12. 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.
13.
14. Thinking about resources
Quality of resources used e.g.
•Good range of resources
•Quality sources/expert authors
•Information is up-to-date
Relevance to project
•Supports project
Quality of referencing
•Harvard referencing system
correctly used.
27. Dr. Adam Edwards
a.edwards@mdx.ac.uk
Dr. Vanessa Hill
v.hill@mdx.ac.uk
ght Fotolia under Microsoft licence http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/images/results.aspx?qu=blank+sign&ex=1#ai:MP900442493|
http://libguides.mdx.ac.uk/MDXGames
28. 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 creatively to enhance information literacy sessions. LILAC 2011. London
School of Economics, UK. 18-20th April 2011. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/infolit_group/boyle-
using-games-to-enchance-information-literacy [Accessed 26th June 2014]
• Burgun, K. (2013). Game design theory: a new philosophy for understanding games. London, CRC Press.
• Danforth, L. (2011). Why game learning works. Library Journal, 136 (7), p.67.
• Dempsey, J., Haynes, L., Lucassen, B. and Casey, M. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they
could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33 (2). pp.157-168.
• Edwards, J. A. and Hill, V. (2016). Demythologising librarianship: future librarians in a changing literacy
landscape. DProf. Middlesex University. Available at http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18944/
• Edwards, J. Adam (2017) Evolving pedagogical practice at Middlesex University: the state of our
art.SCONUL Focus (68). pp. 47-57. ISSN 1745-5790
• 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]
• Febey, K. and Coyne, M. (2007). Program evaluation: The Board Game- an interactive learning tool for
evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 28 (1), pp. 91-101.
29. • Filippou, J., Cheong, C., and Cheong, F. (2014). Improving study habits using a behaviour
change framework incorporating social motivation and gamification. PACIS 2014 Proceedings.
Paper 264. Available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/264 [Accessed 13th March 2015]
• Frazer, A., Recio-Saucedo, A., Gilbert, L. and Wills, G. (2013). Profiling the educational value of
computer games. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 19, pp.9-27.
• Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: new horizons. New York, Basic Books.
• 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.
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2015). Definition of ‘Game’. Available at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/game [Accessed 4th May 2015]
• 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
VH
Intros:
Adam Edwards: Library Liaison Manager for Law, Science and Technology and Collaborative Partners.
Vanessa Hill: Service Development Liaison Librarian: Computing, Product Design and Engineering, Maths and Stats.
VH
We plan to share with you how we have reinvented our pedagogical practice in order to enhance engagement, interaction and reflection in library workshops, but we hope what we say will resonate with you within your own context.
After all, teaching is teaching whatever the context.
During this workshop we will:
Explain how our pedagogy has changed and the principles that now underpin all our teaching in library workshops
Provide a brief context to these changes
Consider how gamification works in our context and how it enhances our teaching by encouraging engagement, interaction and reflection
You will have an opportunity to try out one of our games.
VH
Our profession has moved on from this book stamping, shelf tidying stereotypical perception of librarians seen here.
As academic librarians at MDX, a significant percentage of our time is increasingly concerned with teaching.
To illustrate this, in 2016/17 our team of librarians carried out 1791 hours of teaching, which equates to 21946 contact hours during 1493 workshops, a massive increase of 134% since 2009. This year isn’t over and we’ve already provided 2009 teaching hours.
As we will explain later, there have been significant changes in the professional and information landscape within which we function.
This has lead us to reassess the focus of our teaching and how we facilitate learning…..we have moved away from teaching ‘process’ in order to concentrate on developing information literacy.
As a result we are increasingly using games and other play related activities as a way of enhancing our information literacy teaching
In doing so we have moved away from a traditional didactic behaviourist style of teaching much loved by many librarians and teachers in general.
When we talk about the use of games, we are not talking Monopoly or Scrabble, but rather the language of games e.g. decision making, interaction, teamwork, competition, problem solving etc.
