Active Learning on Steroids: Unconferences and Information Literacy Instruction

So I went to a session at Computers in Libraries that I thought wasn’t going to have any relevance for my day-to-day work at all, but I wanted to hear the presenters speak because I’d heard good things about them through the Library Society of the World grapevine, and there wasn’t anything else compelling scheduled against it. The session was on unconferences, library camps, and other related phenomena,1 with presentations by Kathryn Greenhill, Steve Lawson, Stephen Francoeur, and John Blyberg. All were uniformly awesome presenters, by the way, validating Iris Jastram’s theory about the LSW and conferences.

Unconferences sound neat, and I’d definitely go to one if I thought it was relevant to what I do, but they seem to mostly be about tech stuff, and while I do some tech stuff, mostly I’m an instruction librarian. But then in a conversation with Steve Lawson afterward, I had a “duh!” moment and realized there’s no reason there couldn’t be a library instruction unconference. And in fact, I was contacted back in the fall by someone in our state library association about my interest in working with the instruction sub-round-table-interest-committee-group. So I might just re-contact her and offer to help, and then just shove some things around and make a library instruction unconference.

But the really, really exciting part came when someone in the audience said she was wondering whether you could pull off an unconference with schoolchildren, rather than librarians. And that got me thinking: could you do this with undergrads? Get a bunch of them in a room together and let them figure out something information-literacy-related? To me, this whole idea sounds like “active learning” on steroids.

There are a few conditions that would have to be met before this idea even has a shred of a chance of working:

  1. It would have to be organized around a high-level, conceptual topic, rather than a nuts-and-bolts skills-based topic. You could do an unconference on “how scholarly information is generated, disseminated, and paid for,” but not around “how to search for articles in JSTOR.” But, could you do an unconference on “how do you gather the information you need for a college paper in [discipline]”? Maybe you could!
  2. The place and time would have to be just right. This wouldn’t work for a standard 50-minute one-shot. It also wouldn’t work for a 3-credit info lit class. The former is just too short, and the latter, even if it had enough hours in total over the course of the semester, doesn’t have the critical mass of a long, unstructured time in a room together, which is an essential aspect of an unconference.
  3. Where it would work, though, is at a small college that has a “short term”: a 3- to 5-week session (usually in January or May) where students do one short intensive project. Or it could potentially work as a summer session, particularly if it’s super-compressed.
  4. And this is one that Steve Lawson pointed out to me: you can’t coerce people into an unconference and expect it to work. They have to be there because they want to be. So it definitely wouldn’t work as an add-on to an existing course. It might, however, work in that “short term” context, where students are actively choosing projects that interest them, and where there’s an established expectation for innovative and collaborative projects.

So what do you think? Could it work with undergrads? What kinds of topics would you want to teach/learn/explore? Is anyone out there already doing something like this?


  1. one question at the end of the session was “what’s the difference between and unconference and a happening?” and the answer, I think from Steve Lawson, was “less drugs at an unconference.” Knowing a little bit (not firsthand!) about happenings, that sounds about right.

Memes of Yesterday: Five blog heroes

One of the things about being really late to this here “blogging” thing is that you miss out on a bunch of good memes. There have been several that I’ve wanted to join in on, but didn’t have a platform from which to join. Now I have that platform, but the memes are long gone. So I’m instituting a new series, called “Memes of Yesterday,” in which I revisit biblioblogosphere memes that passed me by. Here’s the first entry, on the “Five Blog Heroes” meme. (And these are in no particular order, by the way. It was hard enough just picking five, much less ranking them by heronessosity.)

