PROJECT REDESIGN
Using the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
to Bridge the Core Curriculum
Alexandra Hauser and Michelle Blank
Defiance College, Defiance, OH
ahauser@defiance.edu | mblank@defiance.edu
Session Learning Outcomes
Participants will:
■ Explore one library’s collaboration with campus curriculum in order to identify
potential insertion points for information literacy and the Framework within their
home institutions.
■ Identify practical strategies for integrating the Framework into institutional
curriculum in order to implement programs that reinforce and build upon the core
concepts of the Framework.
What We Had…
First-Year
Experience
Comp
2
Requested
Sessions
Fall 2013
All Year
All Year
• Required of all
Frosh
• Three sessions
• Discovery
Layer
• Locating
• Evaluations
• Liaisons
One-Shot
Discovery Layer
Locating
Evaluating
Tied to
assignment
• Varied
assignments
•
•
•
•
•
• WHAT DO THEY
KNOW???
• One-Shots
• Discovery Layer
• Locating
• Evaluating
• Specific
databases
Fall 2013-Spring 2014
Where We Needed To Go…
Frustration/ Pain Point
Student complaints of…
Repetition
Too many sessions
Questions
Solutions
SEQUENCING
Lack of faculty buy-in
Students lacking skills to
complete assignments
Students not asking for
help until in trouble
Lack of faculty buy-in
Acceptance as
professionals; New roles
SCAFFOLDING
THEORY &
PEDAGOGY
Institutional Alignment
CORE115 CLOs
1. Demonstrate
proficiency in
retrieving, analyzing,
and documenting data
from various sources.
(Frame 1: Authority is
Constructed and
Contextual
Frame 5: Searching as
Strategic Exploration)
Introduction of new CORE Curriculum
2. Demonstrate
proficiency in breaking
down complex
questions into
manageable subproblems. (Frame 3:
Research as Inquiry)
Development of CORE115
■ Provost assigned the library to sit in on ALL CORE development teams
– How can we support this course?
– What will our intersection be with student learning?
■ CORE115 was a natural fit with the Frames
– CORE Learning Outcomes (CLOs)= Frames 1, 3, & 5
– The Ask!- 5 Sessions
– Challenges of working with the design teams
■
We’re NOT faculty
■
Inaction; Bureaucracy; Uninvolved Leader; Lack of Buy-In
– Many aspects outside our control- That’s the nature of collaboration!
■
Advisors- Required of ALL Frosh
■
Instructors- How are they integrating? Attitudes- No grades for library instruction
sessions
■
Administration- What’s the end game?
What do we have now?
Photo: Vhanepfu
Building the Program- The Beginnings
FYE
Comp 2
Requested
Fall 2013- Spring 2014
Course
Redesign…
No library
sessions
No need for
EDS
instruction
No changes
Fall 2014- Round One
Pre to Post- Test Change
32% above 70 on Pre-Test
56% above 70 on Post-Test
+24% Rate of Change
82% chose highly appropriate
sources
77% accurately cited those
sources
CORE115
• 5 Sessions
• Orientation
• Evaluating
• Library
Tools
• Internet
Tools
• Citation
• Scaffolded
• Assessment
CORE225
• One-Shot
• Review EDScheck for
understanding
• Topic specific
• Specific
databases
Fall 2014
Requested
Sessions
• WHAT DO THEY
KNOW???
• One-Shots
• Discovery Layer
• Locating
• Evaluating
• Specific
databases
• Tailoring?
Building the Program- Connecting to the
Frames
■ ACRL Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education
■ Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
– Spring/Summer 2014 Framework in draft
■ Literature
■ Anecdotal evidence
Building the Program – Library
Instruction with Backwards Design
Photo: Anthony Easton
Building the Program- Library
Instruction
Library
Orientation
•Tour
•Pre-test
Evaluating
Information
•CRAAP Test
•Scholarly &
Popular Sources
Using Library
Resources
•Discovery Layer
•Keywords,
Filters, &
Limiters
Using Google
& Online
Evaluation
•Effective online
searching &
evaluation
Citation
•Why do we cite?
•Post-test
Building the Program- Library
Instruction
Assessment
Scaffolding…
Questions &
Reflection
Small Group Work
Direct Instruction
Building the Program- Library
Instruction
Evaluating Information
•CRAAP Test
•Scholarly & Popular
Source Types
•Evaluate selected source
material
Using Library Resources
•Using the discovery layer
•Using keywords &
phrases
•Using filters & limiters
•Reading a record
•Group work practice
•Evaluate a journal
article using the CRAAP
Test
Using Google & Online
Evaluation
•Google search tips
•Using keywords &
phrases
•Using filters and limiters
•Using CRAAP Test to
evaluate online search
results
•Group work practice
•Evaluate a website
using CRAAP
Building the Program- Library
Instruction
■ Website Evaluation
– After direct instruction
– Small groups
– Evaluate assigned website with specific criteria
■ Example Website for Evaluation
■ Website Evaluation Form
Building the Program- Library
Instruction
■ Assessment
– Session specific
Library
Orientation
• Pre-test
• Huh?, Duh!,
Where is the?