This is commonly referred to as Gamification which is defined by Sailer as using the “motivational power of games for other purposes not solely related to entertaining purposes of the game itself.”
AE
As Librarians our landscape has changed dramatically in the last 20-30 years from when we embarked on our professional careers.
This is what libraries looked like back in the 1980s when we both trained to be librarians.
Librarians back then were the guardians of information
We created indexes and catalogues, through which we controlled access to information.
We organised information on shelves in a librarianly way, which was not always logical to the users e.g.
We use mysterious names: Quick-reference, reference, oversize, short loan, etc
The University of Reading for example 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. Vanessa remembers 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.
AE
Teaching back then was limited to:
One-off workshops usually provided at request of academic staff on an ad hoc basis.
With very little thought being given to where library skills should sit in the overall programme or the relevance to student’s academic work.
This had repercussions for student behaviour as library workshops were perceived as unimportant.
It was therefore impossible to develop a progressive programme of information literacy training.
Workshops were:
Teacher led, didactic and uninspiring
We used lots of demos and worksheets, and focussing on procedures and process e.g. how to borrow a book or find a journal article
Provided too much information in a linear fashion
Consequently there was little student engagement or interaction
And very little learning or development of skills.
Why?..................Librarians, like many academic staff, are not taught to teach and maybe lack the skills and confidence to take risks and innovate?
And so it continues!
AE
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.
Resource Discovery Tools (like Google and Summon-the library search engine) have provided easy access to huge amounts of information.
Neither academics or librarians have control of the information that our students use.
They can go it alone.
But do students 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 or know how to search effectively?
Do they know how to make a value judgement about any information found, especially important in the era of fake news?
Probably not.
All of this has had a major impact on the role of the librarian and significant implications for library workshops.
VH
It wasn’t until 2011 that we started working together and this was a pivotal moment in our careers when everything changed regards our pedagogy.
Back in 2008 I found myself teaching in a new subject area (computing) which I knew nothing about, consequently preparing demonstrations of library resources such as journal databases, for our workshops took too long due to my lack of subject knowledge……..something had to change.
It was increasingly obvious to me that students:
Were bored with such a didactic, linear approach to teaching.
They could actually work out the ‘mechanics’ of using library resources themselves, so why was I demonstrating them.
They would be more engaged in the workshop if they were encouraged to actively participate……student behaviour was often a problem.
All of this echoes what I heard at a 1st year Board of Studies some years ago. Students complained that in one of their modules the lecturer merely read out what was on his Powerpoint and the students questioned why they should travel into Uni when the PP could just be put on the VLE for them to read. The same students also praised another lecturer who got then doing stuff in his workshops and that they valued the interaction and engagement.
I had already started to make a few changes but it was a workshop that I attended in 2010 on ‘Teaching information literacy in HE workshop which validated my thoughts and provided a number of learning principles which now form the basis of how we now teach and are always at the back of our mind when designing library workshops.
VH
These learning principles are:
Don’t try and cover too much: We teach 3-5 times more than students will take in, so concentrate on what will make the biggest difference. Everything else can be consigned to the online learning environment.
Don’t try and clone your own expertise: It’s not possible to distil your own expertise in to a one hour workshop. Students are unlikely to approach things in the way that we do.
Discussion is powerful: We can learn a lot about their understanding from the questions they ask and the feedback they give. What we hear, what they say, what they don’t say can help guide the content of a workshop…….in essence, we should begin from where our learners are i.e. establish prior knowledge, expectations, need etc.
Learning by doing is empowering: Let students discover for themselves…..together, encourage active participation through a variety of activities, try things out for themselves, reflect on their mistakes and find solutions when things don’t work. After all uninvolved students are less likely to learn.
Students should be learners, not the taught, working together to learn: Our role is to support and facilitate, not to dictate.
VH
With these principles in mind we started to consider what we really needed to teach students i.e. what would make the most difference.
This is what we came up with – 4 key areas to cover in library workshops:
Thinking about the value of different sources of information especially in their academic writing
Constructing keywords i.e. using the right search terms to find what is needed, refining search results etc
Hands-on self exploration of relevant resources i.e. no demonstrations.
