Engagement and assessment in a credit-bearing information literacy course.

Engagement and assessment in acredit-bearing information

literacy courseJennifer Mayer and Melissa Bowles-Terry

Research and Instruction, University of Wyoming Libraries, Laramie,Wyoming, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The authors teach a three-credit, upper-division, information literacy (IL) course tostudents in various majors. The purpose of this paper is to share the various philosophies andactivities the authors use to engage their students and create a cohesive interdisciplinary course and todescribe the various assessment tools utilized.

Design/methodology/approach – In this case study, the authors give specific examples ofengaging assignments and methods for evaluating student work in a credit-bearing IL course.

Findings – It is found that if students are engaged, and effective assessment tools are employed,library credit instruction in a face-to-face setting with upper-classmen from diverse majors is animpactful way to teach IL.

Practical implications – This article provides ideas on how to use a topical theme in teaching aninterdisciplinary IL credit course; concrete approaches on engaging students in an IL course; and newstrategies for assessing an IL credit-bearing course. Many of the engagement and assessment methodsthe authors share may also be applied to one-shot instruction sessions.

Originality/value – The paper provides a practical case study of the authors’ experiences engagingstudents and assessing their work in an upper level, three-credit, face-to-face class, a type of course notwell represented in the information literacy literature at this point in time.

Keywords Universities, Curricula, University libraries, Librarians, Information literacy,3.0 credit course, Credit-bearing instruction, Upper-level, Interdisciplinary, Student engagement,Assessment, Teaching librarians

Paper type Case study

IntroductionAs librarians offer an increasing number of information literacy (IL) credit courses anddevelop a more significant teaching role, the breadth of courses they teach may expandfrom the traditional freshman-level introductory course. This paper offers a case studyof one such course at the University of Wyoming (UW), with a particular focus onengaging students in the learning process and assessing learning throughout thecourse. The authors provide the context for an upper-level 3-credit IL course, anoverview of the course and its learning objectives, the driving principles for the course,specific examples of how students are engaged, and information about courseassessment. The authors’ reflections and possible future directions conclude the article.The rationale for creating and offering this course is that it reaches students at a timein their academic career when they are required to conduct in-depth research in theirdiscipline. Evidence of engagement is provided from formal assessments and theauthors share their observations as instructors, since not every aspect of studentengagement is strictly measurable.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm

RSR41,1

62

Received 12 July 2012Revised 19 September 201225 September 2012Accepted 6 October 2012

Reference Services ReviewVol. 41 No. 1, 2013pp. 62-79q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0090-7324DOI 10.1108/00907321311300884

BackgroundThe University of Wyoming Libraries’ Research and Instruction department decided toteach a credit-bearing IL class in 2007. Two librarians developed a one-credit, online,upper-level research class titled “Research from a Distance” (LBRY 3010), and anotherpair of librarians developed a three-credit, face-to-face, upper-level class called“Managing and Navigating the World of Information”(LBRY 3020). The focus of thispaper is LBRY 3020, the three-credit course.

This course ties to the university’s general education plan called the UniversityStudies Program (USP), which was instated in 2003. The USP has variousrequirements, including an information literacy requirement intended to meet researchinstruction needs in an in-depth way. One research and instruction librarian was acommittee member during the creation of USP, and she was instrumental in creatingbuy-in for the information literacy requirement on the campus. Currently, there aredifferent ways UW students may achieve their information literacy requirement; formany students, the IL class is embedded within their major and involves one or morevisits to the library for instruction within their discipline. The information literacydesignation is usually tied to a freshman-level course. The main rationale for librariansto develop and teach credit-bearing IL classes was to further reach students wherethere was a need for upper-level instruction. Instruction statistics at our library showthat IL instruction sessions skew to lower-level classes, with nearly 50 percent ofone-shot instruction sessions offered at the freshman level. Students in upper-divisionclasses are in greater need of in-depth library instruction, since they are more likely tobe required to conduct research and write or present more than first-year students.

The upper-level credit-bearing IL classes meet a particular general education need fortransfer students (a population that can be difficult to reach), those students who did nottake an IL course in their subject major, students inclined to continue with graduate school,or those who want a more thorough grounding in IL principles. Recent research atUniversity of Wyoming shows a correlation between students who have libraryinstruction in upper-division courses and higher grade point averages (GPA) at graduation(Bowles-Terry, 2012). Offering library instruction to upper-division students meets both apractical need for students who did not address the information literacy requirement earlyin their college careers. The authors have recently ascertained that it makes goodpedagogical sense based on their analysis of student success related to library instruction.

The librarian-developed classes, LBRY 3010 and LBRY 3020, underwent the usualcommittee approval process for all new general education courses. The course prefix,LBRY, was important since these were librarian-developed courses, taught bylibrarians in the library. The registrar approved the prefix, and in spring 2008, bothLBRY 3010 and 3020 were offered for the first time.

