Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Librarians Leading the Charge: Collaborating with Faculty to Design Evidenced-Based Instruction
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Librarians Leading the Charge: Collaborating with Faculty to Design Evidenced-Based Instruction

  • 122 views
Published

Radcliff, S. & Wong, E. Librarians Leading the Charge: Collaborating with Faculty to Design Evidenced-Based Instruction. Presented at California Academic and Research Libraries (CARL) 2014 conference. …

Radcliff, S. & Wong, E. Librarians Leading the Charge: Collaborating with Faculty to Design Evidenced-Based Instruction. Presented at California Academic and Research Libraries (CARL) 2014 conference.

Librarians at Saint Mary’s College of California will present part two of their study, following their 2012 CARL conference presentation: “English Composition Students: How Are They Using Their Sources?” Having discovered through this research that students do have problems paraphrasing, quoting, integrating and citing their sources, Librarians, in collaboration with English Composition faculty, designed a new study to test out three instructional methods (behaviorist, cognitive and social constructivist) on teaching integration and citing of sources in six sections of advanced English Composition classes. Results of the three methods will be evaluated through pre/post test scores and correlated with a content analysis of the students’ research papers. The results of the content analysis will also be used to compare past studies’ results and presented to English Composition faculty in part three of the librarians’ study. All three methods and the lesson plans will be made available for faculty to use with the knowledge of how effective the methods are in relation to specific student learning outcomes.

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
122
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Facts & figures http://www.stmarys-ca.edu/about-smc/facts-figures(2014)
  • SMC New Core Curriculum started Fall 2012They will be able to do the research necessary to weigh evidence objectively in traditional and electronic formats.In addition to English Composition courses, an upper division course in a specific discipline (WID) will need to have a research and writing component built into it.
  • Write analytical, evaluative, and argumentative essaysEmploy research skills in writingSynthesize evidence; support, and cite argument with sources
  • http://www.learning-theories.com/http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/index.htmlhttp://www.innovativelearning.com/teaching/learning_theories.htmlhttp://teachinglearningresources.pbworks.com/w/page/19919565/Learning%20Theorieshttp://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/learningmap.htmlhttp://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tslthttp://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc/idmodels.html
  • EdwardThorndike, John Watson, & B. F. Skinner
  • Learning as a mental process
  • Learning as a group process
  • Most ENG4 classes commence in Fall semester; ENG5 classes in the Spring
  • SMC Librarians have a long history of collaboration with the English Composition department.Curriculum design: incorporating library research and consultation as part of the learning outcomes and assignmentsInstruction: librarians can use their expertise on research methods, processes and sources to teach the research component of the course.Research: provides both composition faculty and librarians with assessment student performance in various areas and thus on how well existing teaching methods are working
  • 12 responses from ENG4; 8 from ENG5

