scholarly journals The Librarian, the Machine, or a Little of Both: A Comparative Study of Three Information Literacy Pedagogies at Oakland University

2007 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth W. Kraemer ◽  
Shawn V. Lombardo ◽  
Frank J. Lepkowski
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Information Literacy ◽  
Instructional Methods ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Hybrid Combination ◽  
Online Tutorials ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
Live Instruction

Each year, Oakland library faculty provide information literacy instruction for Rhetoric 160, a first-year writing course, through a combination of WebCT-based online tutorials and in-class teaching. For this study, twelve sections of RHT 160 during the winter 2005 term were selected to compare three instructional methods: online instruction only, live instruction, and the current “hybrid” combination of live instruction and online tutorials. The sections were assigned to one of the instructional methods and, to assess student learning, all students (n=224) completed identical pre- and post-tests. Results of the study, including differences in student performance in relation to pedagogy, are discussed.

Crowdsourcing the curriculum

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie White-Farnham ◽  
Carolyn Caffrey Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Student Performance ◽  
Information Literacy ◽  
First Year ◽  
Writing Program ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Literacy Outcomes ◽  
Writing Program Administrator ◽  
Writing Instructors

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale, process and results of an integrated curricular intervention for information literacy instruction in a first-year writing program. Design/methodology/approach – The information literacy coordinator collaborated with writing instructors and the Writing Program Administrator on the initial design of information literacy outcomes. The librarian and instructors created a modular curriculum with multiple lessons and activities aligned to each outcome. The curriculum was housed in the course management system for easy updating and distribution. Finally, instructors taught the embedded information literacy activities for two semesters and measured student improvement through a pre-/post-survey and a rubric-based assessment of students’ citation and documentation. Findings – Students saw significant gains over the course of the semester in their ability to use Boolean operators, identify the purpose of sources and understand citation styles. As a related and valuable measure, writing program assessment results showed an improvement in students’ performance in citation and documentation in researched writing assignments after a one-year implementation of the intervention. Writing instructors reported an increased awareness of information literacy pedagogy and intentionality in their teaching. Finally, the librarian was able to leverage this collaboration to highlight the teaching roles of librarians beyond the one-shot. Originality/value – Well-known temporal and logistical limits exist in regard to embedded, one-shot and multi-shot approaches to information literacy. The latter two are especially unsustainable when implemented at scale, such as within a first-year writing program that serves hundreds or thousands of students each semester. This study documents a faculty development approach in which writing instructors integrate information literacy (IL) into their own instruction. This offers a model that makes explicit IL processes and skills to writing instructors, results in high student performance and allows especially the small college librarian to manage his/her other strategic information literacy partnerships.

Framing first-year writing course guides: a content analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenda M. Insua
Keyword(s):  
Information Literacy ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Instructional Content ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
American Research ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which first-year writing course guides contain instructional content and whether the ACRL Framework for information literacy has been addressed in these guides.Design/methodology/approachFirst-year writing course guides were identified from American Research Libraries websites and examined for instructional elements. These elements were categorized using a rubric that mapped the Framework to instructional content. Qualtrics was used to organize and analyze the data.FindingsMost first-year writing course guides include instructional content, but less than half incorporate the Framework in some way. Guides that do incorporate the Framework focus on “searching as strategic exploration” and “research as inquiry”.Practical implicationsThis paper provides librarians with practical information on first-year writing guides and includes examples of how the Framework might be addressed.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the literature on research guide content and is the first to invent first-year writing course guides.

scholarly journals Re-Imagining the First Year as Catalyst for First-Year Writing Program Curricular Change

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Crank ◽  
Sara Heaser ◽  
Darci L. Thoune
Keyword(s):  
College Retention ◽  
Habits Of Mind ◽  
Curricular Change ◽  
First Year ◽  
Writing Program ◽  
Research Project ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Writing Courses ◽  
Multiple Measures ◽  
Writing Course

This article describes a revision of a first-year writing program curriculum using the pillars of the Reimagining the First-Year Program. The authors adapted principles related to mindset and habits of mind from both college retention scholarship and composition scholarship. After developing a research project in order to understand what elements of mindset correlate with readiness for credit-bearing writing courses, the authors created a multiple measures placement system for enrolling students in a credit-bearing first-year writing course with co-requisite support.  

Building a local learner corpus

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica H. Kwon ◽  
R. Scott Partridge ◽  
Shelley Staples
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Members ◽  
First Year ◽  
Construction Process ◽  
Writing Program ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
Teaching Interventions ◽  
Learner Corpus Analysis ◽  
Writing Instructors

Abstract This paper describes the construction process involved in creating a robust local learner corpus of texts produced by international students in a first-year writing course at a large public, mid-western university in the U.S. We show how involving faculty members and graduate students of our local writing program in the process of learner corpus analysis provides them with opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge as writing instructors, course designers, and, ultimately, knowledge producers. An additional benefit of such an undertaking is that the corpus can become part of the infrastructure of a research community that allows continued contributions by others individually and collaboratively. We also illustrate the usefulness of our local learner corpus for research, teaching, mentoring, and collaboration within our writing program with examples of the research projects and teaching interventions we have developed.

Evaluation in the course development process

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Van de Poel ◽  
Jessica Gasiorek
Keyword(s):  
Development Process ◽  
First Year ◽  
Course Development ◽  
First Year Writing ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Course Materials ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
The University

Evaluation is a critical but frequently underutilized part of the (language) course development process. Instructors’ reasons for avoiding it vary, but often include the concern that conducting evaluations will draw time and attention away from course content. Using All Write, a first-year writing course at the University of Antwerp, as a case study, this article shows how mechanisms for feedback and evaluation can be incorporated into course materials with minimal impact, as well as demonstrates the benefits of evaluation as both a validation process and a guide for course revision. Moreover, it will show how the stakeholders, primarily learners, but also teachers, may be drawn into the process and potentially benefit from it.

scholarly journals Embedding Digital (Information) Literacy in the First Year Curriculum: An Intervention

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Jane Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Student Performance ◽  
Information Literacy ◽  
Digital Literacy ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
First Year ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Improving Student Performance

This paper describes an intervention aimed at reducing the occurrence of common weaknesses in first level work and thereby improving student performance in assessments. The project involved developing a more systematic approach to embedding information literacy (IL) into the first year curriculum in the Carnegie Faculty at Leeds Beckett University by combining the expertise of subject librarians with that of first year tutors. It was part of a broader programme of institutional curricular change. This collaborative approach was informed by data from individual interviews with previous students and based on a dual rationale: firstly from Sadler’s (2002) call for more high impact, low stakes assessment in the first year and secondly a need to avoid creating a culture of ‘testing’ (Sambell, McDowell, & Montgomery, 2013) in which students position themselves as submitting to others’ judgments rather than developing rational autonomy (Baxter-Magolda, 2003). In other words, we needed to design an assessed activity which encouraged students to engage in learning but created a supportive and collaborative approach. The embedding process together with some of the resources and tools which we developed are described in this paper as well as the respective contributions of the various participants. We explore the impact of two years of implementation based on student interviews and tutor evaluations. Recommendations and examples are provided to demonstrate how a similar approach might work elsewhere either as a local, course-specific intervention or as part of an institution-wide approach to improving students’ digital literacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document