In 2009, the LBRY 3020 course underwent a major revision. The revision moved thecourse from discrete resource-based individual class sessions to focus on inquiry-basedlearning, defined as a “student-centered, active learning approach focused onquestioning, critical thinking, and problem solving” (Lowry and Turner, 2005, p. 191).In the revised class, students choose the thematic focus for the course and many of thecourse readings, and they work independently throughout the semester on a researchproject. The revamped course was offered for the first time in spring 2010, and wasteam-taught in both spring 2011 and spring 2012 by the authors. The 2012 UW coursecatalog description reads: “LBRY 3020 prepares students to be knowledgeable

Credit-bearing ILcourse

63

consumers of information in our global, high-tech society. Skills taught enable studentsto locate and manage information resources, preparing them for university levelresearch and life after graduation” (http://www.uwyo.edu/registrar/university_catalog/lbry.html). The pre-requisite to enroll in LBRY 3020 is completion of afreshman-level English composition class.

Literature reviewHow does LBRY 3020 stand apart in the context of the published literature oncredit-bearing IL courses? Our students are juniors and seniors and have a disciplinaryidentity when they come to our three-credit, face-to-face, class. A search of informationliteracy instruction scholarship generally reveals a focus on lower-division, one-credit,and online courses. The authors did not locate any professional literature focused onengaging and assessing students in an upper-level, face-to-face IL course. There arearticles related to credit IL classes and to elements of our teaching approach, and thosearticles are included here. An early article (Dennis, 1990) describes a three-creditinformation literacy class offered via the Interdisciplinary Studies Department in 1989at Salem State College, which focused on specific tools and various databases at thetime. The author mentions using curricular outlines and prophetically concludes withthe question, “Will academic librarians envision a role for their instruction programs inteaching students how to use information and not just how to retrieve it?” Jacobson andXu’s article “Motivating Students in Credit-Based Information Literacy Courses:Theories and Practice,” provides some strategies for engagement in a one-credit ILcourse, specifically using Keller’s ARCS Motivation Model ( Jacobson and Xu, 2002).

The more recent literature – 2006 and forward – reveals increased publicationactivity regarding IL credit courses. An article in a 2011 issue of Reference and UserServices Quarterly entertains the notion of what an interdisciplinary,information-seeking skills course would look like for graduate students (O’ Connorand Newby, 2011). Margaret Burke recently surveyed academic librarian colleaguesabout their involvement in credit-bearing courses (Burke, 2011), and while there werevery few responses to the survey, not many of the librarians who responded teachclasses focused on upper-level students. Jennifer Sharkey writes about teaching criticalthinking and multimedia skills in a one-credit, freshman IL course (Sharkey, 2006).Finally, Davis, Lundstrom and Martin gauge academic librarians’ perceptions ofvarious teaching models and find there is support, although not overwhelming, forcredit IL instruction by librarians (Davis et al., 2011). Our literature review indicatesthat information on credit-bearing IL classes focused on upper-division students islacking, possibly due to the fact that not many such classes are being taught. We seekto fill that gap in the literature by sharing our own experiences teaching anupper-division class with grounding in inquiry-based learning.

Overview of course and learning outcomesThe course outcomes for LBRY 3020 are based on Association of College and ResearchLibraries’ (ACRL’s) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education(www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency).

The course outcomes include:. Students will be able to locate, evaluate, and use information appropriately.. Students will be knowledgeable users of library and information resources.

RSR41,1

64

. Students will use information as a commodity by completing exercises to findand evaluate information and to manage and manipulate it for a targeted goal.

. Students will become information literate learners, able to integrate technologyskills and information literacy skills.

. Students will demonstrate an understanding of ethical issues such as plagiarism,copyright, and intellectual freedom.

All information literacy classes (both one-shot sessions and credit-bearing courses) atUniversity of Wyoming share these learning outcomes, but they are met and assessedin different ways from class to class. In LBRY 3020, librarians work with students tomeet these goals primarily through working on a research project that culminates in apresentation and a paper. Students choose their own focused topic for the researchproject based on our class theme.

“Managing and Navigating the World of Information” is a three-credit class thatmeets twice a week. Registration for the course is capped at 24 students, and the classmeets in a flexible classroom set-up where students usually sit in groups. The course isorganized around several units of study that are supported by an online tutorial calledTutorial for Information Power, or TIP, (http://tip.uwyo.edu/info_overload.html) andan online textbook, The Elements of Library Research by Mary George (2008). Unitscovered consist of:

. Investigating: an introduction to research as inquiry.

. Searching for information: strategies and tools for discovery.

. Locating information: the fine art of finding sources.

. Evaluating information: insight, argument and beyond.

. Using information: integrating research in your writing & ethics of informationuse.

. Accessing information after graduation and on the job.

For most units, students complete an online module of the Tutorial for InformationPower (TIP), read a chapter from The Elements of Library Research, and completeassigned activities in and out of class.

The tutorial that students complete through the course, TIP, was created by UWlibrarians for use in all information literacy classes at the university and it is includedin ACRL’s Peer-Reviewed Instructional Materials Online (PRIMO) database of qualityinstructional tools. The tutorial is organized in modules with a 50-question quiz at theend. The tutorial and the course units all introduce parts of the research process, andthe various parts are framed as a contribution to the end goal of the course, which is forstudents to produce some new knowledge on a topic of interest in the form of a researchpaper and a related presentation.

The textbook The Elements of Library Research was chosen because it has apractical focus to guide students through the research process. We also find the toneaccessible for students, but not condescending. It is brief and fairly easy to read, and itis affordable. Many of our students have given the book very positive reviews,expressing a wish that they had read the book earlier in their college careers. A major


65

strength of the textbook is that it focuses on and successfully teaches research conceptsrather than specific tools, which gives it ongoing relevance.

