3 sessions in this 1 1/2 hour slot:
1. Open Communication: Working with Faculty to Integrate IL into a New Baccalaureate Program
When a BSN program was added to his university in 2010, this Florida university library saw an opportunity for the library to increase cooperation with the faculty. Cooperation involved inviting the nursing faculty in for database vendor training sessions, planning orientations using the faculty's syllabi, and even creating an IL rubric mapped onto the BSN program.
The rubric was created especially in preparation for a SACS review (accreditation) for the nursing program.
Among the IL activities incorporated into the Gen Ed curriculum:
1. Locate/summarize articles related to nursing theory from databases
2. Use evidence-based professional nursing literature to write a research paper with a description and case study analysis.
3. Use the library catalog to locate books
Interestingly, it sounds like this program is quite well funded from the beginning, including library resources. They have R2 and Springer.
2. Encouraging Faculty Buy-In to the QEP Through Incentives
This session was one of my least favorites, mainly because it was presented from a completely foreign perspective. The presenter was the director of the department that awards grants to IL programs at North GA.
He spoke about the importance of IL culture-building, and how the best way to do that was to offer money, specifically in the form of $1000 for a good idea. Some of the recent awards went to screencasting projects, undergrad research, community engagement, and co-curricular projects. Would have been interesting to know more specifics of the projects, though I know his focus was only on the initial proposal of each idea.
3. Exploring How Students, Instructors, and Professors at a Higher Education Institute Define IL
Monday, September 26, 2011
Saturday, Sept. 25, 9:45am
Library Video Creation for Chat, Reference, and Instruction
Hosted by librarians from GA Perimeter College, a 2 year college with several campuses, this session focused on Jing and Camtasia.
Before and while they began creating library videos using Jing, the presenters surveyed the literature for the "best practices." First and foremost, they found that shorter videos are more effective. Instead of showing two possible databases to search, break it up into smaller, simpler bits, focusing instead one database, or even one specific aspect or skill involving that one database. 2 minutes or less tends to be the key, to minimize the cognitive load. Also, "bells and whistles" tend to detract from the message - simpler is better, with less extra graphics and extraneous sound. While graphics should be minimized within the video, studies show that students are more at home with images than text. For instance, on the Web site that links to the videos, icons of a film strip or similar pictures are preferable to text (e.g. "video").
This team of librarians often creates Jing videos to achieve a just-in-time effect. When students ask how to log into databases through their chat reference system, the reference librarian creates a quick Jing demonstrating the log-in, and sends the link to the student. They've found that Jings save a lot of time because they can be used for frequently-asked questions. Instead of spending time sitting next to multiple students asking the same questions, they can pass along the link to a Jing. At the same time, it benefits the student because they can watch it multiple times or go back to a tricky step - less intimidating than having to ask a librarian several times.
The presenters usually upload their Jings in Camtasia, which allows surveys and quizzes (and other more advanced features). They emphasized keeping the tone of the videos casual, aiming to connect with students. Even though the tone is casual, they write scripts before recording, to ensure a focused, succinct message. They often whittle the original script several times until the content delivers what the student cares most about, the reason why they clicked on the video in the first place.
Beyond creating videos for students, they also use Jings to illustrate computer problems to tech support (brilliant!).
They recommended posting the length of the video next to it, so that students know the time commitment (short!) up front.
The equipment needed to get started with Jing: a headphone with a microphone piece (wireless is ideal). A trick: Place a Kleenex over the mouthpiece to take out the ssss sounds.
While they use JingPro, they noted that the main perk is the ability to save as mp4 files; the free version comes with 2GB of storage space on screencast.com to house videos.
They also use Audacity to smooth out the voices. Another software program that might come in handy: Voki, which talks for you, after you type in the text (especially helpful for anyone self-conscious of an accent). One of the attendees recommended the site convertfiles.com to make files compatible with the format needed; another similar program is zamzar, which allows ripping audio. (There were quite a few techies in the crowd who were already familiar with creating videos).
A similar video creator very comparable to Jing is screencastomatic, which allows longer videos. Vimeo was also mentioned (as a hosting site?).
Jing allows you to choose the size of the screen as you record, but some experienced video pros recommended 640 x 480 as the ideal video size for viewing on most types of machines.
Hosted by librarians from GA Perimeter College, a 2 year college with several campuses, this session focused on Jing and Camtasia.