  1. Dorothea Salo, Caveat Lector. I was so pleased when she got named a Mover and Shaker this year, I cannot tell you. Dorothea tells it like it is, no matter what, even when what she has to say demonstrably threatens her own position. I love her writing style (close readers of this blog will note pale echoes of some of her stylistic tropes): who else could write, “there is no correlation whatever between this phenomenon and one’s y-axis position in an organization chart“? Now I’ll admit that most of what she writes about DSpace, Fedora, Manakin, and other IR tech stuff goes right over my head, but I keep reading because even if I don’t understand it, it’s still funny. And sometimes heartbreaking.
  2. Karen G. Schneider, Free-Range Librarian. Like Dorothea, Karen tells it like it is, often hilariously. But what really lands her on this list is this: last May, she wrote a blog post about reading, and I, in a sleep-deprived, new-parent moment of weakness, forgot the first rule of online etiquette (“write the comment, sleep on it, then decide whether to post it”) wrote a cranky comment in response. Karen replied with warmth, kindness, and graciousness (and I apologized). That, right there? Is class, plain and simple. I still hope to apologize to her in person at Computers in Libraries, if I can work up the courage. (Bonus points: Karen’s Twitter-feed can also be hilariously funny.)
  3. Jeffrey Zeldman, zeldman.com. I’ve been reading Zeldman’s blog/webpage since sometime in 2000 or 2001. I discovered it while I was teaching myself HTML while working a job that didn’t have enough responsibilities to keep me busy; his passionate writing on web standards and proper markup is what influenced me to learn HTML right (i.e., XHTML and CSS)1 and still influences the way I think about web markup. At this point, 90% of what he writes about actual web standards and design goes right over my head, but I keep reading for his marvelously evocative descriptions of life in New York with his 4-year-old daughter.
  4. Jessamyn West, librarian.net. One of the only people in the biblioblogosphere who can be, and often is, referred to by her first name only without any confusion. What I admire about Jessamyn is her commitment to standing up for both sides of the digital divide: uncompromising in her criticism of bad technology, but also questioning what use technology has for the people she works with on a regular basis. Also, she can be riotously funny in a dry sort of way.
  5. Iris Jastram, Pegasus Librarian. Iris is one of the few actual instruction librarians out there who are blogging about actual instruction, which makes her blog particularly valuable for me – all those great ideas! In fact, it was the lack of blogs like Iris’s that gave me the confidence to start this blog, since blogging about instruction is, in theory at least, the main point of this blog. I’ve gotten tons of great ideas from Iris, including her marvelous subversive handout, and I do hope that some day I can use her ideas about citation as a lens into the different disciplines.

So those are my five. Also, I’d like to give a little shout-out to my two favorite librarian-bloggers-who-are-also-parents, Jason Griffey and Michelle Boule, and their adorable offspring, Eliza and Gideon. Maybe someday we can have a little proto-librarian playgroup or something.


  1. And incidentally, learning about CSS is what finally made “styles” in Microsoft Word make sense to me – or at least, it would make sense to me if it actually, you know, worked.

Plans for Computers in Libraries

Things I plan to do at Computers In Libraries 2009 that have nothing to do with computers or libraries:

  1. Take a shower with neither a toddler nor a baby monitor in the bathroom with me.
  2. Eat breakfast sitting down.
  3. Sleep past 6:30 am.
  4. Eat a meal at a restaurant with cloth napkins and tablecloths.
  5. Think about James pretty much every minute of every day I’m there.

Any parents reading this will have figured out that this is my first overnight (three nights, actually!) trip away from James since he was born. Wish me luck! (No need to wish him luck, I’m sure he’ll be fine. His dad could maybe use some good wishes, though.)

Movers and Shakers: One more degree of separation

Many congratulations to my good friends Jason Griffey and Kim Duckett on being named “Movers and Shakers” for 2009 by Library Journal! They join a star-studded list that includes the likes of Chad Boeninger, Sarah Houghton-Jan, Michael Porter, Lauren Pressley, Jenica Rogers-Urbanek, Dorothea Salo, and Pam Sessoms (and those are just the ones from this year’s list with whom I’m familiar).

This brings my list of Movers and Shakers With Whom I’ve Worked Or Studied up to 5:

  1. Tito Sierra (2006)
  2. Emily Lynema (2007)1
  3. Hilary Davis (2008)
  4. Jason Griffey (2009)
  5. Kim Duckett (2009)

(Admittedly, there’s a tremendous benefit in having worked, however briefly, for the NCSU Libraries!)