The syllabus for the course is an evolving document throughout the semester, sincestudents choose the thematic area of inquiry for the course and help to select coursereadings (see Appendix 1, Figure A1, Table AI). A wiki or a LibGuide (http://libguides.uwyo.edu/LBRY3020) is used to share the syllabus and other course materials. Onlinetools are used to share course materials because the focus of the course is chosen bystudents during the first two weeks of class, underscoring the need for a collaborativespace to discuss the focus of the class and for students to post potential class readings.

Student engagementActive learning and participation are guiding principles for LBRY 3020. In a 2010Communication and Education article, the author describes the importance of classparticipation. She lists benefits of student participation, including more engagement inhigher critical thinking (interpretation, analysis, and synthesis of ideas), andimprovement of communication skills (Rocca, 2010, p. 188). We engage our studentsand encourage active student participation in a variety of ways, including thearrangement of the physical space, implementing a course theme, conductingdiscussions, and incorporating active learning and reflective writing exercises.

The physical layout of the room has a positive impact on the interaction level of thestudents. Librarians teach in one of the library’s classrooms with moveable tables,chairs and laptops. Students sit at tables in groups of three or four individuals, whichmakes it easy for them to work together on the various group activities assigned.

Since students come from a variety of disciplines, class cohesion is an importantconsideration. In order to give students ownership over the class, they are allowed tochoose the area of inquiry for the class. Students are given a few overarching themes tochoose from, and after some discussion, they vote to determine the theme for thesemester. Examples include foodways, social impacts of technology, social justice,education, and popular culture. Students are encouraged to discover how the coursetheme might relate to their major area of study and use that connection as a focus intheir work for the class, particularly the final presentation and paper. The theme is tiedto class discussion, and at times, students raise issues for discussion beyond the coursereadings. For example, KONY 2012 (a social media call to action against alleged warlord Joseph Kony, targeted to college students) was an excellent topic for debate andcritical thinking among our class members in spring 2012, when the course theme wassocial justice.

Discussion and participation are heavily weighted, and count for 40 percent of thefinal grade. Both verbal participation and exercise completion count toward studentparticipation. Discussion begins early in the semester to set that norm for the class.Students are responsible for finding, evaluating, and sharing the common readingsrelated to the theme. Students search and select journal articles for discussion andprovide related discussion questions. One of the instructors leads the discussion, andstudent-provided discussion questions and open-ended prompts are used to keep thedialog going. We also have students read and discuss chapters from the text TheElements of Research. An effective strategy to keep students engaged in the chapterdiscussions is to give the students the discussion questions ahead of time, and thenhave them bring their answers to class. Instructors have found that students are more

RSR41,1

66

likely to participate with their “cheat sheets” in hand; this also provides evidence thatstudents have completed the reading. The instructors have discovered that heavilyweighting participation, starting discussion early in the semester, and giving studentsownership of some of the class discussion questions, prepares students for a morethoughtful discussion.

LBRY 3020 features an active learning exercise in nearly every class meeting. Forexample, students are sent out in teams with iPads and an assignment to complete anethnography of one floor of the library. Students are asked to come back and report onthe terrain, how people use the space, what services are offered, and to complete a map.This introduces students to parts of the library they many never have used and toformats like microfiche that they have not seen before. Another example is the use ofpopular movies to illustrate information literacy ideas: a clip from High Fidelity to talkabout classification systems and organization and a clip from the horror film The Ringto observe and comment on a research process. The article, “It came from Hollywood:using popular media to enhance information literacy instruction” contains these andother related ideas on incorporating media into library instruction (Peterson, 2010).Students find the film clips engaging and they are used as a jumping-off point fordiscussion of information literacy concepts.

Another active learning approach used to engage students later in the semesterwhen talking about information ethics, is to have students do some political factchecking using resources they learned about through the course – especially timely inan election year. Students are asked to find examples of famous plagiarism orcopyright lawsuits on YouTube. These activities are both fun and informative, asstudents learn firsthand about the use and misuse of information and uncovermisdeeds. Some of the active learning exercises are inspired by The Library InstructionCookbook, (Sittler and Cook, 2009), a useful resource for lesson planning. In addition togroup work and work in pairs, students occasionally complete exercises on anindividual basis. These exercises mostly relate to technology tools – for example,students set up Refworks accounts and learn to edit Wikipedia.

Some active learning exercises are tied directly to their field of study. “Managingand navigating the world of information” serves students from all majors who need theinformation literacy credit for general education, and so it is by necessity aninterdisciplinary course. In spring 2012 we had students majoring in accounting, art,criminal justice, English, nursing, physics, psychology, and more. Taking into accountthis wide array of student interests, strategies were developed to keep students fromvarious majors engaged and to serve their divergent information literacy needs. Forexample, students get into groups by related majors, and write about what researchlooks like in their field and how it is disseminated. They then share that informationwith their classmates. Another discipline-specific exercise is to have the students find acall number range related to their major, write it down, and then organize themselvesin front of the classroom in Library of Congress classification order.

Mini lectures (topics include finding and using images, primary sources, andwriting) and guest speakers (topics include copyright, government information, andrare books) are used sparingly and effectively. Mini lectures are a maximum of twentyminutes, and generally serve as a starting point for a discussion or hands-on exercise.Each semester the class takes one class field trip to visit an archive and a rare bookslibrary at the point when they are discussing primary sources.