Before and while they began creating library videos using Jing, the presenters surveyed the literature for the "best practices." First and foremost, they found that shorter videos are more effective. Instead of showing two possible databases to search, break it up into smaller, simpler bits, focusing instead one database, or even one specific aspect or skill involving that one database. 2 minutes or less tends to be the key, to minimize the cognitive load. Also, "bells and whistles" tend to detract from the message - simpler is better, with less extra graphics and extraneous sound. While graphics should be minimized within the video, studies show that students are more at home with images than text. For instance, on the Web site that links to the videos, icons of a film strip or similar pictures are preferable to text (e.g. "video").
This team of librarians often creates Jing videos to achieve a just-in-time effect. When students ask how to log into databases through their chat reference system, the reference librarian creates a quick Jing demonstrating the log-in, and sends the link to the student. They've found that Jings save a lot of time because they can be used for frequently-asked questions. Instead of spending time sitting next to multiple students asking the same questions, they can pass along the link to a Jing. At the same time, it benefits the student because they can watch it multiple times or go back to a tricky step - less intimidating than having to ask a librarian several times.
The presenters usually upload their Jings in Camtasia, which allows surveys and quizzes (and other more advanced features). They emphasized keeping the tone of the videos casual, aiming to connect with students. Even though the tone is casual, they write scripts before recording, to ensure a focused, succinct message. They often whittle the original script several times until the content delivers what the student cares most about, the reason why they clicked on the video in the first place.
Beyond creating videos for students, they also use Jings to illustrate computer problems to tech support (brilliant!).
They recommended posting the length of the video next to it, so that students know the time commitment (short!) up front.
The equipment needed to get started with Jing: a headphone with a microphone piece (wireless is ideal). A trick: Place a Kleenex over the mouthpiece to take out the ssss sounds.
While they use JingPro, they noted that the main perk is the ability to save as mp4 files; the free version comes with 2GB of storage space on screencast.com to house videos.
They also use Audacity to smooth out the voices. Another software program that might come in handy: Voki, which talks for you, after you type in the text (especially helpful for anyone self-conscious of an accent). One of the attendees recommended the site convertfiles.com to make files compatible with the format needed; another similar program is zamzar, which allows ripping audio. (There were quite a few techies in the crowd who were already familiar with creating videos).
A similar video creator very comparable to Jing is screencastomatic, which allows longer videos. Vimeo was also mentioned (as a hosting site?).
Jing allows you to choose the size of the screen as you record, but some experienced video pros recommended 640 x 480 as the ideal video size for viewing on most types of machines.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday 8:30 - Keynote Speaker, Mike Palmquist
Bright and early Sat. morning, Mike Palmquist delivered the keynote address, "Joining the Conversation: The Role of Information Literacy in Public and Academic Discourse." Palmquist, the Associate Vice Provost for Learning and Teaching at Colorado State University, was one of the most engaging speakers - extremely sharp and well-informed on his topic, yet very down to earth and funny.His topic intertwined several issues: new and emerging technologies; the role of metaphor in learning; and value of applying the conversation metaphor to teaching IL pedagogy.
(image from http://thrustbearingss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lion-King-Coloring-Pages.jpg)
He began by arguing that some of us have been so true to the ideas that technology should not drive the design of our courses that we've overlooked the impact of new technologies of learning, teaching, and literacy. Certainly, it is one thing to shy away from using Facebook with classes, but it is undeniable that everyday access to the Internet has shaped how our students (and how we) look at information. Technology has fundamentally changed the way we do everything, esp. in the field of writing. Evidence of technology supporting/shaping our teaching:
- expanded repertoire for meeting teaching goals
-context where new goals arise and old goals become less central.
Too often, we treat technology as an "add on," rather than recognizing and embracing it.
The conversation metaphor can be used to describe the more aware use of technology. Heavily influenced by the Lion King, it is a familiar context that is easily accessible to students and conveys the situations they find themselves in as writers/learners. It stresses the important of using sources and following research ethics.
Too bad you can't draw in blog posts, but try to envision the conversation metaphor: a circle connecting 4 boxes of text: Listen --> Reflect --> Decide to share --> Contribute. Now, replace those words with the following to draw a parallel between the (spoken) conversation metaphor and the academic conversation (research): Find, read sources --> Reflect --> Decide to share --> Write
(The Lion King tie-in is the "Circle of Life" idea - seemed a bit of a reach, but interesting that academics would have looked to this pop culture reference!)
