Research Services Librarian
Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
Performing Arts & Humanities Librarian
Michael Schwartz Library, RT 110D
Cleveland State University
IIG PLANNING COMMITTEE
Jess Crossfield McIntosh
Reference Services Coordinator, Assistant Professor
Health Sciences Subject Librarian
First Year Experience Librarian
- October 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- March 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
IIG via Flickr
December 2017 M T W T F S S « Oct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
IIG Blog Topics
Online IL Instruction: Describing the Evolution of Instructional Librarianship by Paul Clayton Campbell
As an instructional librarian working at a non-residential campus, I find that more and more students opt for taking courses online instead of traditional, face-to-face courses. This trend is neither anything new nor is it limited to my campus. As a whole, higher education is in the midst of major growth in online course offerings. Moore (2011) refers to this growth as “The Great Migration” where courses that were once offered solely face-to-face are now being offered online (p. 21).
Data in higher education only offers further evidence of the growth in online course offerings. In their report, Allen and Seaman (2014) provided insight into the growth of online course offerings over the last decade. This report shows that the number of college students taking at least one online course has grown from 9.6% in the fall of 2002 to 33.5% in the fall of 2012 (p. 15). These data show that the movement toward online education in the context of higher education is not only growing by leaps and bounds but is here to stay (Merry & Newby, 2014, p.9).
Academic librarians should see these statistics as a way to further develop the library’s relevance to the larger academic mission of the institution they serve. Online course offerings should be seen by librarians as an opportunity for growth for information literacy (IL) instruction programs. Providing IL instruction for online courses just as we do for traditional face-to-face courses is the logical next step in the evolution of academic librarianship. As instructional librarians we need to serve our students where ever they might be and not expect that students will always come to us. Expecting that robust LibGuides are going to be sufficient to meet information needs of online students is no longer valid. Although LibGuides are a great tool for outlining library resources, they may not be effective at providing the instruction needed in order to use said resources effectively.
The Allen and Seaman report not only shows that overall online course offerings are increasing but schools with larger student populations will likely offer online courses (p. 14). From an instruction librarian’s point-of-view, this growth in online education should be seen as a golden opportunity to expand the library’s reach in serving all patrons.
Even with librarians scattered between the disciplines through the use of subject liaison responsibilities, it would be unrealistic for a single librarian to provide face-to-face IL instruction for all courses within their assigned subject areas. It would, however, be much more feasible for a liaison librarian to provide asynchronous (or even synchronous) information literacy instruction through the campus learning management system (LMS). I believe that serving online students should be incorporated into the current job descriptions of all librarians with instructional responsibilities. Serving online students, just as we do our face-to-face students, is simply just part of the changing nature of our profession. And we should welcome it.
Just as we do with other changes in our profession, there are challenges we have to face and overcome. For instance, Nichols Hess (2014) compared face-to-face versus online IL instruction in upper-level sociology undergraduates. She found that there was no measurable differences in student learning between the two delivery methods. However, she did find that students preferred the human connection in the face-to-face instruction while the online students more fully understood the importance of the library in regards to their research. Finding a solution to this catch-22 would go a long way in helping the library meet the needs of the increasing online courses.
Malone (2015) may have found a possible solution to this riddle. Malone recently published an article (2015) outlining his work in providing synchronous IL instruction through the campus LMS. Providing synchronous IL instruction not only provides the human connection that Nichols Hess wrote about but it also establishes a library presence in online courses. In Malone’s case, his campus uses Canvas as the LMS. Canvas offers live-video conferencing, Bigblutbotton, a feature that allows librarians to broadcast synchronous instruction for online courses. One downside is that scheduling a time for the librarian and the students to meet virtually can be difficult.
My institution, Ohio University, does not use Canvas, so the Bigbluebutton option is not available. However, Ohio University does use Blackboard where there are similar options available. I hope to go live in the spring 2016 with a pilot program for offering online asynchronous IL instruction utilizing the tools available through Blackboard.
Librarians at Ohio University have access to Blackboard in order to develop asynchronous learning modules that can easily be exported to any course within the system. Within the Content area of a shell course, I am able to develop a Learning Module that is catered to the assignment at hand. The Learning Module feature of Blackboard seems to work splendidly for online asynchronous IL instruction. Through the creation of short tutorials and small quizzes interwoven in the Learning Module, I am then able use the “Adaptive Release” functions of Blackboard in order to measure the progress of the student. After the Learning Module is created, it can be exported and uploaded to the course in Blackboard for which it was intended.