67

Finally, reflective writing is utilized as a tactic to engage our multidisciplinarystudents. Students occasionally respond in writing to short, in-class reflective prompts– some questions they answer include:

. What was a research project in which you succeeded?

. What are your research hang-ups?

. How will you manage your research this semester?

. How do you define information literacy? (Asked both early and later in thesemester).

. What went well and what did not with your paper?

As students complete these various types of active learning exercises, they earn pointsand receive feedback. Awarding points for the exercises provides students withmotivation to keep up and attend class, and seeing their work regularly throughout thesemester provides the instructors with numerous assessment opportunities.

Assessment and evaluationsAfter teaching LBRY 3020 for two semesters, our observations indicate that most ofthe students are engaged in the class based on the high levels of discussion input andlearning activity participation. Many of the active learning exercises described abovealso contribute to the assessment of student learning in the class. Other, more formal,assessments of students are also conducted.

Formative assessmentOne of the main assessment methods is observing student participation in discussionand activities in class. The instructors are usually able to find out if students havecompleted assigned reading and assignments by observing small group discussions orasking for in-class responses to reading questions. In every class period the instructorsalso give students at least one activity to complete, which offers an opportunity to seetheir thought processes and their understanding of concepts learned and practiced.Also, after each module of the TIP online tutorial has been completed, an in-class quickcheck and discussion are done to make sure students understood what they read andthe exercises they completed. Attendance and participation count for 40 percent of thefinal grade, and students’ points are maintained in a spreadsheet each semester;students usually earn two points for coming to class and two points for speaking indiscussion or turning in the exercise or reflective writing assignment for the day. It ishelpful to have two instructors to keep track of who has participated.

Together, the research paper and research presentation assigned in the classaccount for 40 percent of each student’s final grade, so instructors feel it is important tooffer as much support as possible to help students succeed in those two assignments.The paper should be five-to-six-pages and the presentation is 7-10 minutes. Theinstructors plan one-on-one conferences with each student around the middle of thesemester and require that students submit a paper draft in advance. In-depth feedbackon drafts is provided, as is coaching for revision and completion of the assignments.These conferences provide another informal opportunity for instructors to see howstudents are learning and progressing in the class. Rubrics are used to assess finalpapers and presentations, and students have access to the rubrics all semester (through

RSR41,1

68

a wiki or a LibGuide) (see Appendix 2, Tables AII-AIII). The rubrics were initiallydeveloped with student input, and using them in a systematic way has made gradingboth quicker and fairer. The rubrics provide transparency for how grades arecomputed and allow for student buy-in. The final assignment that students completeprovides one last look at what they learned over the course of the semester. Afterobserving the presentations of their peers, students are asked to write a synthesisessay in which they must bring together at least two major themes of the classpresentations and reflect on what they learned about the topic. These brief, one-pageessays are valuable to the instructors, and hopefully helpful for students as theysynthesize new information they have gained in the class.

Summative assessmentStudents are given the same pre- and post-test at the beginning and end of each semester.This provides a “big picture” view of how well students meet the learning outcomes ofeach class and how their knowledge changes from the beginning of the semester to theend. The pre- and post-tests have ten multiple-choice questions, each tied to a specificACRL information literacy standard, and five additional confidence questions. Positiveresults on the pre- and post-test were evidenced in both 2011 and 2012: student scoresincreased 8 percent over the course of the semester in 2011 and increased 13 percent in2012. This demonstrates that students’ knowledge and confidence improved.

Student course evaluationsStudents are asked to complete a voluntary midterm evaluation of the course so theinstructors can make corrections midstream if there seems to be a problem.

A few open-ended questions are asked:. What is going well for you in this course so far?. What class activities do you find most useful? Why? How could class time be

best used?. What is not going so well for you in class? How could the class be improved?

Students are asked to submit this evaluation anonymously and the instructors findthat the midterm evaluation is a useful corollary to the required end of semesterevaluation, because it more directly affects the students in the course when we receivefeedback before they leave the class. Several students let the instructors know in themidterm evaluation that due dates were not always clear to them. As a result, those duedates were clarified in the second half of the semester. Instructors were happy to notethat there was also some consensus on positive aspects of the class: studentscommented positively on the class environment, instructor approachability, andreported that they were developing better research skills and greater awareness ofavailable resources.

Students in the class are asked to complete an online end-of-semester evaluationthat is administered throughout several of the colleges at University of Wyoming. Inthe evaluation, students are asked 22 questions and respond on a Likert scale.Questions include items such as instructor preparation and knowledge,appropriateness of workload, and other similar topics. Students also respond to twoopen-ended questions:


69

(1) please comment on your instructor’s effectiveness; and

(2) please comment on the course content and materials.

Instructors find that students offer less feedback on the end-of-semester evaluations,perhaps because they no longer have a stake in improving the class, and while theseofficial evaluations are important for the instructors’ professional portfolios andprovide some ideas for course improvement, they actually provide less information forimproving teaching than the evaluations that are completed mid-semester.