Mapping the conversation metaphor onto IL: students locate conversations when they explore topics, then choose conversations when they focus their topic and sources. They begin to search by understanding the range of available technologies and search strategies, then engage in critical, active reading. They work with the information they've found, using databases, creating bibliographies, and managing print and digital information. They understand research ethics and avoid plagiarism, and the contribute to the conversation by using technological tools (Word processing, presentation software, etc.). Finally, they integrate their information into documents, understanding the reasons for using that particular information, as well as conventions for in-text citations and bibliographies.
Using the conversation metaphor continues the shift away from a skills-based approach to IL; allows us to deepen the partnerships outside of the library; and allows us to develop/repurpose tools and applications that support aspects of curricula beyond those initially intended.
A couple of tools that Palmquist mentioned to help embrace technology in the pursuit of IL are electronic-based concept mapping tools - Inspiration is one that we looked at last week with Jan; other similar programs: ithoughthd and cmap.
The presentation was very interesting, though more abstract and academic-focused, rather than practical idea-oriented like most of the presentations given by librarians. Definitely good food for thought.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Friday, Sept. 23 - 4:00 pm
Required reading of credit-bearing information literacy undergraduate classes [4:00]
In preparation to create a credit-bearing IL course, the presenters analyzed course syllabi of 100 current credit-bearing IL courses at other universities. They generated a list of the articles most commonly included on the reading lists. The handout for this one pretty much sums it up, so I'm going to defer to that, rather than list all of the citations here.
They also mentioned the five most commonly-used IL textbooks, and I'm very curious as to whether the one this institution (the Citadel) chose is the one used for Amy's online IL workshop?
Another interesting observation is that most of the books only touched on ~35% of the ACRL IL standards (the book they chose included ~65%, but that was significantly more than the others). So the question is whether the ACRL standards are adequate, if textbook authors are having difficulty including them in classroom exercises. One of the presenters mentioned that these standards have recently been revised - I was not aware of that, so want to pursue that further to consider the updates.
AND
Critical thinking as information literacy: a model for the core curriculum? [4:30] - presenters from GA Southern
The recent revision of Georgia Southern's core curriculum provided the impetus for this session. During the process, the committee wanted to include critical thinking skills into the new core curriculum. The authors drew parallels between IL and critical thinking. The critical thinking outcome, acc. to Georgia Southern, is described as "student will interpret, analyze, and evaluate information and ideas using logical and ethical framework" (very similar to the crux of ACRL's IL definition). They analyzed the IL/critical thinking outcomes of other institutions in the University of Georgia System, and found very similar parallels between the definitions of critical thinking and IL. (As a side note, I have a handout with a table showing critical thinking/IL definitions and outcomes - thought this may be helpful in including IL in VC's goals/mission, the component missing for our ARL survey).
A couple of questions generated in the discussion:
Can a one-course assessment plan adequately capture students' knowledge of critical thinking (IL)? Can a multiple choice test? (These are currently the methods for assessment.)
Also, why is it so difficult to find the definition of IL in the state's college? I commented that the ARL survey asked about whether IL is included in the institution's mission statement, and perhaps this will bring to the fore that many institutions do not explicitly mention IL.
In preparation to create a credit-bearing IL course, the presenters analyzed course syllabi of 100 current credit-bearing IL courses at other universities. They generated a list of the articles most commonly included on the reading lists. The handout for this one pretty much sums it up, so I'm going to defer to that, rather than list all of the citations here.
They also mentioned the five most commonly-used IL textbooks, and I'm very curious as to whether the one this institution (the Citadel) chose is the one used for Amy's online IL workshop?
Another interesting observation is that most of the books only touched on ~35% of the ACRL IL standards (the book they chose included ~65%, but that was significantly more than the others). So the question is whether the ACRL standards are adequate, if textbook authors are having difficulty including them in classroom exercises. One of the presenters mentioned that these standards have recently been revised - I was not aware of that, so want to pursue that further to consider the updates.
