9. The name of the game
• Fun
• Quick
• Simple
• Easy
• Need or objective
Adapted from Susan Boyle, Lilac 2011
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnragai/
10. Our vision
Move students from
“ …lifting and transporting textual substance
from one location, the library, to another,
their teacher’s briefcases.”
To
“…searching, analyzing, evaluating,
synthesizing, selecting, rejecting…”
Kleine 1987
13. Books
What are they:
A written or printed work of fiction or fact.
May be electronic.
Good for:
Clear overview.
Not so good for:
Up to date information.
17. Finding resources
myUniHub > My Study > My Library > Summon
Select Summon and
search for information for
your project
18. Google vs Summon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuiislife/3450743002/
Google
• Familiar and easy to use
• Finds too much information
• Fast results
• Access from any computer
• Access to some books and journals
• Designed to sell you things
• Search results sponsored
• Searches for info from any source
• Pay for academic information
Summon
• Easy to use
• Finds lots of academic info
• Fast results
• Access from any computer
• Access to lots of books and journals
• Designed to find you information
• Search results by relevance
• Searches quality resources
• Free access to full text
21. So what happens?
• Engaged
• Discussion
• Learning
• Safe
• Respond
• Breathing space
• Observe
22. Impact
Marks Attendees Non-attendees
Commonest mark 65% 50%
Highest mark 90% 75%
Lowest mark 40% 40%
Bibliography
commonest mark
7/10 5/10
•Survey of CCM2426 students
•66 attendees, 22 non-attendees
23. Search tools used Attendees Non-attendees
Google 68% 63%
Wikipedia 38% 27%
Summon 68% 40%
Library catalogue 30% 59%
Evaluation criteria Attendees Non-attendees
Current 89% 59%
Relevant 76% 59%
Academic authority 67% 41%
Easy to read 24% 45%
32. References
• Asher, C. (2003). Separate but equal: Librarians, academics and information literacy. Australian Academic and
Research Libraries, 34 (1), pp.52-55.
• Badke, W. (2010). Why information literacy is invisible. Communications in Information Literacy, 4 (2), pp.129-141.
• Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), pp.775-786.
• Chen, K. and Lin, P. (2011). Information literacy in university library user education. Aslib Proceedings: new information
perspectives, 63 (4), pp.399-418.
• CIBER. (2008). Information behaviour of the researchers of the future. UCL, London. Available at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf [Accessed 8th September
2014]
• Coonan, E. (2011). A new curriculum for information literacy curriculum: transitional, transferable, transformational –
Theoretical background, Teaching learning: perceptions of information literacy. Cambridge University Library. Available
at http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/emma_report_final.pdf [Accessed 23rd November 2014]
• Dutton, W.H. and Helsper, E.J. (2007). The Internet in Britain: 2007. Oxford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of
Oxford. Available at http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/reports/ [Accessed: 29th December 2014]
• Fieldhouse, M. and Nicholas, D. (2008). Digital literacy as information savvy: the road to information literacy. In:
Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (eds). Digital literacy: concepts, policies and practices. New York, Peter Lang Publishing
Group, pp. 47-72.
• Head, A. (2012). Learning curve: How college graduates solve information problems once they join the workplace
(Project Information Literacy Research Report). Available from
http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_fall2012_workplacestudy_fullreport_revised.pdf [Accessed 11th June 2015]
• Head, A. (2013). Learning the ropes: How Freshmen conduct course research once they enter college (Project
Information Literacy Research Report). Available from
http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_2013_freshmenstudy_fullreport.pdf [Accessed 9th June 2015]
33. • Head, A. and Eisenberg, M. (2010). Truth be told: How college students evaluate and use information in the digital age
(Project Information Literacy Progress report). Available from
http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_fall2010_survey_fullreport1.pdf [Accessed 11th June 2015]
• Helsper, E. J., and Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36
(3), pp. 503-520.
