When I was at Norwich, my focus was often on increasing our instruction stats. My Director wanted to see us doing more instruction and being in at least two classes in every department (in addition to reaching every student through EN 101). Not bad goals at all, but over time, I realized that the focus on quantity was getting in the way of the focus on quality. I was teaching so many history classes that some students saw me a gazillion times in a year. And the quantity of teaching was getting in the way of improving what we were teaching. We ended up making some great changes to our EN 101 program in my last year at Norwich; moving from a lecture model to something more constructivist where we focused only on three basic learning outcomes. Over time, I really started to feel like the quality of what we provided was far more important than the quantity, and that providing one really great information literacy instruction session to a student was better than three mediocre ones.
Now that I’m at a huge institution where we are understaffed, I am again thinking about quality over quantity. We are more than likely never going to be able to reach every student at PSU with an info lit session. And, at the same time, many of us at the library are questioning the efficacy of the one-shot. We do lots and lots of one-shots in an attempt to reach as many students as possible, but is this really going to have the largest impact? But if not that, what? Train the trainer? Learning objects? Co-teaching? What about credit courses?
A faculty member outside of the library gave me the idea of having librarians offer subject-specific credit research classes in the Junior Clusters. The clusters are kind of like distribution requirements. Nearly all Juniors are required to choose a theme and then take classes (offered in various departments) that are part of that theme. The theme may be related to their major and may not. So the library could offer junior-level research-focused classes in gender studies, environmental studies, American studies, etc. that interested students would opt-into. The library could then work with those those students interested in improving their research skills over the course of a quarter, covering far more than we would be able to cover even if we were embedded in several courses in a discipline.
This isn’t something we would go for because, with our staffing, it would be an either/or proposition; either focus on instruction in your liaison areas or focus on teaching credit classes. Given the strong liaison relationships my colleagues have developed with their departments, it’s a non-starter. And I feel similarly about my own liaison area and wouldn’t want to give up my instructional role within it. Still, I found the concept a very seductive one. What if we focused on providing in-depth research instruction through for-credit classes at the junior-level? Students are at a place where their research assignments are becoming more demanding and are usually receptive to learning how to improve their research skills (they don’t think they’re experts like Freshmen often do). It’s exciting to imagine being able to teach all of our library instruction program learning outcomes in a single course, since most of us don’t even cover all of them in a discipline, and being able to work with students throughout the term. We could deeply benefit those who are interested in benefitting and serve others through instruction at the reference desk, Freshman instruction and learning objects.
I never found the idea of for-credit classes appealing in my last job, but we really could reach every student at Norwich with library instruction through EN 101. At an institution where 2/3 of our students start out as juniors (mostly from community colleges), there is no catchall class. While it’s still important to focus on Freshman instruction to improve retention (at least we hope we are contributing to retention), it can’t be our primary focus like it is at many institutions. There’s no one obvious route for us to ensure that all of the students at PSU are information literate, so we make lots of efforts in lots of different places. And it’s so difficult to build on anything we’ve taught at the lower levels because, for some students, it’s the first time they’ve had library instruction.
I’m wondering if other people struggle with the broad vs. deep question. Do you strive to reach every student even when you know the baseline instruction they are getting is less than what they need to be successful in academia and in life? Or do you focus on providing in-depth instruction to those who choose to receive it, ensuring that those students have the information skills needed to be successful in the 21st century? You won’t reach everyone, but you’ll reach the people who want your help. And isn’t a big part of information literacy (and general success in life) knowing when to seek help? There are no easy answers to these questions; I’m just curious how other people are handling it — especially those at human resource-constrained libraries.
At the moment, I’m partnering with a lecturer and co-teaching academic skills sessions a couple of times a week, aimed at the first years in the Bachelor of Social Work program. These sessions are voluntary, and we usually get about 20-30 attendees per session. Even if library instruction is not explicitly mentioned in the description of the session, it’s always (sneakily) included somehow, made relevant in the context of what we’re talking about (APA referencing, Narrowing Your Topic, Academic Research, etc). My thought is that even though we are only getting about 25% of the class in these voluntary sessions, they will share what they’ve learned with their friends (this cohort loves to work in groups and share information with each other) and hopefully spread the word that the librarian (me) is knowledgeable and approachable. I have noticed a major increase in students visiting me for “research consultations” during my off-desk hours.
Hi Meredith & your readers :-), I hear lots of talk that tells me that many of us are trying to work our way through this issue. Having worked with various health sciences disciplines (which tend to be more interested in info lit issues) & various engineering disciplines (which tend to be less interested in info lit issues), I have come to the conclusion that depth tends ensure greater relevance (as students judge it) & gives greater pedagogical choice, & those things help create better learning outcomes for those students who choose to take the learning opportunities we provide. I do have a couple of classes that are more generalist but they focus on the “professional information” world ie. what you won’t find for free with your favourite search engine – when to use them & how to find them. For students about to undertake an original research project in their final year, it’s all about “tricking” (as one of my education heroes, Biggs, would say) people into analysing information needs & developing appropriate search stragegies. I feel that I don’t provide all the learning opportunities that I “should” but as many of our academic clients believe that info lit is learnt by osmosis, & our students think that they know it all already, I work with who is willing to work with me & keep my eyes open for people “vulnerable” to a change in viewpoint 🙂 I’d love to see info lit embedded across programs but I’m resigned to the fact that this will never happen. So, now I concentrate on where I think students will get greatest professional bang for their buck. Fortunately that has coincided with our Industry advisors points-of-view. Perhaps I’ve given up when I shouldn’t have but … Sandra
Meredith, this is something I think about a lot too. I am lucky, though, in that I am a music librarian, so I get to primarily focus on music students. I have a great relationship with the School of Music, and I have several different points during which I meet with students: At their Freshman orientation in the Summer (called “Customs” here), then during “Freshman Experience”, a required 4 week course for all Freshman music majors (I only meet with them for one meeting but provide an assignment), and then in individual history classes. I also meet with the graduate bibliography class for several weeks. I don’t know if most schools have the resources to have a librarian that is that focused on one discipline to provide that much specialized instruction, but it has worked well for me. I also get to know the students and, in some cases, have worked with the same students from their Freshman year through graduation.