AND
Critical thinking as information literacy: a model for the core curriculum? [4:30] - presenters from GA Southern
The recent revision of Georgia Southern's core curriculum provided the impetus for this session. During the process, the committee wanted to include critical thinking skills into the new core curriculum. The authors drew parallels between IL and critical thinking. The critical thinking outcome, acc. to Georgia Southern, is described as "student will interpret, analyze, and evaluate information and ideas using logical and ethical framework" (very similar to the crux of ACRL's IL definition). They analyzed the IL/critical thinking outcomes of other institutions in the University of Georgia System, and found very similar parallels between the definitions of critical thinking and IL. (As a side note, I have a handout with a table showing critical thinking/IL definitions and outcomes - thought this may be helpful in including IL in VC's goals/mission, the component missing for our ARL survey).
A couple of questions generated in the discussion:
Can a one-course assessment plan adequately capture students' knowledge of critical thinking (IL)? Can a multiple choice test? (These are currently the methods for assessment.)
Also, why is it so difficult to find the definition of IL in the state's college? I commented that the ARL survey asked about whether IL is included in the institution's mission statement, and perhaps this will bring to the fore that many institutions do not explicitly mention IL.
Friday, Sept. 23 - 2:00 pm
Cross-disciplinary collaborative for teaching research writing in the 21st century [Panel]
The premise of this session was that a research paper should be a conversation between sources. The team of presenters offered the perspectives of a rhetoric/writing program director, librarian who helped with the class, and one of the professors. The first perspective, I must say, was a bit theory-heavy for me, and I was relieved when the language shifted to library-type lingo.
In this collaborative, students read one book, then analyze the rhetorical situation (= how the author frames a series of questions), and finally, branch into disciple-specific inquiries to form their research paper, for instance focused on economic, nutritional, or political interests, depending on their major. The director stressed that the one of the greatest challenges is to reshape students' understanding of the research process from high school, namely forcing them to slow the inquiry process down. They must first analyze their sources, and delay their position-taking argument until closer to the end of the semester, rather than vice versa. Instead of simply summarizing each of their sources, they are expected to discuss how the texts they find in their research converse with each other, generating intellectual control of the debate.
The faculty member guides students in the theory & analysis part; the librarian contributes to the information literacy and research segments. After the faculty member realized that she did not feel well-equipped to show her students how to research, the collaborate began, and since, has evolved into 2-3 75-min. instruction sessions in the library. During the library instruction, students learn how to integrate sources into the research process, how to use the catalog to locate materials, use Boolean operators, use databases, distinguish between scholarly and popular magazines, and critically evaluate info (all of these closely follow the ACRL IL competencies).
LibGuides have been most useful to outline the material to be covered and direct students to the most useful information specific to the assignment.
One of the presenters used the analogy of pushing students a little, but with the librarian as their bungy cord and the instructor as the net below them.
As a result of the collaborative, the students have become more engaged in the assignment; they recognize the transferability of the research skills; enter the conversation with authority; and even though the instructors worried that library instruction would take too much time away from their classroom time, having a librarian presenting how to research effectively in fact opened up time.
The premise of this session was that a research paper should be a conversation between sources. The team of presenters offered the perspectives of a rhetoric/writing program director, librarian who helped with the class, and one of the professors. The first perspective, I must say, was a bit theory-heavy for me, and I was relieved when the language shifted to library-type lingo.
In this collaborative, students read one book, then analyze the rhetorical situation (= how the author frames a series of questions), and finally, branch into disciple-specific inquiries to form their research paper, for instance focused on economic, nutritional, or political interests, depending on their major. The director stressed that the one of the greatest challenges is to reshape students' understanding of the research process from high school, namely forcing them to slow the inquiry process down. They must first analyze their sources, and delay their position-taking argument until closer to the end of the semester, rather than vice versa. Instead of simply summarizing each of their sources, they are expected to discuss how the texts they find in their research converse with each other, generating intellectual control of the debate.
The faculty member guides students in the theory & analysis part; the librarian contributes to the information literacy and research segments. After the faculty member realized that she did not feel well-equipped to show her students how to research, the collaborate began, and since, has evolved into 2-3 75-min. instruction sessions in the library. During the library instruction, students learn how to integrate sources into the research process, how to use the catalog to locate materials, use Boolean operators, use databases, distinguish between scholarly and popular magazines, and critically evaluate info (all of these closely follow the ACRL IL competencies).
LibGuides have been most useful to outline the material to be covered and direct students to the most useful information specific to the assignment.