For example, only after students complete the initial quiz assessing their library research skills will the first tutorial appear. After watching this tutorial they then need to complete a quiz on the content from the tutorial. Only after students complete this quiz with an 80% or higher are they able to view the next tutorial. This can happen again and again. Students are unable to progress through the Blackboard Learning Module until they meet each of the requirements as set out by the librarian in the Adaptive Release settings.
As discussed above, the benefits of online synchronous IL instruction is the possibility for the important personal connection between the librarian and the student. However, one of the drawbacks is that it goes back to heavily taxing the time of the librarian in order to schedule several sessions for each course. There are some benefits of an asynchronous IL instruction. First, it is self-paced and the student is able to complete it at a time that best fits his or her schedule. Secondly, because of the many short quizzes throughout the Learning Module, the librarian is able to pull assessment data that would show how much learning is actually taking place as a result of this Learning Module.
There are distinct pros and cons in utilizing either type of instruction online: asynchronous or synchronous. The type of instruction to be used will depend on what online instructional tools are available to the librarian and what would work best with each specific course. Regardless of which type of instruction is utilized, the key victories in transitioning IL instruction to an online format are two-fold: 1). The library is able to meet the needs of the growing online student population. 2). A teaching partnership is formed between the librarian and the faculty member. In order for online IL instruction to be successful, the librarian and the faculty member need develop a partnership in seeking to integrate IL instruction as learning outcome of the individual course.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babsom Park, MA: Babson Survey Research. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Malone, D. (2015). Using synchronous video within a learning management system for library and information literacy instruction. Public Services Quarterly, 11(3), 208-216. doi:10.1080/15228959.2015.1060146.
Mery, Y., & Newby, J. (2014). Online by design: The essentials of creating information literacy courses. Lanham, Maryland.
Moore, D. (2011). Using collaborative online discussion effectively for teaching. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 1(4), 19-23.
Nichols Hess, A. (2014). Online and face-to-face library instruction: Assessing the impact on upper-level sociology undergraduates. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 132-147. doi:10.1080/01639269.2014.934122.
Paul Clayton Campbell is the instructional librarian at Ohio University Lancaster. His academic interests are with the relationship between instructional design and library instruction.
As librarians, teachers, and observers, we know students can often learn more effectively from peer instruction. They trust their fellow students and seek their knowledge and approval. Beyond using these support systems in the tutoring or mentor model, peer-to-peer teaching and group work can be extremely useful in the classroom. As part of a university-wide push at Otterbein to offer these peer interactions, I have employed different strategies in using peer instruction and group work in an Honors Thesis Writing class and a First Year Seminar class (FYS).
Much of the literature in this area supports the effectiveness of peer instruction. According to Bodemer (2014), “Even in a formalized classroom setting, the undergraduate session leader is more apt than librarians to use language understood by student participants” (p. 165). He has also specified many advantages to peers learning together, and in fact peer instruction is already being implemented throughout much of higher education.
Because of the exciting nature of the first semester of college, I felt as though the FYS course would be a good time to integrate this model. First-year students welcome every opportunity to network and meet new peers. In a library class session, it is important to leverage that excitement and gear it toward familiarizing new students with the library. For the FYS courses, I run a quasi-library scavenger hunt using Google Docs and LibGuides. The students are split into teams of two or three and have their own Google Doc to record their answers. Each team is directed to the LibGuide, which links out to their designated Google Doc (View example of group sheets in libguide). This takes the assignment off the paper and lets the students interact with one another. I purposely give no instruction prior to the class activity and encourage them to explore the website and see what they can find, offering my support along the way. When it comes to website navigation, millennials are generally tech savvy, and I find they are able to remember more of the information when they discover it on their own.
After the students are given ample time to explore the building and website as a group, we come back together to go over the answers. Instead of me giving the instruction, however, I have each group show their peers what they learned. Again, this takes the instruction out of my hands and lets the students teach one another. I have found this approach to be quite successful in the classroom, and faculty enjoy the interaction as well. Students are physically getting around the library and stretching their instruction skills as they are in the beginning stages of their college career. Additionally, Otterbein heavily pushes peer instruction and mentoring in multiple areas of the university, so I am integrating the university-supported model.