Meredith, I have always wanted to focus library instruction on credit class as a lab component to the first research class in the major (for some, this is first year, for others 3rd; it varies by major). I think this is a much more fruitful place to put our energies than the incoming COMP or COMM or ENG class. And I honestly don’t think making this the cornerstone of an instruction program would require more instruction librarian time than trying to hit every single frosh in a COMP class.
It happened before you or I entered the profession, but how on earth did we get so committed to seeing every student so very long before they need the resources the library has to offer???
@Lydia – that’s a great point that the folks who choose to take classes like that will probably pass on what they’ve learned to friends and classmates and will spread the word of the value of the library.
@Sandra – you’ve hit on a lot of the things I’ve been thinking about. I do think it’s possible to go the deep route and still provide outreach to some of the most vulnerable populations. That’s great that you’ve been able to focus on those students who want to learn. It’s nice to know that others share my thoughts on depth in info lit instruction.
@Rudy – I wonder the same thing. This desperation to give every student a “library experience”, as if, in the process, we’re saving their souls. I LOVE the idea of a 1 credit info lit lab that students have to take in tandem with their research methods course. Brilliant and a nice alternative to the junior cluster teaching. We just recently got the ability to create for-credit classes and I’ll have to talk to our liaisons and see if any departments might be interested in that.
@Sarah – at institutions that aren’t spread thin, it probably is possible to be broad and deep, but it’s all about numbers (of librarians). Our music librarian is the librarian for all of the fine and performing arts and Middle East studies. She does a great job, but it’s just too much to be able to focus deeply.
Sing it sister! I recently mentioned to a science professor that according to decades of cognitive development research, traditional-aged students are not generally _capable_ of higher level information literacy skills, like evaluation and synthesis. Therefore, the majors should be teaching and reinforcing those skills.
He thought I was crazy. Majors are for content. Poor English comp, it’s expected to teach college students Everything You Need to Know About Writing and Researching in One (maybe 2) Semester(s).
He suggested students who didn’t get everything they needed out of our English comp classes should take (and pay for) a remedial online course. Yeesh.
We are staff-strapped, and we are turning to online modules to help us as the student population continues to grow. Our teaching is also mostly at the freshmen-sophomore level courses because we’re an established presence there. Everyone who teaches our Core 102 and 201 is required to bring their students to us for a library session. Now compare that to our upper level research methods classes: the class rotates to a different professor (sometimes adjunct) each time it is taught, whom I have to track down- and is sometimes not assigned until the day before classes start, and is under no rule that s/he bring her students in, and who is often under the illusion that the students are just like she was (aka, an ace researcher), and who will listen to my spiel politely but may or may not bite. It’s a ton of work and frankly, I don’t have time to do it for more than one or two majors.
Interesting discussion, M!
Oops- lost part of my first paragraph:
according to decades of cognitive development research, traditional-aged students are not generally _capable_ of higher level information literacy skills, like evaluation and synthesis, until their junior or senior years.
Hi Rudy, I think that we conned ourselves into doing this because, as a profession, we didn’t have fundamental knowledge in teaching & learning. Often we still repeat those mistakes because our professional literature isn’t geared to help us help our “teaching selves”. I’m almost through a Master of Education, & although I know a lot more than I did when I started, I’m pretty sure that, on graduation, I won’t feel that I know half of what I need to. We don’t always understand a lot about teaching & learning & our academic clients sometimes don’t know an awful lot more about teaching & learning than we do. Add to that all the complications & demands that come with courses & programs & constant changes in the information world … I suspect that we’ll always be battling away at this – how we battle & what we battle with may change but I’ve got a nasty feeling that the fundamental battle will be there. Lucky that we’re persistent types & that we have heads that spontaneously regenerate after regular bashings against brick walls 🙂 The two key attributes of a happy & productive librarian me thinks. Sandra
I’m also at a large research university. For the past several years, about half of our first-year students have attended a one-shot library session as part of their first-year experience course. Still, our librarians do a lot of somewhat generic one-shots. Most of us press hard for assignment-specific sessions. We’ve had some success with a one-credit course for Communication Studies students. With the help of our Comm. Studies advisor, we’ve been able to target advertising for the course to students in specific upper-level courses requiring a research assignment. The course has been reworked over several semesters, and last fall was the first time that it was taught entirely online. Real depth? That’s tough in any environment, maybe more so online. Students really have to pay attention and work toward the development of thoughtful research questions. This course moves students in that direction, but it’s challenging to limit the work to one credit.
Pingback: Broad vs. deep in information literacy instruction | Information Wants To Be Free | Digital Literacy: a conversation | Scoop.it
Pingback: Broad vs. deep in information literacy instruction | Information Wants To Be Free | Bleeding EdgeSchool Libraries | Scoop.it
Pingback: Project SAILS » Broad vs. Deep Information Literacy Instruction