One of the presenters used the analogy of pushing students a little, but with the librarian as their bungy cord and the instructor as the net below them.
As a result of the collaborative, the students have become more engaged in the assignment; they recognize the transferability of the research skills; enter the conversation with authority; and even though the instructors worried that library instruction would take too much time away from their classroom time, having a librarian presenting how to research effectively in fact opened up time.
Friday, Sept. 23 - Poster Sessions (1 - 5:30pm)
The poster session had 5 presenters set up in the lobby - several must have cancelled because the initial program listed many more. I talked with one from USC-Aiken, with the poster titled "Three Minutes to Save the World: Preventing Plagiarism Through Screen Casting."
We discussed the mechanics of creating the screencasts more than the issue of plagiarism. She used Prezi to create a powerpoint-like presentation - the difference is that Prezi, as we've learned before, allows you to zoom in and out (more spacial moving around than PP). Then, she used Screencast-o-matic to record the video. This program is another open source program, very very similar to Jing that was mentioned in other sessions. We might want to look into it because it allows longer videos (if that's an issue).
Also stopped by the booth for the poster "Information Literacy Online: The Case of Freshman Seminar," presented by a Univ. of South Alabama (Mobile) librarian. Was interested but focused on online instruction, so not so relevant to our set-up.
We discussed the mechanics of creating the screencasts more than the issue of plagiarism. She used Prezi to create a powerpoint-like presentation - the difference is that Prezi, as we've learned before, allows you to zoom in and out (more spacial moving around than PP). Then, she used Screencast-o-matic to record the video. This program is another open source program, very very similar to Jing that was mentioned in other sessions. We might want to look into it because it allows longer videos (if that's an issue).
Also stopped by the booth for the poster "Information Literacy Online: The Case of Freshman Seminar," presented by a Univ. of South Alabama (Mobile) librarian. Was interested but focused on online instruction, so not so relevant to our set-up.
Friday, Sept. 23 - 12:45pm
Library instruction lite: when is 10-15 minutes enough? [12:45]
The test case covered in this presentation involved a history course with a research project. The librarian from a small college (Barnard) in Greensboro, NC, contacted a professor who had never used the library, largely because the assignment from this class that students asked about in the library was unclear, and not surprisingly, turns out the professor was frustrated with the final papers he'd received (e.g. last minute research, no citations, rampant plagiarism, poor use of source, the typical culprits...).
The original assignment, described by the presenter as a "cut and paste encyclopedia assignment," asked students to discuss the major events of a Civil Rights hero's life. Based on the librarian's suggestions, the assignment was revised as a multiple-state portfolio project, with students turning in pieces along the way (very similar to one of our success stories in the Networking program!). The professor and librarian systematically mapped the assignment out among 8 weeks, so that the week following when the assignment was given out, the librarian delivered a 10-15 minute instruction session.
During the instruction session, the librarian would remind students of the assignment requirements, creating a "perception of crisis" - not sure if I like it described this way, but I guess I see the line of reasoning here... Then, he presented a timeline and the librarian's role as research helper. He showed them how to search Credo, find an article, point out hyperlinks, citation, and additional keywords, and finally, encourage students to visit the library for personalized help. Again, the brevity of the instruction session was intentional, to cover the basics but leave some questions so that the students would ask the librarian for help outside of class.
The instructor was pleased with positive results, namely improved resource quality, resource use, and formatting/bibliography (the bibliographies were marked and graded several times by the librarian before the final papers were turned in), and less plagiarism. Even though the bibliographies were better, in-text citations remained dicey, revealing a flaw in the assignment design: so much focus was placed on turning in multiple bibliography pages that turning in a draft of the paper (where missing in-text citations could be fixed) was not one of the stages of the assignment.
This case study seemed particularly relevant to us because Barnard's library staff is very small, too, and limiting the instruction to one 10-15 minute session greatly relieved the librarians to handle other responsibilities. They were able to improve students' information literacy skills in a way that maximized their effectiveness in the least amount of time and even engaged a faculty member who was difficult to reach. In effect, the librarian was "embedded" in the course but with much less of a time commitment than typical embedded librarian cases.
Stressing the importance of considering the relationship between the specific assignment and instruction to maximize effectiveness, the presenter described good candidates for this type of librarian-aided course as lower-division courses with a research component taught by new, skeptical or time-pressed faculty.
*I have a handout with the assignment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)