With the Juniors in my Honors classes, I follow a similar structure, but the assignment and instruction are different. These students have already visited me, so they are familiar with the library. They are split into five groups but instead of a scavenger hunt, each group is assigned a multi-disciplinary database. Because the class is made of up of students in every discipline, it is important to keep the research relevant to everyone. The students are given, via Google Docs, a group of questions about their database. As a group, the students explore and discuss various pros and cons about the databases, navigational differences, and general observations. Then they present their findings to the rest of the class. This includes live demonstrations of search strategies and key findings they discovered during their research. Similar to the FYS class, they receive little direction from me, which allows them to more effectively understand the process of using the database.
I’ve used these models and assignments multiples times in various courses, and every time I have received positive written and oral feedback from the students and faculty. I find the students welcome the active learning that takes place in a group setting and the way it varies from other library sessions. This instruction method continues to evolve as I work out different formats, but, overall, these methods have worked effectively and I will continue using the peer instruction/group model in the library instruction classroom.
Bodemer, B. B. (2014). They CAN and they SHOULD: Undergraduates providing peer reference and instruction. College & Research Libraries, 75(2), 162-178.
O’Kelly, M. A., Garrison, J., Merry, B., & Torreano, J. (2015). Building a peer-learning service for students in an academic library. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 15(1), 163-182. doi:10.1353/pla.2015.0000
Jessica Crossfield-McIntosh is the Reference Services Coordinator at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Like most people, I love stories. The longer and more complicated, the better. In the last year, nothing has grabbed my attention more than the riveting saga of the new Framework for Information Literacy. It has all the ingredients of a wonderful thriller, with the potential to change our professional lives in unsuspected ways.
I am a science librarian at Denison University, where I teach information literacy. Until three years ago, I was using the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education as the theoretical backbone for my classes. But that changed in 2012 when I learned about the pedagogical theory of threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003). My first contact with threshold concepts came through an article by Townsend, Brunetti, and Hofer (2011), which described how the theory could be applied to information literacy instruction. Truly enchanted by this new way of thinking, I moved from standards to concepts and never looked back. Since most professors at my institution care deeply about pedagogy, adding a discussion about educational theory really enriched our meetings.
The release of the first draft of the Framework in 2014 provided the backup I needed to show faculty that this change in vision was not a fad. Immediately I contacted some of the major stakeholders in pedagogy on campus and set up appointments to talk about the draft. I brazenly told them I was convinced the Framework contained the kernel of what would be the future of information literacy and that we had to work together to be ready for the change. The result of those conversations was a 90-minute-long faculty workshop in September of 2014, organized by the library with the support of several other groups on campus.
The workshop was titled “A Roadmap to Better Class Assignments: Helping Students Understand the New Information Ecosystem” (Fig. 1), and it was led by Professors James Craig Gibson and Karen Diaz from the Ohio State University Libraries. Participants included faculty from all divisions of the college and librarians from three nearby institutions. Readings included the second draft of the Framework and an article by Alison J. Head (2013), Director of Project Information Literacy, describing the information-seeking behavior of college students. In addition, participants were asked to bring an assignment dealing with some aspect of information literacy that they would like to improve. After a short introduction to the Framework by Professor Gibson and to Bloom’s Taxonomy – a classification system that describes the different cognitive steps involved in learning – by Professor Diaz, attendees worked in groups to incorporate the new concepts in their exercises. Each group reported on its experience to the entire audience at the end, followed by some time for Q&A with the presenters.
Since the workshop, several professors have reported discussing the new information literacy concepts with their classes, while others have mentioned the usefulness of learning about threshold concepts and Bloom’s Taxonomy in general. This suggests that a small, but important, shift is happening in some of our professors’ perception: information literacy is not the library’s sole responsibility anymore; it has become a common project. To support faculty interested in learning about information literacy, a new Libguides page with links to different resources related to the Framework was added recently to our Information Literacy Faculty Toolkit.
My main purpose in organizing the workshop was to give faculty the chance to read the Framework and to think about it. I wanted professors to realize that our understanding of information literacy is ever changing, and I wanted them to join the process. At the time, it did not cross my mind to wait for the final, approved iteration of the Framework – released in February of 2015. I was comfortable bestowing upon them the unrefined version of the story in all its rich and intricate detail. I did it because I believe that librarian’s evolving relationship with information literacy is a complicated and interesting saga that deserves to be told and shared widely, most of all with faculty. Some of them genuinely like it.