Evaluating information found for relevance and quality.
What we then needed was a vehicle to enable learning to happen……..(next slide).
AE
The inspiration came from a workshop I attended at LILAC 2011 on using games in library workshops.
So we started to develop games and activities for 1st year workshops around the four key areas.
This has subsequently been rolled out across all levels with different games and activities used throughout.
As a basic rule the games should be:
Fun and enjoyable – the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines games as an “activity engaged in for diversion and amusement”
Quick – no more than about 10 mins
Simple – easy and cheap to prepare
Easy to grasp and play- no complicated rules
Meet a specific need or objective- not playing games for the sake of it
In addition Burgun believes that games should also include an element of competition and decision-making and other experts consider that collaboration is a significant factor.
The important thing about them is that they enable discussion, collaboration, peer learning, reflection and feedback.
Its worth noting that our games and activities don’t sit alone, they are in the context of group discussion and feedback. Essentially the activities are a vehicle to enable engagement, interaction and reflection.
So lets try some of them out……
AE
We’re going to let you have a go at some of the games and activities that we use with 1st year computing students.
We call their 1st year workshop ‘Better than Google’ which is a direct challenge to the students’ love of ‘Googling it’.
As you will see it covers the 4 key areas that we identified: resources, keywords, discovery and evaluation.
The first activity is designed to get students thinking about different resources available to them and their value (or not) in their academic work. We call it the ‘Thinking about resources’ game.
Hand out game and play.
AE
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.
AE
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
VH
Another ‘Thinking about resources’ activity that we do with 3rd year student is around reference lists.
Having already shown them the relevant marking criteria for their current project which usually includes marks for the quality, relevance and currency of resources used, and the quality of the Harvard referencing we give each group the same 3 reference lists.
We ask them to pretend that they are a lecturer marking essays, and need to allocate marks for the reference lists against the criteria shown on the screen.
One list is very poor….wikipedia, bad referencing, out-of-date books, no journal articles etc
One is very good and one is mediocre.
Its not rocket science, but leads to discussion around the best types of resources to use, how you can learn to reference etc.
VH
This is another card game that we use with Post Grad students.
Each group is given a pack of cards. Each pack has three black cards which say ‘Trustworthy’, ‘Be cautious’ and ‘Risky’ and the other cards list different types of resources such as ‘Standards’, ‘Government websites’, ‘Conference proceedings’, ‘Books’ etc.
The students are tasked to sort the resources under the headings, so gets them thinking about which resources are trustworthy and which they would wary of.
As usual, the exercise is followed by feedback and discussion and lots of issues come out of these discussions such as when for example a Tweet or Blog might be a good, reputable source of information and when it isn’t.
AE
This is an activity that we use to get 1st year students thinking about keywords and is just one of several activities that we use to develop these skills.
Its less about games, but does encourage interaction.
Run the exercise.
This exercise can be run as a whole class activity or in small groups to add an element of competition.
Its usually followed by a similar activity based around the project the students are currently working on so that new skills can be immediately applied.
VH
In this keyword activity used primarily with our Product Design students, we put students in pairs.
The students sit back to back.
One student is given the image on the left and they have to describe the image to the other student so that they can replicate the image.
The student who is ‘drawing’ cannot ask questions, so is reliant on the way that the first student describes the image.
In our case we use this exercise to demonstrate the power of communication and place it in the context of searching databases for information i.e. the search terms used make all the difference to the search results found.
VH
To put into practice what the students have learnt in the previous exercise, we use this exercise which we call the ‘Cup of Tea’ game.
The students are put into groups.
Each group is given an image which includes a heading which describes it such as ‘Cup of tea’ or ‘Sandcastle’.
Each group then has to list as many words or short phrases that they can think of to describe the image without using the words given, so for example if they have the ‘Cup of tea’ image they can’t use the words ‘cup’ or ‘tea’. They come up with a list of words such as vessel, china, British, refreshing, liquid, milk and water, drink etc.