Reflections and future directionsInstructors have found that students in “Managing and navigating the world ofinformation” tend to form close friendships over the course of the semester, which islikely attributable to the set-up of the classroom in groups of three or four, the amountof group work that students are asked to do, and (hopefully) the open and friendlyatmosphere the instructors work to establish in the class. According to studentfeedback, the relationships formed over the semester keep students more engaged inthe class.

For instruction librarians, a credit-bearing class offers several opportunities thattheir other job responsibilities do not. Unlike the many one-shot class sessions thatthey teach, this class provides the chance to get to know a few students really well. Italso serves as a kind of semester-long laboratory to try out new library lesson plansand teaching strategies. In the safe space of that classroom, the instructors feel free totry engagement and assessment strategies that they may later use in a one-shotsession. The instructors feel comfortable experimenting with new teaching strategiesbecause they really get to know their students, and students get to know theirinstructors. Unlike a one-shot session, where dynamics are unknown and cannot bedeveloped, the instructors see their students thirty-two times during the semester. Thefact that they have familiarity and time with their students leads to the safe space forexperimentation. Since the class has been taught as a team for two semesters, it hasalso provided an excellent opportunity to collaborate on teaching over an extendedperiod of time, which has helped those involved to reflect upon and improve theirteaching skills. Instruction librarians’ roles continue to evolve, and teaching athree-credit, upper division course is an effective way to contribute to the university’smission and have a measurable impact on student learning, most obvious in our pre-and post-test results. Librarians’ role as LBRY 3020 instructors places them in acategory similar to other faculty on campus and provides some insight into what otherteaching faculty experience.

In the future, the authors would like to design a study to compare learning outcomesfor junior- or senior-level students who took a credit-bearing information literacy classtaught by a librarian to students who took a freshman-level information literacy classtaught by their own disciplinary faculty. There are many benefits to offering this typeof class to upper-division students, but the authors are interested to see whether havingthe information literacy class offered within a discipline is more effective than havingthe class offered by librarians outside of a disciplinary context.

Currently, the University Studies Program at UW is being streamlined in its entiretyand many requirements will be jettisoned, including requirements for stand-alonediversity, global, oral communication and information literacy classes. These changes

RSR41,1

70

are being made at an institutional level because the current number of required classesmakes it difficult for some students to graduate in a timely manner. However,information literacy will continue to be a required learning outcome in freshmanseminar classes. In addition, learning outcomes such as “critical and creative thinking”and “inquiry and analysis” are integrated throughout the newly proposed UniversityStudies Program and provide avenues for librarians to pursue ongoing partnershipswith teaching faculty and perhaps to develop new credit-bearing IL classes related tospecific subjects or with a focus on writing and oral communication. Whether or notLBRY 3020 is continued in its current form or in a revised form, the course has givenlibrarians involved many opportunities to create new and engaging lesson plans thatcan be used in various instruction settings.

ConclusionIn this case study, the authors offer guidance and practical tips on student engagementand assessment of student learning for librarians who are teaching or developing acredit-bearing class or for librarians who teach mostly one-shot sessions. The authorsalso discuss some of the advantages to working with upper-level students in acredit-bearing class environment, versus freshmen. Upper-level students are at thepoint in their college career that they have a subject major focus, and are expected toproduce in-depth research papers and projects. As the authors work with upper-levelstudents from various disciplines over the course of a semester, they find it effective toemploy a class theme and active learning in order to engage the class. Students aremore invested in a course when they choose the topic of inquiry and have input on thereadings and discussion topics. The authors have various strategies to assess studentlearning over the semester that differ from their usual assessment of one-shot sessions,but many active learning and assessment strategies prove adaptable. The learningactivities and the formative assessment strategies developed for this course may beused in various class settings, including adaptation for one-shot sessions and evenonline classes. The authors do not advocate that one-shot or course-integratedinstruction sessions be banished, but rather they have a place alongside credit-bearingIL courses. Based on their experiences teaching and assessing LBRY 3020, the authorsbelieve that credit-bearing instruction, especially upper-level, is a vital and influentialrole for academic librarians. It is hoped that this case study encourages fellowlibrarians to pursue a variety of engagement and assessment strategies in their ownteaching.

References

Bowles-Terry, M. (2012), “Library instruction and academic success: a mixed-methodsassessment of a library instruction program”, Evidence Based Library and InformationPractice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 82-95.

Burke, M. (2011), “Academic libraries and the credit-bearing class: a practical approach”,Communications in Information Literacy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 156-73.

Davis, E.L., Lundstrom, K. and Martin, P.N. (2011), “Librarian perceptions and informationliteracy instruction models”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 686-702.

Dennis, N. (1990), “New technologies for information retrieval: a three-credit course forundergraduates at Salem State College”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-48.


71

George, M. (2008), The Elements of Library Research: What Every Student Needs to Know,Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Jacobson, T.E. and Xu, L. (2002), “Motivating students in credit-based information literacycourses: theories and practice”, portal: Libraries & the Academy, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 423-41.

Lowry, G. and Turner, R. (2005), “Information systems education for the 21st century: aligningcurriculum content and delivery with the professional workplace”, in Carbonara, D.D.(Ed.), Technology Literacy Applications in Learning Environments, Information SciencePublishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 171-203.

O’ Connor, L. and Newby, J. (2011), “Entering unfamiliar territory building an informationliteracy course for graduate students in interdisciplinary areas”, Reference & User ServicesQuarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 224-9.