I wonder if LJ will ever start offering an award for the obscure librarian with the most single-degrees-of-separation connections to Movers and Shakers?


  1. I actually shared an office with Emily for a couple of weeks!

Friday toddler-blogging: day before Spring Break edition

How could a librarian not love this little guy?

Reading

New lesson plan: “Guided Pandemonium”

I tried a new lesson plan idea a couple of weeks back, and I’m not really sure how it went. It was a one-shot instruction session for an intro communications class; I’ve worked with this class and this faculty member before and it’s always gone well. The students are working on informative speeches on an aspect of popular culture (their choice) where they need sources to fill out their speeches, but they don’t necessarily need to be peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles – in fact, those often aren’t the best sources for them to use.

In the past, I’ve done a combination lesson plan where I break them into groups and give each group a reference book (St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, Gale’s American Decades/American Eras series, etc.) and have them report back to the class about the book. Then we explore what I call “trusted site” web directories – hand-culled directories of useful links like Librarians’ Internet Index and the Internet Public Library. Then they get some time to search on their own using those directories.

This time, I wanted to try a more free-form approach, so I divided them into six groups from the get-go, assigned each group an information tool, and had the groups spend 10-15 minutes searching their tool for information about a sample topic. I had them vote to choose the sample topic: the choices were Dilbert, Playboy magazine, The Sound Of Music, diners, and Avon and/or Mary Kay Cosmetics. (And yes, I okayed the topics with the instructor first: she was totally cool with Playboy, and our computers are unfiltered, so… As it turned out, the students chose The Sound Of Music.)

The six information tools that were assigned to the groups were:

  1. Google
  2. Wikipedia
  3. A pre-selected set of reference books
  4. The library catalog
  5. Academic Search Premier
  6. Three “trusted site” directories: the two mentioned above, plus Intute from the UK.

Most of the class time was devoted to the groups reporting back to their classmates about what they found, with me interjecting comments designed to make sure that all the essential points were covered. There was also a handout, which was only distributed at the end of class, that reiterated the essential points, how to get to the various tools (URLs for web sites, call numbers for books, etc.), and other important information.

It was a lot of fun, and the students seemed really into it. But I’m not so sure how well it actually worked. I got the distinct impression that, of the sources available to them, the students came away thinking that Google and Wikipedia were the most productive. Sigh. The situation wasn’t helped by several factors:

  • We couldn’t find anything useful in Academic Search Premier. No, really! It was bizarre.
  • Our reference book collection isn’t particularly strong in music or musicals, so the “print sources” group had a hard time finding anything to use.
  • The Wikipedia article and the first page of Google search results were actually relatively reliable. They would have been less strong candidates if the students had needed scholarly articles, but for this assignment, they didn’t.

The assessment that I did at the end of the class – a combination of the “one minute paper” and the “muddiest point” assessment, where I ask the students to quickly write down one useful thing they learned and one thing they still have questions about – was inconclusive.  Lots of students said they liked learning about the “trusted site” directories, and a number mentioned Google Scholar as a useful resource.  I’ll be curious to follow up with the professor to find out what kinds of sources they ultimately ended up using for their speeches, and whether this worked better than the old lesson plan. The students were more engaged and active, but did they get a misguided impression of appropriate research?

The Library Web Site of the Future: thanks but no thanks.

Steven J. Bell has a piece in the February 17 Inside Higher Ed titled, “The Library Web Site of the Future.” Since we’re currently in the early stages of completely overhauling our current web site, I read it with some interest. (Take note that, as of this reading, the comments are not particularly charitable toward librarians.)

And then I had to blog about it, because, wow. Lots to think about here.