Transcript

  • 1. Librarians Leading the Charge: Collaborating with Faculty to Design Evidenced-Based Instruction Presenters: Sharon Radcliff and EliseY Wong Saint Mary’s College of California 1
  • 2. What are the Effects ofVaried Instructional Methods?  Behaviorist, cognitivist, and social constructivist instructions  Pre/post tests comparison  Impact on student performance on citing and integrating sources 2
  • 3. How Well Composition Students Cite and Integrate Sources?  In-text citations and bibliographies  Types of sources used in bibliographies  Paraphrasing vs. quoting  How quotations are integrated 3
  • 4. Our Study Objectives  Assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods  Students' citing behaviors  Examine how sources are integrated  Evaluate students' citation performance  Students’ writing proficiency and faculty expectation 4
  • 5. About Saint Mary’s College  Catholic, Lasallian, liberal arts college  Undergraduate and graduate schools  Total enrollment: 4257  Total full time students: 3746  Number of full-time faculty: 213  Student-faculty ratio: 13:1  Average class size: 20 5
  • 6. Who are SMC Students?  Female: 59%; Male: 41%  White: 43%, Latino: 25%,Asian: 14%, African-American/Black: 2%, others: 16%  87% freshmen from California  99% of freshmen living on campus  Tuition and fees: $39,890  % of full-time undergraduate receiving financial aid: 86% 6
  • 7. SMC New Core Curriculum Information Evaluation and Research Practices Students will learn to judge the authenticity, validity, reliability, and originality of the sources of information they use 7
  • 8. SMC Composition Program Learning outcomes for ENG 5 includes:  Develop search strategies and use library resources to locate relevant materials  Practice evaluating sources critically  Evaluate and synthesize evidence  Properly integrating and citing sources 8
  • 9. Learning Theories Overview  Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (4th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill.  Hergenhahn, B. R. & Olson, M. H. (2005). An introduction to theories of learning (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice.  Leonard, D. C. (2002). Learning theories,A to Z. Connecticut: Greenwood.  Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories :An educational perspective (5th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice. 9
  • 10. Behaviorist Models  Learning is shaped by a change in behavior  E.Thorndike, J.Watson, & B. F. Skinner  Classical and operant conditioning theories  Stimulus-Response, positive/negative reinforcement, rewards & punishment, behavior modification 10
  • 11. Cognitivist Models  Learning progresses in stages  Component display theory (D. Merrill); Social cognitivist theory (A. Bandura); Stage theory of cognitive development (J. Piaget); Elaboration theory (Reigeluth); Conditions of learning (R. Gagne)  Information processing schemas, mastery learning, concept mapping, scaffolding 11
  • 12. Social Constructivist Models  Learning is interactive, reciprocal, and collaborative  L.Vygotsky, J. Bruner, D. Kolb, C. Rogers  Problem based learning; Discovery learning; Social development theory  Inquiry based, active learning, learner- centered, experiential/situated learning 12
  • 13. Studies on LearningTheories and Instruction  Blummer, B., Kenton, J. M., & Liyan, S. (2010).The Design and Assessment of a Proposed Library Training Unit for Education Graduate Students. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 15(4), 227-242.  Miranda, M.V. (2009). Creating the Successful Community College Student: Using Behaviorism to Foster Constructivism. Community College Enterprise, 15(1), 21-38.  Sulaiman, J. J., & Dwyer, F. F. (2002).The Effect ofVaried Instructional Text Design Strategies on the Achievement of Different Educational Objectives. International Journal Of Instructional Media, 29(2), 215-224.  Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social Studies Teachers'Views of Learner- Centered Instruction. European Journal OfTeacher Education, 31(1), 35-53. 13
  • 14. Highlights from the Studies  A collaboration between faculty and librarian in a library training unit for information literacy using direct instruction and inquiry-based approach (Blummer, 2010)  Constructivism is not always better than Behaviorism (Miranda, 2009)  Strategies have varying influences on student achievement depending on types of learning objectives (Sulaiman, 2002)  Faculty participants identify their teaching style more with cognitive and constructivist approach than the behaviorist approach (Yilmaz, 2008) 14
  • 15. Research Background  SMC librarians have done two major bibliographic studies and two internal citation study over the past 10 years.  The first bibliographic study was done on 9 Composition sections in 2004; the second was done on 13 sections in 2006.  The first internal citation study was a pilot study of 25 papers done in 2008. In the second internal citation study (2010), 85 papers were analyzed. 15
  • 16. Library Instruction Classes  SMC librarians traditionally do an instruction session for every section of ENG 5 (25-28 sections)  Library session is now required for ENG 4  Library instruction for ENG 4 and 5 includes group work and tutorials on search strategies, evaluating and citing sources. 16
  • 17. Benefits of Collaboration  Curriculum design  Instruction  Research 17