Peterson, N. (2010), “It came from Hollywood: using popular media to enhance informationliteracy instruction”, College and Research Libraries News, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 66-9.

Rocca, K.A. (2010), “Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinaryliterature review”, Communication Education, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 185-213.

Sharkey, J. (2006), “Towards information fluency: applying a different model to an informationliteracy credit course”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 71-85.

Sittler, R. and Cook, D. (2009), The Library Instruction Cookbook, Association of College andResearch Libraries, Chicago, IL.

About the authorsJennifer Mayer is an Associate Research and Instruction Librarian at the University of WyomingLibraries. She currently chairs the ACRL Women & Gender Studies Section. Her publishedworks include articles in College & Research Libraries and Art Documentation and a bookchapter in The Handbook of Art and Design Librarianship (Facet). Jennifer Mayer is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Melissa Bowles-Terry is the Instruction and Assessment Coordinator for University ofWyoming Libraries. She has published in Communications in Information Literacy, Referenceand User Services Quarterly and Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Her researchinterests focus on information literacy instruction and assessment of student learning.

RSR41,1

72

Appendix 1

Figure A1.LBRY 3020 Syllabus,

Spring 2012


73

Figure A1.

RSR41,1

74

Dat

eIn

-Cla

ssO

ut-

of-C

lass

Jan

uar

y11

Intr

odu

ctio

ns

Bac

kg

rou

nd

Kn

owle

dg

eC

hec

k(p

re-t

est)

Dis

cuss

qu

esti

ons

abou

tth

esy

llab

us

Intr

odu

ctio

nto

TIP

Tu

tori

alDiscovertheLibrary

Car

efu

lly

read

cou

rse

syll

abu

san

dw

rite

dow

nan

yq

ues

tion

sy

ouh

ave

Com

ple

teT

IPM

odu

le1:

Inv

esti

gat

ing

Jan

uar

y16

No

Cla

ss–

Mar

tin

Lu

ther

Kin

gh

olid

ayJa

nu

ary

18Discuss

TIP:Investigating

Res

earc

has

Inq

uir

y:

En

teri

ng

the

con

ver

sati

onC

reat

em

enta

lm

aps

ofth

ere

sear

chp

roce

ssC

hoo

sea

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

wor

kon

aco

nce

pt

map

Rea

dG

eorg

eC

hap

ter

2W

rite

ash

ort

self

-ass

essm

ent

ofy

ours

elf

asa

rese

arch

er–

Wh

atw

asa

rese

arch

pro

ject

you

wer

ere

ally

succ

essf

ul

at?

Wh

y?

Wh

atar

ey

our

rese

arch

han

g-u

ps?

Jan

uar

y23

Sel

f-d

irec

ted

acti

vit

y–

clas

sw

ill

not

mee

tA

nsw

erd

iscu

ssio

nq

ues

tion

sfo

rG

eorg

eC

hap

ter

2Com

pleteSelf-Orientation

Checklistfrom

textbook,page

27-28

Com

ple

teT

IPM

odu

le2:

Sea

rch

ing

Tu

rnin

dis

cuss

ion

qu

esti

ons

and

chec

kli

stin

nex

tcl

ass

per

iod

Jan

uar

y25

Discuss

TIP:Searching

Dis

cuss

clas

sre

sear

chp

lan

:–

Wh

atd

ow

eal

read

yk

now

?–

Wh

atd

ow

ant

tole

arn

?–

How

are

we

goi

ng

tofi

nd

the

info

rmat

ion

we

nee

d?

Reflective

writing:

Whichaspectof

theclass

researchquestion

most

interestsyou?

Res

pon

dto

gu

idin

gq

ues

tion

sth

atac

com

pan

yre

adin

gT

alk

toso

meo

ne

(roo

mm

ate,

fam

ily

mem

ber

,fr

ien

d)

abou

ty

our

rese

arch

top

ican

dco

mp

are

you

rp

ersp

ecti

ve

toh

ers

orh

is

Jan

uar

y30

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icDatabase

searching–groupdem

osS

earc

hfo

ran

did

enti

fyco

urs

ere

adin

gs

(8-1

5p

ages

)

Pos

ton

ep

oten

tial

read

ing

for

the

clas

son

the

cou

rse

pag

e,al

ong

wit

hd

iscu

ssio

nq

ues

tion

sR

ead

Geo

rge

Ch

apte

r3

Bra

inst

orm

are

sear

ch/t

hes

isq

ues

tion

Feb

ruar

y1

Dis

cuss

Geo

rge

Ch

apte

r3

BrainstormingResearchActivityfrom

textbook,page

62

Rea

din

stru

ctor

-ch

osen

arti

cle

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

ican

dre

spon

dto

gu

idin

gq

ues

tion

sth

atac

com

pan

yre

adin

g(#

1)

Feb

ruar

y6

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icSearchStrategy

Steps

from

textbook,pages81-85

Com

ple

teS

earc

hS

trat

egy

Ste

ps

exer

cise

(continued

)

Table AI.Course Schedule LBRY

3020 Spring 2012


75

Dat

eIn

-Cla

ssO

ut-

of-C

lass

Feb

ruar

y8

Dis

cuss

Sea

rch

Str

ateg

yS

tep

sex

erci

seK

eep

ing

trac

kof

cita

tion

s:E

nd

Not

eW

eban

dZ

oter

oReflective

writing:How

willyoumanage

yourresearchthissemester?