Bell’s point, as best I can summarize it, is that the concept of the library web site as portal to the library’s information resources is outdated and should be done away with. We know, he argues, that neither scholars nor students actually use the library web site as a portal to academic information. Instead, faculty use their own workarounds (primarily bookmarks directly into scholarly databases, but also email journal alerts and publishers’ web sites) to obtain the research they need for their work, and students use…well, students use Google. We should give up on making the library web site a portal to research, and instead take a cue from the recent changes that have swept through college and university home pages, which have become marketing tools to attract prospective students. Emphasize the human aspect of the library – the people who work there, the services, help, and support they provide – and tell the story of the library’s central role in the campus community. Instead of demanding that students and faculty come to our web site to access information, we should go where they are, placing links to individually-selected databases within course web pages and courseware applications, and by creating customized research guides à la LibGuides.

That’s the best summary I can make of the article. Now, there’s a lot to unpack here, and I have some minor quibbles with smaller points that he makes along the way, which I’m going to omit, because this post is already way too long as it is.

We’re so retro, we’re cool!

MPOW is embarking on a long-overdue redesign of our web page. Our current page, we believe, uses far too much screen real estate on the “What’s New At The Library” section, and squishes the essential functionality of the site (search for books, search for articles, etc.) over into an almost undifferentiated, jargon-filled, difficult to read and navigate left-hand navigation bar. We’re looking to reverse the balance between newsy stuff and functional stuff, to make it much much easier for students to locate and use the tools that we have available for them. We’re looking for a web presence more like that of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, or Augsburg College, or Colorado College, with their very clear “Search,” “Find,” “Help,” and “I’m looking for” language.

But wait! Isn’t that precisely what Bell is saying we shouldn’t do? He writes that “[n]ews about the library’s programs, events, or new resources are often crammed into a corner of the page, are limited to small bits of text…” That’s exactly what we’re aiming for: moving the news out of the way so that students can find and use the catalog and databases more efficiently.

Is this another pendulum-swing phenomenon? Like, some years back it was all the rage to put a library’s news and events front and center, and then suddenly everyone said, “but wait, the library web page is about finding stuff so we should make that the most prominent thing on the page!” And then a few years after that, everyone said, “no no no, the library is about community and telling our story and putting a human face on information, so we should emphasize that!” If so, my library may be racing to catch up with last year’s trend.

Faculty as catalyst

The key to Bell’s proposed solution is the faculty’s willingness to collaborate with librarians. In order for libraries to get rid of the “library web site as portal” concept, we need to ensure that access to our collections and resources is available elsewhere, and the “elsewhere” that Bell proposes is within individual course pages. This requires faculty to take the initiative to integrate those resources and work with librarians. It also assumes that all faculty use course web pages or courseware tools for all of their classes which, for a wide variety of reasons, I don’t think can safely be assumed. In addition to taking the initiative, Bell claims that “…faculty need to increase their personal awareness of library e-resource content…”

Now admittedly, Bell appears to be aware of how ambitious his proposal is, with regard to faculty. But really, he’s completely overturning the model of the faculty’s relationship with the library that has existed for a very long time. Previously, for faculty the library was just there, and you used it and directed your students to it, and maybe you put a few books or articles on reserve if all your students were going to need to read them at the same time. If a student came to you and asked for help on research, perhaps you suggested a particular book that you knew of as a starting point, or recommended that they search in JSTOR (regardless of whether JSTOR actually was the most appropriate database for the subject, or whether the library even had a subscription to JSTOR).

I’m beginning to think that I’m prematurely cynical, but I’m always skeptical of anything library-related that relies on faculty to take initiative. And I’m not even speaking as a librarian at a research-focused school whose faculty have the stereotypical blinders to anything outside their research labs. I’m at a small college with a strong teaching orientation. Bell proposes to alleviate some of the burden on faculty by an aggressive program of librarian outreach, that could “eliminate any faculty excuses for not integrating the library into their course.” And that leads us to the next problem with his model…

Scalability

Faculty outreach takes work. Lots and lots and lots of work. And that’s setting aside all the debates about faculty opinions of librarians, librarians’ status relative to faculty and tenure, etc. Here at Saint Mary’s College, we have seven full-time tenure-track librarians, for a faculty of about 180. My extremely unscientific assessment is that the serious, thorough outreach necessary to make Bell’s model work, would be just barely possible here, with all the librarians (including our cataloger, our library director, etc.) working hard at it. My former place of work, by contrast, currently has seven reference subject specialists, three permanent distance-ed specialists, and seven permanent collection management subject specialists. This gives them a grand total of 17 potential library-outreach-providers for a faculty of just over 2000. The prospect of doing thorough outreach with those numbers seems…not promising.