Head, A. J. (2013). Project Information Literacy: What can be learned about information-seeking behavior of today’s college students? ACRL 2013 Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Head_Project.pdf
Meyer, J., and Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines. Edinburgh: ETL Project Occasional Report 4. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf
Townsend, L., Brunetti, K., and Hofer, A. R. (2011). Threshold concepts and information literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(3), 853-869. Retrieved from http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/7417
Moriana M. Garcia is Natural Sciences Liaison Librarian at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. Email: email@example.com
Just like the intro to RadioLab, I sometimes find myself having a similar internal dialog right before I step into my library instruction room. I have done library instruction for what seems like a million times and I have learned that this uneasy feeling seems to be tied to when I try something new in my instruction. Let’s face it, change is scary.
Jad Abumrad, in his keynote at ACRL 2015, spoke eloquently on how we all go through a proverbial “…dark German forest” in search of our own intellectual and professional voices. Further, he made the point that we need to learn to “…embrace the gut-churn” feeling that accompanies the time we spend in that German forest. My own interpretation of Abumrad’s keynote is that the dark German forest is an allegory for the inevitable change in life, while the gut-churn feeling is our initial reaction to that change. Each time I modify my instruction and try something new is when I experience that gut-churning feeling.
I remember a class I taught several years ago when I was fresh out of library school. I allowed myself to believe that my newly minted MLIS inoculated me against having to fully prepare myself to try some new learning activities in my instruction. Because I did not plan out how I was going to integrate these new activities into my session, I jumped around in my lecture with no logical transition while trying to fit—or cram—these activities into my instruction. The amount of confusion on the students’ faces only increased as the session continued. I was deep, I mean, DEEP in the forest.
I spent some time picking up the pieces of what was previously my ego. I tried to figure out how it was possible that the students were not understanding something that was so obvious to me. I soon realized that just because I was an expert in library research didn’t mean that I was effective at translating my expertise into student understanding of the subject. Being an expert in a particular field and being able to educate others are two different skills.
We can all trade stories of our experiences in a library instruction session and being deep in the forest. I am convinced that most negative instructional experiences stem from a common origin: there was no instructional design used for the library instruction session. Incorporating instructional design (ID) into library instruction serves as an effective roadmap out of the forest. It provides a method of communicating our expertise in a way that is more accessible for students. ID also supports librarians’ tendency to search for continual improvement, allowing us to develop our talents while acknowledging our weaknesses.
There are many different instructional design models, but they all are rooted in the same basic principle of continuous evaluation and improvement of instruction. The ID model that I regularly use, and highly recommend, is called ADDIE. The name is an acronym for each step of the design model: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. I appreciate ADDIE because it has stood the test of time and is one of the most versatile (Molenda, 2003).
Using ADDIE encourages the librarian to place deliberate thought into each phase of the model in the preparation of library instruction. I say deliberate because ADDIE allows the librarian to break up a daunting task into several smaller more manageable tasks. Focusing on each step of ADDIE increases the likelihood that the newly developed library instruction will directly address the students’ information gaps. In their book, Academic Librarianship by Design: A Blended Librarian’s Guide to the Tools and Techniques, Bell and Shank provide a simple definition of each element of ADDIE (2007, p. 43):
Analysis: the process of defining what is to be learned.
Design: the process of specifying how it is to be learned.
Development: the process of authoring and producing learning materials.
Implementation: the process of installing the instruction product in a real-world context.
Evaluation: the process of determining the impact of the instruction.
When a faculty member approaches me seeking out library instruction I use the ADDIE model to cater my instruction to the needs of that course. The following is an abbreviated version of how I develop a library instruction session using ADDIE.
- Create learning outcomes for the instruction session.
- Is this course freshman English or senior capstone?
- How much basic instruction do I need to provide?
- Is this course online or traditional?
- Is the location of the instruction going to be a computer lab or standard classroom?
- What learning activities and learning objects do I need to design?
- What assessment tool am I going to use?
- Develop learning activities and learning objects that align with the session’s learning objectives.
- For an online course I will need to produce short videos.
- For a traditional course I will need to create a LibGuide to teach from and/or a PowerPoint.
- NOTE: this phase of ADDIE is time-consuming.
- Final touch-ups with what has already been created. Print out any handouts.