  • 18. Research Design  IRB approval  Composition faculty survey  Lesson plan/instructional methods  Data collection (Spring 2013) ◦ Pre/post tests ◦ Student papers 18
  • 19. Faculty Survey  15 questions regarding their classroom practice on MLA citing and integrating sources (12/28 responses)  Instruction via group work, lecture, and individual exercises  All devote class time on integrating sources; most on MLA; some also give take-home assignments  All require students to submit work-cited page; most require students to consult specific types of sources 19
  • 20. Survey highlights  All respondents devote class time on integration of sources; 10 give take home assignments  11 devote class time on MLA; 8 give take home assignments  7 give at least one research paper  11 require students to consult specific types of sources  9 include quality of work cited page into grading rubric  11 devote class time on ethical use of sources 20
  • 21. Instructional Methods  Integrating sources, quoting, paraphrasing, MLA citation (in-text and bibliographic)  Six participating faculty members randomly assigned to teach one of the following: ◦ Behaviorist: Mostly direct lecture; students complete exercises individually in class; candies were used as incentives ◦ Cognitivist: Series of mini-lectures/discussions, inter- woven with students working on examples with increasing levels of difficulty ◦ Social constructivist: Brief introductory lecture; students then work on examples in groups 21
  • 22. Pre/Post Tests  Tests were given before and after the instruction during one class period  10 questions per test  Learning objectives of both tests: ◦ Understand the purpose of citing ◦ Identify the key components of a citation ◦ Identify basic format in MLA for in text and bibliographic citations ◦ Learn how to identify good uses of paraphrasing and quoting as part of integrating material from a source into a research paper 22
  • 23. Pre-Test Score Results by Learning Theory Group 23
  • 24. Post-Test Scores by LearningTheory Group 24
  • 25. Results: Behaviorist Pre/Post Test Scores 25 Behaviorist n=33 Pre-Test Score Post-Test Score Difference Mean 8.09 8.70 .61 SD 1.55 1.13
  • 26. Results: Cognitivist Pre/PostTest Scores Cognitivist n=35 Pre-Test Score Post-Test Score Difference Mean 7.63 9.06 1.43 SD 1.37 .94 26
  • 27. Results: Social Constructivists Pre/PostTest Scores Social Constructivist n=35 Pre-Test Post-Test Differences Mean 8.29 8.86 .57 SD 1.78 .810 27
  • 28. Results: Pre/PostTest Scores for all 3 Groups All groups n=103 Pre-Test Score Post-Test Score Difference Mean 8.0 8.87 .87 SD 1.4 .97 28
  • 29. Whole Group Increase in Scores from Pre-Test to Post-Test  After performing a t-test on the two results: pre and post test score means; it was determined that this change was statistically significant at the .05 level.  So although no difference in performance could be detected between the learning theory groups, all the mean test scores improved test after the treatment (instruction session) 29
  • 30. Analysis of Results  The post-test scores went up by varying amounts (behaviorist: .66; cognitivists: 1.43; social constructivists: .57) for all learning theory groups.  The cognitivists group showed the largest gain; however after a statistical analysis was performed (2-way ANOVA) it was determined that the difference between groups was not statistically significant at p<.05 30
  • 31. Implications  Providing students with lessons based in the behaviorist, cognitivist and social constructivist methods improves their performance on tests measuring citation skills.The test results are somewhat mitigated because the results for each group did not show a normal curve but were negatively skewed, (students tended to score high), so results must be viewed with caution. 31
  • 32. Results: Content Analysis of Final Papers by Learning Theory Groups We analyzed all papers and reporting:  Content of bibliographies by item type.  Percentage of bibliography items cited in paper  Number of factual items in paper not cited  Percentages of citations that are paraphrased, quoted and if quoted, introduced and /or analyzed.  Rubric scores for format of in-text and bibliographic citations. 32
  • 33. We collected papers only from students present during the session  Behaviorist n=33  Cognitivists n=33  Social Constructivists n=30 33
  • 34. Bibliography Content: Behaviorist 34 15.71% 46.23% 3.26% 30.00% 4.20% 0.61% Behaviorist Web Journal Media Book Interview Other
  • 35. Cognitivist 35 19.75% 60.19% 1.71% 18.36% Cognitivist Web Journal Media Book Interview Other
  • 36. Social Constructivist 36 17.20% 50.98% 8.05% 19.76% 3.00% 1.01% Social Constructivist Web Journal Media Book Interview Other
  • 37. Percentage of Bibliography Cited 37 93.02% 85.75% 81.10% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Percentage of Bibliography cited in Paper
  • 38. Rubrics for bibliographies: simple & complex citations  4 (Excellent): Mostly free of error except for minor punctuation, and small formatting problems. No elements should be left out of a citation  3 (Very Good): Simple citations may have very few minor punctuation and formatting errors; complex citations may contain minor errors in punctuation and order; 1-2 omission of minor elements are allowed  2 (Fair): Some simple citations may have errors in punctuation, order, or minor omission of elements; complex citations may be missing major elements  1 (Poor):Widespread problems in both simple and complex citations showing errors in punctuation, order, and omission of major elements 38