But what does it do?

Bell refers to the changes that have occurred in college and university web pages over the past several years, as administrations increasingly viewed them as marketing vehicles to attract potential students, rather than information tools for students, faculty, and staff currently on campus. Previously, you went to your college’s home page to find the academic calendar to see when Spring Break is this year, find a link to the women’s lacrosse team schedule, see what campus jobs were currently open, or even (gasp!) find a link to the library. All that has been shunted to the margins in favor of portraits of current students, special material for parents, and “imagine yourself here!” language.

Which is all well and good if the target audience is, in fact, prospective students rather than current students and, if, in fact, all that other information is readily accessible to current students, faculty, and staff. The most common complaint I have heard about redesigned college web pages, from current students, faculty, and staff, however, is “I can’t find any of the information I need on this stupid page!”

If that’s what we’ll get from a wholesale marketing makeover of the library’s web page, well, count me out.

While I have no doubt that a marketing transformation of the library web page would correctly identify current campus residents as the target audience, I still worry about what provision such a transformed page would make for students who erroneously came to the library web page expecting it to be a portal to the library’s information resources. The last thing I would want to overhear on campus is, “yeah, I went to the library home page to try to find books for my assignment, but all I could find was photos of the librarians and stuff about the exhibits they have on display.”

I have no problem with Bell’s call for integrating library tools and resources more closely into course web pages and courseware sites, and in fact that’s something that I hope to be able to do a lot of in the very near future. But I think that can’t be the only, or even the primary, mode of entry into those tools and resources. Bell says the library web site should “emphasize the value of and invite stronger relationships with faculty and students.” And there’s nothing wrong with that, but all the warm fuzzy feelings we engender in our faculty and students will disappear in a heartbeat if, when they do come to us looking for serious research tools, they can’t find them.

Conclusion

So to sum up, Bell is proposing a completely new conceptual model for what the library web site is, and more importantly, what it does and what students and faculty can and should do with it. That model hinges on faculty taking initiative and responsibility for integrating research tools and library collections into their courses, thereby creating a whole new model for the faculty’s relationship to the library. Bell’s model also hinges on an enormous amount of individualized collaboration between librarians and faculty, which is hard to envision on the scale of a large research university. Perhaps I’m cynical and jaded beyond what is appropriate for someone relatively new to the profession, but I’m dubious on all counts.

We’ll still be overhauling our library’s web site, but we’ll be doing it old-school, trying to do the best job we can of connecting our students and faculty with the information they need.

Update, March 2010: Our new website has been live for a good six months now, so I’ve changed the link above that says “our current website” to a screenshot of what the old website used to look like. Ironically, “news” is still front-and-center in the design, but at the very least, I think we can safely say that the navigation (which now appears on every page, what a concept!) is clearer and less jargon-filled than the previous version.  Here’s to small improvements!

When I don’t do an assessment

I’ve had my conversion experience with the Gospel of Assessment, so I always feel bad when I don’t quite manage to do an assessment at the end of a one-shot library session, or I simply forget. Often I forget because the class hasn’t gone well and I’m all anxious about that, and then I just feel worse because I didn’t manage to do an assessment.

But every now and then, I don’t manage to do one because the class has been in the library’s computer classroom, so the students all have computers and are searching on their topics and I’m circulating and helping them and the energy is really good and all of a sudden, whoa, gotta get to my next class! and they’re gone.

And those times, I don’t feel so bad.