• Holton, D. (2010). The Digital Natives/Digital Immigrants distinction is dead or at least dying. EdTechDev. Available at
https://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/the-digital-natives-digital-immigrants-distinction-is-dead-or-at-least-dying/
[Accessed 9th June 2015]
• Jackson, M.G. (1999). Image and status: academic librarians and the new professionalism. Advances in Librarianship,
23 (1), pp.93-115.
• Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. and Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: is there a distinct new
generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54, pp.722-732.
• Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarnot, B. and Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net
generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, pp.332-343.
• Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., and Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital
technologies. Computers and Education, 56, pp.429-440.
• Markess, S. (2009). A new conception of information literacy for the digital learning environment in higher education.
Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1 (1). pp.25-40.
• McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think: Exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate
education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32 (6), pp.573-582.
• Norgaard, R. (2003). Writing information literacy: contributions to a concept. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 43
(2). pp.124-130.
• Orr, D., Appleton, M. and Wallin, M. (2001). Information literacy and flexible delivery: creating a conceptual framework
and model. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (6), pp.457-463.
34. • Palfrey, J., and Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books, New
York.
• Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp.1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants: do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6), pp.1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2009). H.Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. The Wisdom
Page. Available from http://www.wisdompage.com/Prensky01.html [Accessed 9th June 2015]
• Silipigni Connaway, L. and Dickey, T. (2010). The digital information seeker: report of findings from selected OCLC, RIN
and JISC user behaviour projects. JISC. Available at
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140615023510/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/re
ports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf [Accessed 27th February 2015]
• Webber, S., Ford, N., Crowder, M. and Madden, A. (2013). Collaborating for deep critical information behaviour.
Presented at: LILAC 2013, University of Manchester, UK. 25-27th March 2013. Available at
http://www.slideshare.net/infolit_group/webber-ford-2013-18177230 [Accessed 11th September 2014]
• Weetman, J. (2005). Osmosis- does it work for the development of information literacy? The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 31 (5), pp.456-460.
• Weetman DaCosta, J. (2010). Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An examination of faculty
perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the United States and England. College and Research
Libraries, 71 (3), pp.203-222. Available at
http://derby.openrepository.com/derby/bitstream/10545/254393/1/C%26RL_May2010.pdf [Accessed 4th January 2015]
• White, D. and Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: a new typology for online engagement. First Monday: peer
reviewed journal on the Internet, 16 (9). Available from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3171/3049 [Accessed 9th June
2015]
• Wright, F., White, D., Hirst, T. and cann, A. (2014). Visitors and residents: mapping student attitudes to academic use of
social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 39 (1), pp.126-141.
Editor's Notes
Looking at the broader issues surrounding provision of information literacy training in HE
How we have been inspired to change the way we teach and address the problems
What we have done and how we have developed our provision
What impact have we had
Plus look at some of the myths surrounding libraries, students, academics and librarians
Landscape has changed dramatically in the last 20-30 years.
This is what libraries looked like when I trained as a librarian in the late 1980s.
Librarians were the guardians of information
We created indexes and catalogues, through which we controlled access to information. …….. Manual laborious information retrieval processes which were an major barrier to information for our users.
We organised information on shelves in a librarianly way, which was not always logical to the users e.g.
Mysterious names: Quick-reference, reference, oversize, short loan, etc
The University of Reading arranged books by size in three sequences ‘helpfully’ labelled Quarto, Folio and Octavo!!
We supervised searches and only the librarian could get to the information, especially true of early online searches which cost £1 a minute. I remember that only the head librarian had the authority to undertake such searches at the start of my career.
Teaching was a small part of what we did and not the main priority.
Teaching:
Was limited to add-on workshops:
Workshops usually provided at request of academic staff on ad hoc basis
And little thought given to where they should sit in the overall programme
Repercussions for student behaviour as library workshops perceived as unimportant.
Impossible to develop a progressive programme of information literacy training
There is often an assumption by academics and students that IT skills = IL skills (find, evaluate and use info found)
Not the case…something I’ll explore later.
There was no attempt make them relevant to the students’ academic work
Students often cannot see the relevance of what they learn in library workshops….that is assuming that they have actually learnt anything.