- This is the GO LIVE stage. So, basically, this is where you have the gut-churn feeling and the internal dialog quoted at the beginning of this blog post.
- Analyze the results from the student assessment tool.
- Interview the course instructor to evaluate how the session went from their perspective.
- Immediately after a session I spend some time thinking about how I felt the session went and make notes on what worked and what did not.
Using ADDIE has played a vital role in helping me confront my professional requirement of continually developing and broadening my skills in order to meet the information literacy needs of the current students I serve. It also helps me confront the reality that what works for library instruction today may no longer be relevant to the information gaps future college students will experience.
Undoubtedly, instructional librarians need to embrace the gut-churn and venture into the dark forest with trying out different pedagogies, experimenting with new instructional technologies, and, especially, figuring out how to integrate the newly released Framework for Information Literacy (ARCL, 2015) into our instruction. We have no control over what changes the future holds, but we do have control over our reaction to it. Through the effective use of ID, instructional librarians are able to embrace the gut-churn and see it as source of empowerment that encourages us to grow intellectually and professionally.
Abumrad, J. (2015, March 26). Excerpt from Keynote – Jad Abumrad [Online video]. ACRL 2015. Retrieved from http://acrl.learningtimesevents.org/keynote-abumrad/
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015, February 2). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic Librarianship by Design: A Blended Librarian’s Guide to the Tools and Techniques. Chicago, Il: American Library Association.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-36. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4930420508
Paul Clayton Campbell is the instructional librarian at Ohio University Lancaster. His academic interests are with the relationship between instructional design and library instruction. He is currently working on a second master’s degree in education.
As the primary instructor for a semester-long credit course called Information in the Digital Age, I recently had the opportunity to facilitate an ebook project that incorporates HTML coding and file conversion alongside traditional research methods. Students worked both independently and in groups to research, write, and create ebooks on technology-related topics, such as online privacy, digital journalism, and eGaming. The broad-based assignment reflects at least two of the anchoring concepts associated with the new ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Framework), namely Scholarship as Conversation and Information Creation as Process.
My colleague Elias Tzoc, from the Center for Digital Scholarship (CDS), developed the assignment in 2014 to expose students to one of the new trends in digital publishing. The new assignment was inspired after the CDS team assisted a Miami University faculty in publishing an open access ebook. Students gained experience with the information lifecycle from book conception to publication. The assignment, which spanned 1½ months, involved multiple steps of both independent and group work and also included the following deliverables:
- an annotated bibliography,
- a research paper that represented one book chapter,
- a web-based version of the book chapter as an HTML file,
- a compiled ebook, and
- an embedded video as ebook trailer.
Our broad-based ebook assignment covered a range of skills, including research, writing, HTML coding, ebook conversion, and video creation. As mentioned, the project also included a good deal of group work. Sellitto (2010) writes that “group-work is an important educational activity that introduces students to team-orientated [sic] and collaborative practices—practices that are generally encountered in the general workplace” (p. 375).
In brief, each group of students began the ebook project by consulting with each other on how to write about their technology-related theme. The first phase of the assignment encouraged students to explore their individual interests as they divvied up subtopics and sketched out the overall structure of the book. Each student came away from the initial group meeting with a general scope for their independent research and then worked to develop an annotated bibliography as their first project deliverable.
The annotated bibliography in turn guided them in writing chapters for their ebooks. Once each student had written their stand-alone chapter, they used Dreamweaver to transfer the content into an HTML template, which was set up in advance by the instructors. To support the ebook format and functionality, the HTML template included <a href> tags so that students could link the sources in their reference list as needed and an MP4 file placeholder for embedding an ebook trailer video.
Each group then chose a “book assembler” to gather and organize their individual HTML files based on the chapter sequence in the ebook. The book assembler used an open resource called Calibre, discussed in a later section, to generate the ebook.
Reflecting the Framework
Excited by the scope of the project, I took inventory of what skills (known as “information literate abilities” in the Framework) students would be acquiring:
- The annotated bibliography assignment supports students’ abilities to “value the process of matching an information need with an appropriate product” insofar as they identify authoritative sources that demonstrate the scope of their topics. Next, they critique as well as summarize the sources. They also discuss the relevance of these sources for the reader.
- By adapting the annotated bibliography into the new form of a book chapter students can “accept that the creation of information may begin initially through communicating in a range of formats or modes,” not to mention the hands-on conversion of text-based documents into web-based files.