They then show there list of words to the class who have to guess what their image is.
The idea is to get them thinking about alternative ways of describing a topic which they are researching to maximise search results.
VH
This is an activity we use with 2nd year Computing students to get them thinking about keywords/search terms.
In small groups, students are given a worksheet with an image on it such as one of these.
What they do:
Consider what is it?........they usually have no idea, similar perhaps to having to write an essay on a new subject.
Words that describe it which can be used to help them find 3 facts about the image using Google. Given they usually don’t know what the image is, they have to start somewhere and go for the obvious. E.g. if a group has the top left image, by searching for ‘concrete’, ‘structure’, ‘dish’, ‘beach’ etc they will find what they are looking for.
Present back to the class, explaining how they found their facts
VH
An activity used with 1st Product Design and 2nd year Computing students to explore our resources is known as the Envelope Game.
In small groups students are given a different selection of open-access and library resources.
The idea is that they explore them, decide on a favourite and present back to the class using the big screen.
Rather than us telling students that this resource is useful and this is good because……the students decide for themselves and present back to the class in their own words.
VH
This is a game that we use 2nd year students to get them thinking about:
The provenance of information
How it is created
What value it has
i.e. how to evaluate information.
It is usually preceded with a discussion about what ‘Currency’ and ‘Authority’ means in the context of libraries and followed by feedback and further discussion about issues arising from the activity.
Have a go.
Currency
How old: How old is the information? Does it need to be up-to-date?
Last updated: When was the information last updated?
What: Do you know what was updated. Think Wikipedia. There is often an explanation of what has been updated in new edition of a book.
Authority
Author: Do you know who the author is?
Qualifications: What is the author’s knowledge base?
Verifiable: Can the information be supported? Another witness or further info from a different source. Is there any peer review?
AE
Another ‘Evaluation’ game used with 1st years tasks them to evaluate 4 items – a website, journal article, newspaper article and a magazine article against certain criteria such as currency, bias, academic authority, relevance to a given topic etc.
We use this quote by Abraham Lincoln to get the ball rolling and ask them “What do they think about this quote by Abraham Lincoln on the issue of authenticity”.
Only the bravest amongst them question it!!
Hand out the activity.
VH
So what happens during one of these activities?
As students take part…..
They are engaged and there is increased interest and motivation
After all playing games can be a social and communal activity
There is lots of discussion……collective and peer learning. What we hear the students discuss is indicative of what they know and what they don’t know.
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 and voice opinions. Games indeed can alleviate some of the fear that students experience when using a library, what Walsh describes as ‘library anxiety’. Students are able to experiment in a safe environment.
We can respond as necessary….challenging misconceptions and filling gaps in their knowledge
And teaching is more fun.
Thus the use of games in our workshops empowers students to make decisions based on prior knowledge, plan a course of action, consider the outcomes, solve problems, absorb and consolidate new information, and learn from that.
VH
As we mentioned earlier we have developed different games and activities for each key area in our workshops for each year of study, so there are lots of other things that we have not been able to show you.
However you can find out more about our games and activities including templates and instructions for use, plus lesson plans on this website.
AE
Developments in technology and the proliferation of information have caused us to rethink how and what we teach.
We no longer need to teach traditional library skills such as processes and procedures.
Guidance for these can be made available for students on the VLE or on the library website.
This frees up time in library workshops to concentrate on other things…..in our case information literacy including the ability of students to critically evaluate the information they find.
However by changing how we teach, workshops are more interactive, students are engaged and formal and informal feedback suggests and improvement in grades.
Importantly teaching is more fun for the students and for us.
What we hope is that the 5 simple teaching principles that we base our workshop on resonate with you and that what we have done inspires you to think of alternative ways of doing things.
AE
The Internet has made searching for information much 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
The changes we have made appear to have worked and have made an impact on grades.
Teaching is more fun for students and for us
The End.