And librarians focussed on procedures and process e.g. how to take a book out or how to find a journal article using printed abstracts and indexes in an effort to create pseudo librarians
Teaching was very didactic and workshops were uninspiring.
This is often still the case and we still see colleagues creating worksheets, making information retrieval a strict, linear process rather than embracing the flexibility and multiple entry points provided by the Internet.
Why?..................Librarians are not taught to teach and maybe lack the skills and confidence to take risks and innovate?
Although the problems we identified were local to us, they will no doubt resonate with librarians world wide.
But now everything has changed:
Subsequent developments in technology, the advent of the Internet, the proliferation of information and ease of access has changed everything we knew.
Summon (like Google) has provided easy access to huge amounts of information.
Information is ubiquitous.
Students can go it alone.
They can access it 24/7 and don’t need to be in the library under the watchful gaze of the librarian!
Neither academics or librarians have control of the information that they use.
As far as library workshops are concerned we don’t need to show students how to use it, because its instinctive (in most cases).
But do they have the skills to find what they really need?
Do they understand the value of academic resources?
Do they use the best keywords/search terms?
Do they know how to make a value judgement about any information found?
Probably not.
All of this has had a major impact on the role of the librarian, our day-to-day work, our environment and the tools we use
There are also significant implications for library workshops.
There are also issues surrounding students….
Student research is often strategic, the students have an end goal which is to make the grade.
Just want to find the right book or journal with the answers, right number of references, using the easy option which is usually Google.
Our students have had 14 years of being told what to do, giving the correct answer in the right way to pass exams…..
We can see from personal experience that Schools are not preparing students for Uni…..we understand why….targets to meet, and also a lack of funding for school libraries etc..
Librarians reinforce this with our Behaviourist approach to teaching.
Inspired by ‘Teaching information literacy in HE workshop’. Attended at CILIP. Dec 2010.
We teach 3-5 times too much
When planning sessions we need to consider what will make the biggest difference given time limit/use online guides
We try to clone our expertise
We can’t distil our own experience into a one hour session.
We don’t need to show students how to search databases, but we do need to show them how to appreciate the value of academic resources, search effectively, evaluate the information found and how to use it ethically
Discussion is powerful:
Find out how the students already find info, what they already know, what they want
Learn/discover together (peer learning): don’t plan searches/demos in advance
We can learn a lot about student’s understanding from the questions they ask
Learning by doing is empowering:
Encourage active participation through a variety of activities eg. trying things out, getting feedback, solving problems, peer discussion, reflecting on mistakes etc
No demos: Interaction and exploration
Uninvolved students are less likely to learn
Students should be learners, not the taught (working together to learn):
Our role to support and facilitate
Disciplinary context is a key influence on student learning ie. one method does not fit all….devised different sessions for PDE students
So we went back to basics and considered what things we really needed to teach removing ourselves emotionally from what librarians normally teach in workshops. Initially we identified 6-7 key areas but subsequently refined this to 4:
Range and value of resources
Importance of keywords to find information
Opportunity to explore resources themselves
The importance of evaluating information found
The framework for every workshop:
Thinking about resources game in an academic context ( 3 x versions TAR, Sources and Scenario)
Keywords: using image to get students thinking about keywords (specific, alternative, related) and then using real example
The real thing: relate learning to a project
Searching (hands on) mainly use Summon = frees up time to concentrate on info skills
Evaluation using sample search results (website, newspaper article, trade journal, academic journal) and Criteria game for 3rd years.
The vehicle to enable these changes came after Adam attended the Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conference in 2011. LILAC as it is known is organised by the Information Literacy Group referred to earlier. Adam attended a workshop by Susan Boyle from UCD talk on the use of games in library workshops.
And so we developed games and activities as described in our core public work for each of the 4 elements in our workshops.
Sharing our ideas with others has also lead to further ideas and we now have a programme of workshops from Foundation through to PG level based around the 4 elements with games and activities used throughout.
This has been shared on Jorum and regularly updated as we make changes.
