J. (2016), “Death of the author(ity): repositioning students as constructors of meaning in
information literacy instruction”, in McNicol, S. (Ed.), Critical Literacy for Information
Professionals, Facet Publishing, London, pp. 19-29.
Forster, M. (2016), “Developing an ‘experience framework’ for an evidence-based information literacy
educational intervention”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 306-320.
Healey, M. (2005), “Linking research and teaching: disciplinary spaces”, in Barnett, R. (Ed.), Reshaping
the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching, McGraw-Hill/
Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 30-42.
Heinström, J. and Sormunen, E. (2016), “Students’ collaborative enquiry: relation to approaches to
studying and instructional intervention”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 324-333.
Higher Education Academy (HEA) (2016), “Framework for transforming assessment in higher
education”, available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/transforming-
assessment-in-he.pdf (accessed 2 June 2016).
Jackson, Y. (2014), The Pedagogy of Confidence: Inspiring High Intellectual Performance in Urban
Schools, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Jefferson, C. (2016), “Business library resources: Jeopardy game”, presented at LILAC Lagadothon,
21-23 March 2016, University College, Dublin.
Ju, S., Zhang, D. and Pacha, J. (2012), “Employability skills valued by employers as important for
entry-level employees with and without disabilities”, Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, Vol. 35, pp. 29-38.
Kapp, K. (2014), “Gamification of learning”, available at: www.lynda.com/Higher-Education-tutorials/
Gamification-Learning/173211-2.html (accessed 20 April 2016).
RSR Krutkowski, S. (2014), “Developing creativity and innovation in education”, available at: www.
truevolunteer.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TVF-Developing-creativity-and-innovation-in-
45,2 Education.pdf (accessed 15 September 2016).
Lau-Bond, J. (2016), “Social justice, adult learning and critical literacy”, in McNicol, S. (Ed.), Critical
Literacy for Information Professionals, Facet Publishing, London, pp. 79-90.
Livingstone, I. (2016), “Valuable lessons learned”, FE Week, September, available at: http://feweek.co.
240 uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Technology-Supplement-2016.pdf (accessed 16 September
2016).
Lopez, S.J. and Louis, M.C. (2009), “The principles of strengths-based education”, Journal of College &
Character, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-8.
McNicol, S. (2016), “Introduction”, in McNicol, S. (Ed.), Critical Literacy for Information Professionals,
Facet Publishing, London, pp. 11-17.
Nelson, F. (2016), “Internships at the spectator for summer 2016: No CVs, please”, available at: http://
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/internships-at-the-spectator-for-summer-2016/ (accessed 23
March 2016).
Pavey, S. (2013), “Transition from school to higher education”, in Secker, J. and Coonan, E. (Eds),
Rethinking Information Literacy: A Practical Framework for Supporting Learning, Facet
Publishing, London, pp. 1-13.
Race, P. (2014), Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education, Sage Publications,
London.
Robinson, K. (2006), “Do schools kill creativity?” available at: www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_
schools_kill_creativity?language⫽en (accessed 20 July 2016).
Robinson, K. and Aronica, L. (2010), The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything,
Penguin, London.
Ryan, B. (2013), “A walk down the red carpet: students as producers of digital video-based knowledge”,
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 24-41.
Skelton, V. (2016), “Media literacy in the UK”, available at: www.infotoday.eu/Articles/News/Info
Today-Europe-Blog/Media-literacy-in-the-UK-110733.aspx (accessed 29 April 2016).
Sorenson, S. (2014), “How employees’ strengths make your company stronger”, available at: www.
gallup.com/businessjournal/167462/employees-strengths-company-stronger.aspx (accessed 19
August 2016).
Stone, G. and Ramsden, B. (2012), “Library impact data project: looking for the link between library
usage and student attainment”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 546-559.
Stubblefield, R., Snyder, S. and Soria, K. (2014), “Strengths at the U: building a strengths-based
undergraduate experience”, available at: www.dowhatmatters.umn.edu/sites/default/files/
Strengths%20Report%20Final%20Report%20August%202014%20(1).pdf (accessed 3 October
2016).
Vaizey, E. (2016), “Digital skills for the UK economy”, available at: www.gov.uk/government/
publications/digital-skills-for-the-uk-economy (accessed 17 May 2016).

Further reading
Mind Click (2016), “Learner vs Player [image/slide]”, available at: http://blog.mind-click.com/improving-
user-engagement-with-gamification (accessed 26 October 2016).
Appendix Strengths-
based
approach
Type of assessment Positive outcomes

Annotated bibliography
Wikis/Wikipedia edits
Instructables
PeerWise
Google Apps for education
Students carry out wider reading and learn how to summarise information
and reference their sources
Students add references to the online encyclopaedia to make it a more 241
reliable source of information.
Students learn how to publish information. Instructables is a place for
them to explore, document and share DIY creations. Other users can rate
and comment on the quality of uploaded projects.
Students actively engage with course content by creating course-related Table AI.
assessment questions, writing explanations, considering common Various assessment
misconceptions, and evaluating the quality of questions created by their types for co-curricular
classmates. activities
Students use collaborative online tools for group projects–they can share encompassing
documents, write and edit them with changes automatically stored in information literacy
Drive so everyone always has access to the latest version, organise virtual and fostering
meetings, etc. strengths development

Corresponding author
Sebastian Krutkowski can be contacted at: sebastian.krutkowski@gsmlondon.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.