Caspers Whyte II

Uploaded on


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


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • definition: “two or more people working creatively together to a common purpose”
  • Developed in the chapter: Jean will debrief her chapter: development of this list of types of interactions; emphasis collaborative (continues next slide) Ragains, Pat. “”Building Strong Relationships with Faculty-Librarian Collaboration,” Library Instruction that Works. Neal-Schuman, 2006
  • Interactive but not collaborative in an ongoing sense.
  • Library Tours. We’re walking, we’re walking … Parallel goals, loosely connected.
  • Here we give examples of parallel work: assumed role of librarian limited. GIVE EXAMPLE: librarian gives a ‘general orientation’ session while the professor is away at a conference (or present and relatively silent, introducing then thanking the librarian).
  • Each of the players does have a list of goals for students, which they share, then set up a session or set of sessions to address the overlapping goals. Faculty member uses the librarian’s expertise to assist accomplishment of his course goals. Librarian uses the opportunity to achieve some of the library’s desired outcomes for all students vis a vis ‘information literacy’. Mutually beneficial (and beneficial for the students). Can involve building a couple of assignments together, which bridges over into the collaborative category as we are presenting that. Example: Education adjunct professor sends students over for a scavenger hunt, using the same assignment for 5 years. Everything has changed in the library so the students aren’t successful. Librarian contacts professor to update the assignment, but the professor won’t agree to change the nature of the assignment. The librarian would like to collaborate on a more meaningful assignment … over time this happens, but not in the first year. Left image from Right image from Both with ‘some rights reserved’ CC licenses
  • More extensive conversations in which the respective goals of both players for the students merge more tightly. Each player may shift his/her outcomes to some extent in order to accomplish a revised goal which emerged from the conversation. May result in an integrated series of sessions, with mutually designed assignments over the course of a term, team-teaching, working together to evaluate the assignments. May result in a new course, team taught. Mutual risks – mutual rewards – interdependence. EXAMPLES: Caspers/Cornwell’s idea for Poster Sessions for Students in the INQS Free Speech class emerged from an otherwise ‘cooperative’ set of library sessions for NC’s class. RELATIONSHIP BUILDING. Whyte/Marshall have developed a series of integrated assignments over years of working together collaboratively. Whyte/Comm.Fac (various) team-teach Information Gathering Image from with a Creative Commons ‘some rights reserved’ license.
  • Susan: DEEP RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: her background. Examples, personalizing. Earlham. Questions?
  • Assignment: Annotated Bibliography (see handout). Librarian & instructor collaborated on the design of the assignment, but the instructor collected and graded the assignment results. Session focus is on specialized encyclopedias & periodical databases relevant for the discipline and their topics. Brief reviews of finding books & evaluation strategies. Mention of avoiding plagiarism & citation tools Class “handout” takes the form of this Web page:
  • Tetzlaff, David. (1993). “Metatextual Girl.” In Schwichtenberg, Cathy (ed.), The Madonna Connection: Representational Politics, Subcultural Identities, and Cultural Theory . Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 239+ Assignment: Tezlaf’s References Identifying types of sources from a bibliography. In-class exercise and discussion Library Web Page: Collaborative/assessment enhancement: the assignment was given in class using a bibliography from one of the professor’s required readings and the evaluation was done by students of their own work during a discussion, then handed in with their notes.
  • Results = empowered students
  • According to the researchers, these three difficulties were commonly reported as the most troublesome for the entire population of the study, nationwide


  • 1. Collaborations & Assessments: Teaming for Student Learning Susan Whyte & Jean Caspers Linfield College, Oregon, USA NAKLIV National Workshop May, 2011 : (place)
  • 2. Topics
    • What is Collaboration? A Theoretical Model
    • Manifesting the Model into Practice
    • Responding to Evaluative Assessment
  • 3. What is Collaboration?
  • 4. 3 Models for Interaction
  • 5. Parallel Work Assignments are given in the classroom… … with the understanding that the library’s collections and staff will support the students’ work.
  • 6. Parallel Work TOURS of the BUILDING
  • 7. Cooperation at its basic level. “ Please …” “ Okay.”
  • 8. Cooperating with compatible goals One goal set may serve the other. Both participants’ goals are identified
  • 9. Collaborative Work Sometimes a cooperative plan evolves into a collaboration. . Engagement level is high for all players . Elements include: a shared purpose intentionality
  • 10. parallel  cooperative  collaborative sometimes fuzzy boundaries
  • 11. Manifestations
    • Assignment Handouts
      • Health & Human Performance 397: “Intro to Research…”
      • Art and Visual Culture 319: Postmodern Art “Tetzlaff’s Refs”
      • Women’s Voices Demanding the Vote
      • Mass Communications 275: Information Gathering
  • 12. Single Session: Cooperation/Collaboration HHPA 397: Research in Exercise Science & Sport
  • 13. Multiple Sessions: Collaboration AAVC 319 Post-Modern Art 1945 - Present
    • http :// /
  • 14. Deep Collaboration via Team Teaching MSCM 27: Information Gathering
  • 15. Interwoven Collaboration: INQS 125: Women’s Voices Demanding the Vote
  • 16. Programmatic Pre-Assessment
    • Steve Bernhisel and Jean’s Studies
    • Project Information Literacy
  • 17. Response to Outcomes
    • Discussions with professors when planning class sessions.
    • Emphasis in our assignments.
    • Iterative learning opportunities as students progress through their programs.
  • 18. OUR 6 YEAR SURVEY “ Grade” Score Range (of 100) % of First Year Students % Seniors A 90 - 100 04% 18% B 80 – 89 19% 38% C 70 – 79 32% 28% D 60 – 69 18% 06% F <60 27% 10%
  • 19. Our 6 year Survey
    • Students need instruction in these weak areas:
    • Evaluating web sites
    • Identifying scholarly journal articles
    • Identifying appropriate databases
    • Using wildcards & truncation
    • Using subject fields in databases
  • 20. Project Information Literacy Nationwide U. Washington Survey
    •   Linfield student responses aligned with the national trends as they reported 3 main research-to-writing process difficulties:
    • Getting started on an assignment (85%),
    • Defining a topic (72%)
    • Narrowing down a topic (68%) 
  • 21. Handout: Library Competency Outcomes for Linfield College Students
  • 22. Wrap-up
    • How assessments, large & small, help us plan to engage students and faculty and to enhance collaborations within and across the disciplines.