Information
Evaluation
Using Library
Resources
• 1 Minute Paper
• Defining
Features Matrix
• Found Journal
Article Resource
Evaluation
Using Google &
Online Evaluation
• Hoax or no?
Website
evaluation
Citation
• Fall 2014: Cite
Relay
• Fall 2015:
Correct a
Citation
• Post-test
Building the Program- Collaboration with Instructors
FYE
Comp 2
Requested
CORE115
CORE225
Fall 2014
Fall 2013- Spring 2014
Spring 2015- Redesign
Worked with instructors to pilot
changes to the program
Library Director was named as
coordinator of CORE115
Requested
CORE115
CORE225
Piloted Changes
Piloted Changes
• 5 Sessions
• Orientation
• Evaluating
• Library Tools
• Internet Tools
• Citation
• Scaffolded
• Assessments
• Changed timing
• Face-to-face
consultations
• Peer Research
Consultants
• Research
Guides
• Formally assess
skills’
application
Spring 2015
Requested
Sessions
• Specific
databases
• Can build on
CORE115 and
CORE225
• Expectations for
students to
transfer
knowledge
Building the Program – Research
Consultations (Spring 2015)
■ Literature for AiA project
■ CORE225 – Composition II
– Fall of Sophomore year
■
Post CORE115
– Value added change
– Not another one-shot
■ Pilot Program – Spring 2015
– Consultation as conversation
– Identifying resources beyond
Building the Program – Research
Consultations
■ Composition II Pilot Program Results
– Collaboration with faculty key!
■
Communication
■
Assignment type
■
Clear purpose & direction for research consultation
– Some class time still needed
■
15 minutes
Building the Program – Research
Consultations (Fall 2015)
■ Scaffolding returns
– Learn in class
– Practice in class
– Utilize skills on own
■
Collaborate with faculty
– Return to discuss
■ CORE 115 – Foundations of Academic Inquiry
– Required…sometimes
■ CORE 225 – Composition II
– Required
Where Are We Now?
FYE
Comp 2
CORE115
Requested
Surveys to gain feedback on all
research consultations
Requested
CORE115
CORE115
• 5 Sessions
•
•
•
•
• Orientation
• Evaluating
• Library Tools
• Internet Tools
• Citation
Scaffolded
Assessments
Changed Timing
Research Consult
CORE225
Requested
Spring 2015
Fall 2014
Fall 2013- Spring 2014
Fall 2015- Round Two
Pre to Post-Test Change
54% above 70 on Pre-Test
81% above 70 on Post-Test
+27% Rate of Change
CORE225
CORE225
Requested
Sessions
• Face-to-face
consultations
• Peer Research
Consultants
• Research
Guides
• Formally assess
skills’
application
• Specific
Databases
• Can Build on
CORE115 and
CORE225
• Expectations for
students to
transfer
knowledge
Fall 2015
For the future
■ Assessment
■ Train the trainer
Photo: Buck
Select Bibliography
Bowles-Terry, M. (2012). Library instruction and academic success: A mixed-methods assessment of a library instruction
program. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 7(1), 82-95.
Buck (photographer). (2009). The-future-next-exit [photograph[, Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/photos/buckaroobay/3721809183
Easton, A (photographer). (2007). No title [photograph], Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkmoose/532853944/
Han, S., Wong, R., Cmor, D. (2011). Measuring association between library instruction and graduation GPA. College and Research
Libraries, 72(5), 464.
Nichols, J. T. (2009). The 3 directions: Situated information literacy. College and Research Libraries, 70(6), 515–530.
Oakleaf, M. (2014). A roadmap for assessing student learning using the new framework for information literacy for higher
education. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, (5), 510. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.001
Pinto, M. (2015). Viewing and exploring the subject area of information literacy assessment in higher education (2000-2011). Scientometrics, (1), 227.
Shenton, A. K., & Fitzgibbons, M. (2010). Making information literacy relevant. Library Review, 59(3), 165–174.
Vance, J.M., Kirk, R., Gardner, J.G. (2012). Measuring the impact of library instruction on freshman success and persistence: A
quantitative analysis. Communications in Information Literacy, 6(1), 49.
Vhanepfu (photographer). (2014). Steel construction [photograph], Retrieved from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steel_construction.jpg
Walsh, A. (2009). Information literacy assessment where do we start? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 19–28.
Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of changes in learners’ cognitive states during and following an information
literacy teaching intervention. Journal of Documentation, 67(3), 449–479.