Com

ple

teT

IPM

odu

le3:

Loc

atin

g

Feb

ruar

y13

Discuss

TIP:Locating

Fin

din

gIn

form

atio

n–

Wh

atis

reli

able

?–

Per

iod

ical

lite

ratu

re–

Pri

mar

y/s

econ

dar

yso

urc

es(New

sweekarticleactivity)

Mai

nta

inin

gcu

rren

taw

aren

ess:

RS

SF

eed

s

Rea

dG

eorg

eC

hap

ter

4W

rite

ind

ivid

ual

rese

arch

pla

n–

Wh

atd

oy

ouk

now

?–

Wh

atd

oy

ouw

ant

tok

now

?–

How

are

you

goi

ng

tofi

nd

the

info

rmat

ion

?T

his

rese

arch

pla

nsh

ould

sum

mar

ize

you

rcu

rren

tu

nd

erst

and

ing

and

list

rem

ain

ing

qu

esti

ons

Feb

ruar

y15

Dis

cuss

Geo

rge

Ch

.4,

rese

arch

pla

ns

&ti

mel

ines

FineArtof

FindingSources

from

textbook,pages102-117

Rea

dst

ud

ent-

chos

enar

ticl

eon

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

resp

ond

tog

uid

ing

qu

esti

ons

that

acco

mp

any

read

ing

(#2)

Feb

ruar

y20

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icIn

form

atio

nor

gan

izat

ion

–HighFidelity

and

LoC

EvaluatingInform

ation

Activity

Rea

dG

eorg

eC

hap

ter

5C

omp

lete

TIP

Mod

ule

4:E

val

uat

ing

Feb

ruar

y22

Discuss

TIP:Evaluating

Dis

cuss

Geo

rge

Ch

apte

r5

EvaluatingSources

from

textbook

,p

age

131

Rea

dst

ud

ent-

chos

enar

ticl

eon

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

resp

ond

tog

uid

ing

qu

esti

ons

that

acco

mp

any

read

ing

(#3)

Com

ple

teT

IPM

odu

le5:

Usi

ng

Feb

ruar

y27

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icD

iscu

ssso

urc

eev

alu

atio

ns

Discuss

TIP:Using

They

Say/ISay:Writingexercise

Rea

dst

ud

ent-

chos

enar

ticl

eon

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

resp

ond

tog

uid

ing

qu

esti

ons

that

acco

mp

any

read

ing

(#4)

Feb

ruar

y29

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icCitingMaterials:ParaphrasingvPlagiarism

Rea

dca

sest

ud

ies

and

pre

par

eto

dis

cuss

Rea

dar

ticl

eab

out

pla

gia

rism

and

pre

par

eto

dis

cuss

Mar

ch5

EthicalUse

ofInform

ation:case

studies

Discuss

article

“Un

inte

nd

edL

esso

ns:

Pla

gia

rism

and

the

Un

iver

sity

”TheResearchProcess:TheRing

Rea

dst

ud

ent-

chos

enar

ticl

eon

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

resp

ond

tog

uid

ing

qu

esti

ons

that

acco

mp

any

read

ing

(#5)

(continued

)

Table AI.

RSR41,1

76

Dat

eIn

-Cla

ssO

ut-

of-C

lass

Mar

ch7

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icC

opy

rig

ht

&In

tell

ectu

alP

rop

erty

Sea

rch

ing

for

imag

es

Com

ple

teT

IPQ

uiz

Rea

dst

ud

ent-

chos

enar

ticl

eon

clas

sre

sear

chto

pic

and

resp

ond

tog

uid

ing

qu

esti

ons

that

acco

mp

any

read

ing

(#6)

Dra

ftof

pap

erem

aile

dto

inst

ruct

ors

SpringBreak–March12-16

Mar

ch19

Dis

cuss

TIP

Dis

cuss

read

ing

oncl

ass

rese

arch

top

icM

apcu

rren

tu

nd

erst

and

ing

ofto

pic

Set

up

con

fere

nce

son

rese

arch

pro

gre

ssM

idte

rmC

ours

eE

val

uat

ion

Con

fere

nce

wit

hin

stru

ctor

Mar

ch21

Res

earc

h/w

riti

ng

day

Con

fere

nce

wit

hin

stru

ctor

Mar

ch26

Mak

ing

anef

fect

ive

pre

sen

tati

onC

reat

eru

bri

cfo

ras

sess

ing

/gra

din

gcl

ass

pre

sen

tati

ons

Reflective

writing:

How

would

youdefineinform

ation

literacy

now

?