  • 39. Bibliography Quality Rank 39 3.27 3.06 3.44 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Bibliography Quality Rank
  • 40. Rubrics for internal citations  4 (Excellent):Almost perfect, minor punctuation problems  3 (Very Good): Occasional elements omitted; bib source can still be identified  2 (Fair): Some citations do not uniquely identify sources in bibliography; no more than 1-2 citations completely absent  1 (Poor): Some or most citations completely absent 40
  • 41. In-Text Citation Rating 41 2.42 2.65 2.37 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist In-text Citation Rating
  • 42. Percentage of data not cited 42 13.31% 11.21% 13.64% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Percentage of data not cited
  • 43. Percentage Paraphrased 43 49.28% 50.34% 69.77% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Percentage Paraphrased
  • 44. Percentage Quoted 44 50.72% 49.66% 30.23% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Percentage Quoted
  • 45. Percentage Quoted with Intro Only 45 14.84% 2.45% 12.86% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist QuotedWith Introduction only
  • 46. Percentage Quoted with Analysis Only 46 14.84% 5.39% 3.57% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Percent Quoted with Analysis Only
  • 47. Percentage Quoted with No Intro or Analysis 47 2.75% 3.92% 1.43% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Quoted with no Intro or analysis
  • 48. Percentage Quoted with Intro & Analysis 48 67.58% 88.24% 82.14% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Quoted with Intro and Analysis
  • 49. Paraphrased & Quoted with Intro & Analysis 49 84.68% 94.15% 94.58% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Behaviorist Cognitivist Social Constructivist Paraphrased and Quoted with Intro and Analysis
  • 50. Discussion  The most sources cited by all 3 groups ◦ Journal articles  % bibliography cited in paper ◦ Behaviorist 93% (highest)  % of claims not cited in paper ◦ Cognitivist 11% (lowest)  Quality of bibliography ◦ Social Constructivist 3.44 (very good)  In-text citation rating ◦ Cognitivist 2.65 (fair) 50
  • 51. Discussion  Paraphrasing vs. quoting ◦ Social Constructivist 70/30  Quotes with introduction & analysis ◦ Cognitivist 88%  Paraphrasing and proper integration of quotes (P + IQA) ◦ Social Constructivist 95%  The winner… ◦ Cognitivist ◦ and Social Constructivist 51
  • 52. Limitations of This Study  This study was limited to Saint Mary’s Students; random selection was not possible as we used already formed sections of English Composition. Results may differ for other groups of students at other institutions.  Statistical testing of content analysis of final papers (between groups) was not analyzed.  Teacher variability might have impacted the differences between learning theory groups.  Transference from knowledge to practice was not explored. 52
  • 53. Preliminary data comparison: 2010 and 2013 2010 2013 Paraphrasing/ Quoting 60/40 50/50 (B, C) 70/30 (SC) Bibliography cited 78% 86.8% Internal citations 14% not cited 12.69% not cited Proper integration of quotes (IQA) 53% 79.23% 53
  • 54. Future Analysis We will compare this whole group to the papers collected in 2010 to see if there are statistically significant changes in terms of using, integrating, and citing sources.  Radcliff, S., & Wong, E. (2012). English Composition students: How are they using their sources? Paper presented at CARL Conference 2012, San Diego, CA, 5-7 April. 54
  • 55. Direction of Future Studies  More research could be done in this area by applying learning theory to instructional design and assessing the results. Using a standardized or previously piloted test is desirable to get stronger results. Correlation to skill level by learning theory could be explored.  The ACRL Assessment in Action project broadens the focus of assessment while exploring an experimental method focusing on transferring critical thinking skills to the composition 5 research process. 55
  • 56. Faculty, Librarians, and Writing Center Instructors  Feedback and recommendations on improving students’ research writing skills  Create ongoing discussion of learning theory and designing instruction for information literacy and learning how to cite 56
  • 57. Faculty feedback  Opinion on the 3 methods were generally favorable  Most gave positive comments on the quality of handouts and lesson plan  More challenging examples are needed  A "one-shot deal" is not an effective treatment  A variety of learning strategies “in context” enhances student learning process  Future collaborations to design workshops/tutorials 57
  • 58. Librarians feedback  Instruction methods vary according to different learning levels  A blend of learning theories maybe the most effective approach in facilitating a diverse classroom environment  Library instruction and tutorials should be embedded and scaffolded in tandem with the course  On-going collaboration with faculty and writing center is essential 58
  • 59. Special thanks to our participating Composition faculty  Gabrielle Myers  Glen Carl Silva  Katherine Field  Kathryn S. Koo  Valerie Sullivan  Victoria Phillips 59
  • 60. Questions, Comments, Suggestions? Sharon Radcliff sharon.radcliff@csueastbay.edu EliseY Wong yw3@stmarys-ca.edu 60