This document discusses enhancing the quality and impact of library workshops through gamification. It notes that traditional workshops can be didactic, uninspiring and result in inconsistent learning. The document advocates using games and active learning techniques which make workshops more fun, engaging and lead to better student outcomes. Examples provided demonstrate how games can improve student marks and increase the usage of library resources and services.
5. Is teaching our Waterloo?
• Relevance
• Too much
• Didactic
• Uninspiring
• Subject
• Teaching skills
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vicchi/4079403111/
6. Björn Again
• Less is more
• Cloning
• Discussion
• Learning by doing
• Learners, not the taught
• Games
http://advedupsyfall09.wikispaces.com/Sara+Woodard
7. The name of the game
• Fun
• Quick
• Simple
• Easy
• Need or objective
Adapted from Susan Boyle, Lilac 2011
8. We had a dream…….
Move 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
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2462/3767003528_3137344451_o.jpg
11. 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.
12. Journal
What are they:
A regular publication containing articles on a particular
academic subject.
Presents new research.
Good for:
Latest research, critically reviewed by experts.
Not so good for:
Broad overview of a subject.
13. Web page
What are they:
An information resource which can be easily created by
anyone on any topic.
Electronic.
Good for:
Very up to date information.
Not so good for:
Accurate and reliable information.
14. Newspaper
What are they:
A regular publication containing current events,
informative articles, diverse features and advertising.
May be electronic.
Good for:
Daily information.
Not so good for:
Balanced and well researched information.
15. Popular (trade) journal
What are they:
A regular publication containing new products plus
information for a business sector.
Good for:
Latest product news.
Not so good for:
Detailed and objective reports.
20. “Does it mean anything to
you......”
• Social
• Engaging
• Learn
• Enjoyment
• Safe
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnragai/
21. Take a chance on me
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
22. “If you put me to the test, if
you let me try………”
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%
23. The winner takes it all
• Changes have worked
• Teaching is more fun
• Impact…
...Library training gets you better marks!
27. References
• Barzilai, S. and Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: impact
on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences.
Computers and Eduaction, 70, pp.65-79.
• Boyle, S. (2011) Using games to enhance information literacy sessions,
Presented at LILAC 2011. http://www.slideshare.net/infolit_group/boyle-
using-games-to-enchance-information-literacy
• Danforth, L. (2011). Why game learning works. Library Journal, 136 (7),
p.67.
• Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2011). What makes a good learning game? E-
learn Magazine. Available at
http://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210 [Accessed 12th
March 2015]
• Howard-Jones, P. (2011). Toward a science of learning games. Minds,
Brain and Learning Games, 5 (1), pp.33-38
28. • Isbister, K., Flanagan, M. and Hash, C. (2010). Designing games for learning:
insights from conversations with designers. CHI2010: remember and reflect,
Atlanta, GA, USA. pp.2041-2044.
• Kim, B. (2012). Harnessing the power of game dynamics: why, how to, and how
not to gamify the library experience. College & Research Libraries News News,
71 (8), pp.465-469.
• Kleine, M. (1987). What is it we do when we write articles like this one-or how
can we get students to join us? Writing Instructor, 6. pp.151-161.
• Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H. and Klevers, M. (2013). Psychological
perspectives on motivation through gamification. Interaction Design and
Architecture(s) Journal, 19, pp.28-37.
• Walsh, A. (2014). The potential for using gamification in academic libraries in
order to increase student engagement and achievement. Nordic Journal of
Information Literacy in Higher Education, 6 (1), pp.39-51.
• Zagal, J., Rick, J. and His, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from
board games. Simulation & Gaming, 37 (1). pp.24-40.
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
AE and VH (back in 2011) identified a number of issues regarding provision of user education:
Not embedded
No central coordination of skills within the School
Workshops usually provided at request of academic staff on ad hoc basis
Inconsistent provision:
Which led to inconsistent provision and duplication Eg. rarely see all first year students, but sometimes more than once.