On-the-fly lesson plan conversion

So a couple of weeks ago, I taught a library research session for a nursing class and professor with whom I’d worked before, on a fairly straightforward lesson plan of “how to find articles in an EBSCO database.” The students were upperclasswomen who had done at least some research before, so I had a whole lesson plan worked out for covering Boolean logic,1 some of the more advanced features of the EBSCO interface including My EBSCOhost, and going into detail on finding full text using our SFX link resolver.

All well and good, except that when I stepped into the classroom, the professor happened to mention that she’d eliminated the research assignment, for which these skills were essential, from the syllabus. But of course, she still wanted me to teach the session, because “this is really important information for these students to know!”

Insert a paragraph or two of me quietly seething here.
So, I had to do a quick revision of the intended lesson plan for the day.

I was teaching the class in the professor’s classroom, rather than our library instruction room, so the only computer in the room was the instructor’s machine. In that kind of a situation, I use a worksheet on brainstorming keywords and translating them into a Boolean search string, using the students’ own research topics, to inject at least a little active learning into the session. On that day, I still talked a bit about Boolean logic, but had to jettison the active learning exercise because they didn’t have topics to work with, and I hadn’t brought any sample topics to class with me.2 I still talked about some of the aspects of the EBSCO database, but skipped My EBSCOhost and downplayed the SFX tools. Since these students were about to go out into clinical practice, I had planned to talk a little bit about the relationship between CINAHL (the database we were searching), EBSCO (our provider) and Ovid (the provider that many hospitals use for access to CINAHL).3 I beefed up that part of the session as much as I could.

In short, I tried to transform the session into “what you’ll need to know about doing research in the nursing literature once you graduate and are actually working as nurses.” I wasn’t terribly successful, on account of having negative prep time for the transformation, but it wasn’t a complete flop either.

Next year, if this professor comes back and wants another library session for this course, I’ll be more careful to confirm whether or not her students have an actual research assignment, and if not, I’ll present some ideas for a more deliberate transformation of the class. I’d like to do some small-group work with scenarios that present real-world information needs that nurses might have, and get the students to suggest research strategies that might meet those needs. I actually think this would be a much more interesting, useful, and engaging session than yet another “how to find articles using an EBSCO database” session. Even if I do bring in the Magic Library Elvesâ„¢.


  1. I’ve found that even if students have used databases to find articles before, they still often haven’t a clue about Boolean operators, and I was teaching a discipline where synonyms are especially prevalent, so wanted to emphasize that point.
  2. I’m good at generating sample topics on the fly, but not that good.
  3. I’m under the impression that some practicing nurses will refer to CINAHL as “Ovid,” much the same way that undergrads call Academic Search Premier “EBSCO.” I always try to mention this to nursing students so it doesn’t confuse them when they get out into the real world. If I’m wrong about this, will someone please correct me?

The “undergrad” checkbox

A colleague and I were chatting this morning about the freaky stuff that undergrads often request through Inter-Library Loan, often not realizing what exactly it is that they’re requesting.  The most common example is Dissertation Abstracts, where if they request the item through ILL, what they get in return is…the abstract of the dissertation.  Which they probably already have, since it’s included in the database.  And that’s assuming the dissertation was even completed which, you know, sometimes doesn’t happen.

We decided that in addition to the “peer-reviewed” checkbox that appears in many databases (EBSCO, I’m looking at you), there ought to be an “undergrad” checkbox, which filters out all the weird stuff that database providers throw into their silos to enhance their stats for numbers of titles indexed, etc.  It would weed out:

  • Dissertation Abstracts
  • Unpublished conference papers
  • Heck, any conference paper, but especially those given at conferences outside of North America
  • Book reviews
  • And, optionally, it would limit to items in English.

Sure, some doctoral-level researcher somewhere could probably use those items, so there’s no reason to exclude them from the database. (And database providers would no more consider removing them from their databases than libraries would consider de-accessioning books. Ahem.)  But undergrads have no idea what these things are, and are so often disappointed when they wait a week for something to arrive through ILL and then see what it is.

Somehow, I don’t think the major database vendors are going to grab this idea and run with it.