- Working collaboratively as a group to craft dovetailing chapters, students are encouraged to “recognize that scholarly conversations take place in various venues”. In this way, students both consume the formal research of scholars writing in the field and generate their own research-oriented dialogue among peers.
Calibre, an Open Educational Resource (OER)
Students completed the final phase of the project using an open source web tool called Calibre, which includes an ebook conversion feature among other “ebook library management” capabilities. Basically, students manually converted their book chapters from text files to HTML files. A designated book assembler from each group then compiled the HTML files and used Calibre to automatically generate an ePub file that could be read online as an ebook.
According to Shank (2014), “The tremendous proliferation of online learning materials has been concurrent with the growth of open educational resources (OERs), which include all types of learning materials that are licensed to be freely available for educational, nonprofit use” (p. 5). The challenge for educators lies in creatively integrating these OERs into an information literacy curriculum. In this case, a librarian with a pedagogical bent teamed up with a technology librarian to achieve successful results!
As part of the grading process, I asked students to complete a self-evaluation and an evaluation of their individual group members. Criteria were very general, gauging levels of effort and inviting open-ended comments. While a few students might have inflated the grades for their group members, the majority seemed to honestly assess their peers based on effort, organizational skills, and attitude. In reality, the project included much independent work requiring that each student pull his or her own weight.
In an anonymous survey administered at the end of the year, several students identified the multi-faceted ebook project as their favorite assignment for the course:
- “ebook was very fun to do and create and finally see the final product.”
- “ebook: learning how to code in HTML.”
- “ebook and video. It showed how well a group can work together and we all did a solid job of contributing.”
A handful of students who were less thrilled with the assignment wrote the following critiques:
- “I disliked the ebook: it was much more work than the other projects and working with HTML code is not my strong suit.”
- “The ebook. There were just a lot of components to it, and I felt bad that I could only help the group so much because I have zero experience with video editing, etc.”
In addressing the student critiques listed in the previous section, I would say that the purpose of this culminating project was to provide a scenario where students would apply information literacy skills in a practical, iterative way. Students had plenty of in-class time and guidance to work on the project—one student called for more in-class work time—which really lent itself to a workshop format. Students shared their completed projects with the class and briefly addressed the instructor’s general questions about project challenges or successes; however, the project might benefit from assigning a metacognitive component where students keep a project log or diary (Sellitto, 2010, p. 383).
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015, February 2). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Sellitto, C. (2010). A reflection on educator management practices associated with university undergraduate group-work projects. International Journal Of Learning, 17(1), 375-386. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51264487&site=eds-live
Shank, J.D. (2014). Interactive open educational resources: A guide to finding, choosing, and using what’s out there to transform college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kate Lucey is education librarian at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Her professional interests include teaching with technology and instructional design. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
At the ALAO Instruction Interest Group Spring 2015 Workshop, “Making Connections: Embedding Information Literacy across Your Curriculum, participants connected to strategies and tools to help them build partnerships at their own institutions.
Dr. Joe Salem, Associate Dean for Learning, Undergraduate Services and Commonwealth Campus Libraries for the University Libraries at Penn State University, highlighted approaches for librarians to best share their story and articulate what librarians can bring to the table in his talk on “Lifelong Partnerships for Lifelong Learning.” During an interactive segment, Dr. Salem encouraged librarians to pinpoint opportunities and curricular problems and align strengths with possible third party partners. When visiting departments and reaching out to faculty, librarians should avoid “turf” and instead focus on student learning and outcomes.
During the afternoon session, “Get the Party Started: Campus Collaborations that Support Information Literacy Initiatives,” Ann Marie Smeraldi, Head of Library Teaching and Learning Services at Cleveland State University, provided tools for librarians to explore possible collaborations. Librarians should think about the current situation at their library and institution, what is happening around them, what they want to create, what is important for their library to do now, and how they will get there. Smeraldi also encouraged librarians reflect on where their goals intersect with campus partners and what issues the library can solve for their partners. Participants were given worksheets to help them identify library assets, target populations, current and potential partners, and campus partner needs and solutions.
The ALAO Instruction Interest Group would like to thank Joe Salem and Ann Marie Smeraldi for sharing their own experiences and knowledge. Thanks also to all of our workshop’s attendees. We hope you will be able to use the insights you gained from the workshop at your own institutions.
Library Coordinator, Columbus State Community College