Impossible to develop progressive programme of information literacy training
Made worse by complex module structure
New programme structure is simpler but still no central co-ord.
Bad timing:
Insufficient time
Wrong time, so not relevant to students
Information skills:
Assumption by academics and students that IT skills = IL skills (find, eval and use info found)
Student research is finding…
Book or journal with the answers
Right amount of facts
Right number of references
Reporting back to teacher
Easy option: use Google and Wikipedia as easy
Also fear of plagiarising and criticising information, also students who have never written more than 500 words
Librarians reinforce this with our Behaviourist approach to teaching. (More about teaching on next slide).
Is teaching a Librarian’s Waterloo?
Relevance: Library workshops often perceived as not relevant to students’ academic work
Too much: We want to tell them everything we know
Didactic: Obsessed with showing them how to use databases step-by-step….very linear
Uninspiring: Bore students/death by Powerpoint
Subject: We need to remember that we are teaching information skills and not the subject
Teaching skills: librarians not taught to teach……however things are changing (more later)
However Middlesex librarians are starting to get teaching qualifications. Benefits:
Equivalent qualifications to academic staff = equal footing
Learning together: academics and support staff studying PGCert together = gain understanding of each others role, contribution etc
Language: use same language
Respect: mutual
Understanding of the theory behind 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
Games:
Inspiration from LILAC 2011- Susan Boyle (UCD) Using games in HE.
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
What we did:
Back to basics-we considered what we need to teach
Identified key elements (next slide): Resources, keywords, searching and evaluation
Created a game/activity for each element
Mix and match elements
Coordinate content with LDU to avoid duplication
Created a menu of workshops i.e. what we would cover in each year
Have developed alternatives for 2nd and 3rd years and PGs
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.
PDE students: have taken interactivity much further eg. taking items from special collections into their studio (think about how they can use them), letting them discover art and design collections themselves at HE (mini project) etc.
Hand out exercise Thinking about resources.
Groups
10 mins
Good for:
broad/general overview of subject
Edited for quality and accuracy
Not so good for:
May not be specific enough
Can be out of date
Good for:
Up-to-date
Specialist/focussed
Present latest research
Edited for accuracy/quality (peer reviewed)
Lots of references
Not so good for:
Can be hard to locate/access
Expensive
May be too specific
May be at wrong level
Good for:
Easy to use/search
All subjects covered
Can be very up-to-date
Mobile
Not so good for:
No editorial control
Unreliable sources
Can be created by anyone
Material can lack provenance
Can be out-of-date
Not everyone has access
Good for:
Up-to-date
Edited
Readily available (latest copies especially)
Not so good for:
Can be bias
Can be unbalanced
Can be sensationalist
Hard to get hold of/access (back issues)
Good for:
Latest information
Current events
Concise info
Product news
Often available online with RSS/Twitter etc
Not so good for:
Detail
Objective information ie. can be bias, adverts, preferential products etc
Often hard to find old issues
Back issues/archive
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
Rather than a tick box approach to info evaluation we use a game.
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?
Ask students what they think?
Before we explain, run DEWEY GAME.
Games are an activity engaged in for diversion and amusement to reach an ‘end’ involving rules and competition.
Games work because:
Social, communal, collaborative: all participants work together to win (or loose). Collective and peer learning. Making decision together.
Engaging: when games used in a learning environment they can increase engagement as well as interest, motivation, retention and the use of high order thinking skills, allowing people to demonstrate their intellectual abilities.
Learn: Burgun believes that games teach us how to learn, enabling us to build on existing skills, formulate tactics, second-guess our thinking and develop a strategy.
Enjoyment: They make learning fun.
Safe: Games can alleviate some of the fear that students experience when using a library > experiment in a safe environment.
Therefore use of games in our workshops empowers students to make decisions based on prior knowledge, plan a course of action, solve outcomes, learn and consolidate new info.
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
AE
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.
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
But we can now say...
...Library training gets you better marks