Games should be:
Fun-enjoyable
Quick -10 mins
Simple - easy to prepare and cheap
Easy to grasp and play- no complicated rules
Meet a specific need or objective
AE
This was our early vision……. ….moving away from a cut and paste mentality.
Judging by the research we carried out with academics, this is what they want from their students as well
Have we succeeded? Only time will tell.
After all, a Dprof is a work in progress and we have more to do.
This is what we do….a typical 1st year workshop for computing students.
‘Better than Google’ is a direct challenge to the students’ love of ‘Googling it’
We now want you to have a go at one of our original innovative games, so that you can see how it works.
In a classroom situation we would follow this game with feedback and discussion, asking each group in turn to describe each resource in turn and state what they are ‘good for’ and ‘not so good for’.
Besides the resource descriptions, there are no right or wrong answers and discussion is encouraged.
Feedback enables us to cover various key points if not mentioned.
We then explore the other resources.
This is a chance to discuss:
What a journal actually is
Peer review
Authority and relevance of resources
Risk of relying on Google or using Wikipeadia
Example of a real student project and how we get students to think about their keywords.
What are the keywords? Cornish, villages, 4G, trial
What are the alternative keywords?
Cornish: Cornwall, West Country, West of England
Villages: Village, rural communities, countryside
4G: Fourth generation technology, cellular wireless standards, networking technology,
Trial: test, evaluation
What terms can you use to make your search more specific?
Internet access
Fixed and mobile subscribers
Frequency and bandwidth
Infrastructure
BT and Everything Everywhere
Routers, antennas, and dongles
Radio spectrum
IP based mobile broadband
Services eg. ultra-broadband internet access, IP telephony, gaming services, streamed multimedia
LTE (Long term evolution)
IMT (International mobile telecommunications) advanced compliance
What are the related subjects?
Rural internet access
UK digital agenda, Digital Britain
Digital inclusion
Telecommunications
3G and 2G
Laptop computer wireless modems, smart phones, mobile devices
00:50
Searching is followed by a discussion about the advantages of using Summon to find info rather than Google.
Google
Familiar and easy to use
Finds too much information
Fast results
Access from any computer
Access to some books and journals
Designed to sell you things eg. shoes
Search results sponsored…no accident that Wikipedia, Amazon etc at top of search results
Searches for info from any source
Pay for academic information
Summon
Easy to use
Finds lots of academic info
Fast results
Access from any computer
Access to lots of books and journals
Designed to find you information: up-to-date, focussed/specific
Search results by relevance
Searches quality resources eg. Peer reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings , research etc
Free access to full text ie. Information not freely available elsewhere
Introduce the importance of evaluating information for quality
What do you think about this quote by Abraham Lincoln?
Authority : Who is the author? What is their knowledge base/qualifications? How have they carried out their research?
Relevance : Is this what I need? Will it answer my question? Is it at the right level?
Intent : What is the purpose of information e.g. financial gain, propaganda, academic etc?
Objectivity : Balanced view? Opposing views represented? Links to supporting information?
Currency: How old is this information? When was it last updated and by whom?
As students take part in one of our activities
They are engaged and there is increased interest, motivation and retention.
Lots of discussion……collective and peer learning………working together to solve problem/win/loose……learning is social, communal, and collaborative
Students appear to be learning……Burgun believes that games teach us how to learn, activating prior knowledge and building on existing skills. This is the constructivist approach to learning which is the foundation of our changed pedagogical practice.
Students seem willing to ask questions, voice opinions etc: games can alleviate some of the fear that students experience when using a library i.e. they can experiment in a safe environment
We can respond as necessary….challenging misconceptions and filling gaps in their knowledge
Use of games alleviates the burden of running back-to-back workshops …..providing us with breathing space. Every workshop different for us.
Starting a workshop with this game also gives us time to observe and reflect……what we hear the students discuss is indicative of what they know and what they don’t know. This harks back to Markless’s idea that discussion is powerful.