Rea

d“H

owI

Mad

eM

yP

rese

nta

tion

sa

Lit

tle

Bet

ter”

htt

p://

ww

w.4

3fol

der

s.co

m/2

007/

08/2

3/b

ette

r-p

rese

nta

tion

s

Mar

ch28

Vis

itA

mer

ican

Her

itag

eC

ente

rW

ork

onp

rese

nta

tion

and

pap

erA

pri

l2

Res

earc

hin

you

rm

ajor

Primary

Sources

Wor

kon

pre

sen

tati

onan

dp

aper

Ap

ril

4A

cces

sin

gin

form

atio

naf

ter

gra

du

atio

nan

don

the

job

–Freevs

fee

–G

over

nm

ent

info

rmat

ion

Wor

kon

pre

sen

tati

onan

dp

aper

Ap

ril

9A

cces

sin

gin

form

atio

naf

ter

gra

du

atio

nan

don

the

job

Com

par

ean

dev

alu

ate

dif

fere

nt

sear

chen

gin

esW

ork

onp

rese

nta

tion

and

pap

er

Ap

ril

11P

rese

nta

tion

sPresentationdue

Ap

ril

16P

rese

nta

tion

sPresentationdue

Ap

ril

18P

rese

nta

tion

sPresentationdue

Ap

ril

23P

rese

nta

tion

sPresentationdue

Ap

ril

25S

yn

thes

isof

pre

sen

tati

ons

Kn

owle

dg

eC

hec

k(post-test

)Reflective

writing:

Whatwentwellw

ithyourpaper?Whatwasmost

difficult?

Paperdue

Table AI.


77

Appendix 2. Grading rubrics

Ob

ject

ive

0p

oin

ts2

poi

nts

4p

oin

ts

Cla

rity

ofex

pre

ssio

nT

hes

isu

ncl

ear/

mai

np

oin

tsob

scu

re/

un

able

toan

swer

qu

esti

ons

Th

esis

fair

lycl

ear/

mai

np

oin

tsfa

irly

clea

r/ab

leto

answ

erso

me

qu

esti

ons

Th

esis

iscl

ear/

mai

np

oin

tsem

ph

asiz

ed/i

mp

rov

esau

die

nce

un

der

stan

din

gof

top

ic/a

ble

toan

swer

qu

esti

ons

Org

aniz

atio

n/W

ith

inti

me

lim

itG

oes

over

orsi

gn

ifica

ntl

yu

nd

erti

me

Doe

sn

otfo

llow

log

ical

seq

uen

ceO

ne

min

ute

over

orth

ree

min

ute

su

nd

erO

rgan

izat

ion

isso

mew

hat

effe

ctiv

e

Pre

sen

tati

onb

etw

een

sev

enan

dte

nm

inu

tes

Poi

nts

pre

sen

ted

inlo

gic

alm

ann

erS

ourc

esci

ted

and

use

dap

pro

pri

atel

yS

tud

ent

has

not

use

dap

pro

pri

ate

sou

rces

/has

not

cite

dso

urc

esS

tud

ent

has

som

ere

liab

leso

urc

esan

dso

me

qu

esti

onab

leso

urc

es/n

otth

orou

gh

lyci

ted

Stu

den

th

asse

lect

edre

liab

leso

urc

esan

d,

for

the

mos

tp

art,

inte

gra

ted

and

cite

dth

emO

utl

ine

wit

hm

ain

poi

nts

and

sou

rces

No

outl

ine

turn

edin

Ou

tlin

ein

clu

des

som

em

ain

poi

nts

/so

me

sou

rces

Not

thor

oug

h

Ou

tlin

ein

clu

des

imp

orta

nt

poi

nts

and

are

fere

nce

list

Str

ong

intr

odu

ctio

nan

dco

ncl

usi

onN

on

otic

eab

lein

trod

uct

ion

/con

clu

sion

Cap

ture

sat

ten

tion

/giv

essa

tisf

yin

gcl

osu

reA

esth

etic

app

eal

Too

mu

chte

xt/

bad

colo

rch

oice

s/to

om

any

slid

esV

isu

ally

app

eali

ng

,n

otto

ob

usy

Table AII.Research presentationrubric – 20 points/20percent of final grade

RSR41,1

78

Objective 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points

Grammar andwriting

Multiple (ten ormore) spelling,grammar,punctuation errorsand poor writing

Four-to-fivespelling, grammar,punctuation errorsand substandardwriting

One or twospelling, grammar,punctuation errorsand qualitywriting

No spelling,grammar,punctuation errorsand writing ofhigh quality

Introduction Introduces maintopic, presents athesis statement

Introduces thetopic with style,presents a thesisstatement that isbased on aresearch questionand not tooobvious

Appropriatesources, usedcorrectly

Student has notfound appropriatesources and/orsources are notintroduced andanalyzed

Student has somereliable sourcesand somequestionablesources

Student hasselected reliablesources and, forthe most part,integrated them

Student hasselected highquality, reliablesources thatsupport the mainpoints of the paperSources areintegrated into thepaper withappropriateintroductions andanalyses

Discussion of orargument on topic

Argument oranalysis iscursory,abbreviated, or notthorough

Significant gaps orproblems withargument/analysis

Topic and/orresearch questionsaddressed in afairly thoroughmanner

Student hasaddressed thetopic and researchquestionsthoroughlyQuestions raisedwithin the paperare satisfactorilyaddressedPresents aconvincingargument or acomprehensiveanalysis of a topic

Conclusion Revisits mainideas with nofurther analysis

Brings paper to asatisfying close

Reference List andParentheticalCitations

Multiple (ten ormore) errors inciting sources

Four-to-fivecitation errors

One or two citationerrors

All sources arecited correctly intext and infootnotes/workscited/referencespage

Table AIII.Research paper rubric –

20 points/20 percent offinal grade


79

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Engagement and assessment in a credit-bearing information literacy course.

Documents

Transcript of Engagement and assessment in a credit-bearing information literacy course.