Those who attended average 65%, rather than 50 % for non attendees ie. 15% higher
Attendees 7/10 for bibliography, rather than 5/10 ie. 20% difference
Resources used shows better choice of resource by attendees….in the case of this project, very little current info, so Library catalogue not a good choice
Evaluation criteria shows better understanding by attendees ie. Academic authority and currency seen as impo rather than easy to read.
To give further context to this and to justify some of the changes that we have made, lets consider some of the myths surrounding students, librarians, libraries and academics….
Digital Natives are different to previous generations
Young people know how to use computers so must be information literate
New students are information literate
Digital Natives are different or are they?
Digital Natives = multitaskers, have access to technology, proficient in their use, Internet is primary info source etc
As compared with Digital Immigrants= less reliant on Internet, more likely to use physical library , prefer to read from paper etc
Some people suggest a 2nd generation of Digital Natives born after 1990 who have grown up with social media
Prensky back in 2001 made distinction between technical and cognitive skills believing DN brains has been fundamentally changed
Others (Fieldhouse and Nicholas) assume that their language is diff and that there are implications for education process
However others (Bennett et al) question this….DIs also known as ‘Generation X’ (born between 1961-1981) used to multi-task (TV/homework), and infact Digital Natives don’t expect to be taught differently
MORI suggest students don’t utilise technology as much as we think
Lots of research suggest extent of Internet use, not just to do with age, other factors=socio-ec, ethnicity, gender, home environment etc
Therefore not homogenous group
Concept of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants increasingly questioned……age alone cannot explain use of technology.
White and Le Cornu advocate the idea of ‘Visitors and residents’ who use Internet respectively as a ‘Tool’ to find info when appropriate and a ‘place/space’ where they can develop a digital identity and network within a community.
Prensky in 2009 has also reconsidered and now talks of ‘Digital wisdom’ to distinguish between those who accept the judicous and timely use of technology to access info for decision-making and those who don’t.
Google Generation/Digital Natives have matured in a world dominated by the Internet, they know how to use technology, so assumption is they are information literate.
Chen and Lin believe that students comfortable in a digital world are also liable to think they have the necessary skills to use information.
Norgaard believes that we should not treat IL as a neutral set of skills
However CIBER 2008 report showed that 89% of students use search engines at start of their research and 93% are satisfied with this experience.
CIBER also showed that virtual library users spent as much time ‘finding their bearings’ as they did viewing actual search results suggesting less proficiency as previously thought.
Some of the literature suggests (Asher in 2003 and Palfrey and Gasser 2008) that the problem of discerning good information from bad is an age-old problem.
In reality they don’t know how to use all the info judiciously, lack the critical skills.
Recent research by Uni of Sheffield found discrepancy between expectations of aca staff and UG info skills believing that skills have been learnt at school.
In reality 45% students felt unprepared for this aspect of Uni and over half wanted support and guidance (Webber et al, 2013).
Schools after all are forced to spoon-feed students towards exams to meet Govt targets…..teach to test.
School libraries often badly funded, no eresources, so consolidates idea that library is just a collection of books.
Research from De Montfort Uni found that despite aca support for IL skills and its value to aca work, there was little effort to integrate them into the curriculum believing they will be ‘picked up’ through a process of ‘osmosis’ through ‘trial and error’.
Don’t forget that academics have been socialised to the norms of their discipline using experience, networks and knowledge to identify key publication.
This network is not available to students who therefore need to get information more widely through a process of information searching.
IL skills outside of librarianship are often seen as about process i.e. how to search for a book on the library catalogue. And IL continues to be perceived as ancillary to the main business of the institution.
Consequently students fail to understand the benefit of IL skills in their academic work.
IL skills need to be embedded in the curriculum and academic staff need a better understanding of what IL entails.
Online databases and Resource Discovery tools like Summon make searching easier…
Therefore we don’t really need to teach library skills i.e. process….how to use databases, e-resources.
But we need to teach information literacy
Summon has given us the time to do this.
Finally…..
Changes to methods have worked: survey shows that we have made an impact, plus many colleagues have used and adapted our workshops for their students
Teaching is more fun for students and for us
And we can now say that Library workshops gets you better marks
