Librarians Meggan Press and Meg Meiman gave this presentation at the Information Literacy Summit at Moraine Valley Community College on April 20, 2018. CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abstract: Working in teaching and learning is an inherently collaborative field. Whether it’s collaborating with classroom faculty or other librarians, working together is the best way to achieve a common goal. This presentation will use a case study to highlight three essential elements of a successful collaboration among Indiana University-Bloomington Libraries’ Department of Teaching & Learning and primary source collections across the campus. We will report on the results of a collaborative initiative designed to engage students in the use of primary sources, and to assess student learning in the context of primary source literacy and information literacy.

1. Collaborations for
the Common Good:
Building
Communities of
Practice
Meg Meiman, Head, Dept. of Teaching and Learning
Meggan Press, Undergraduate Education Librarian

2. ACTIVITY
Three words or phrases
that characterize a
productive
collaboration
--what’s happening?
--what do you look for?
Three words or phrases
that characterize an
unproductive
collaboration
-what’s happening?
--what do you look for?

3. Primary Sources
Immersion Program
Make this two-column Three-day
program for
instructors
Explore sources on
campus
Integrate primary
sources into courses

4. Elements of Collaboration
Serendipity
“Making happy and
unexpected
discoveries by
accident” (OED)
Pragmatism
Ensuring everyone’s
needs are met
Flexibility
Using/adapting what
you have on hand

5. Serendipity
--met with Heather
Eastman-Mueller, a 2017
participant
--wanted to use primary
sources for her college sex
education course

6. Pragmatism
--Use primary sources to
illustrate intersectionality
--Assess what students
learned from engagement
with primary sources

7. Flexibility
--RBMS/SAA Guidelines for
Primary Source Literacy
--ACRL Framework
--survey software and rubrics

8. H395/595: Practicum in
College Sex Education
and H350: Topics in Peer Health Education
How did engaging with primary sources
inform students’ beliefs as students
and as peer educators?

9. Survey

10. Authority is Constructed
and Contextual
Information Creation
as a Process
Research as Inquiry

11. The results…. such as they
were….
Data from our assessment of
Heather’s class yielded very few
results:
▹ A very small sample set
▹ Few students opted to participate
▹ Too few artifacts to make a
conclusion

12. And so we
return to
serendipity

13. BUS375: Ethics and
the 21st Century
Business Leader
● Do students learn differently when interacting
with physical vs. digital materials?
● Do students interact with materials differently
when they are physical vs. digital?

14. Elements of Collaboration
Serendipity
- April reached
out to Teaching
and Learning
- We included
Archives in the
lesson planning
- The course had
two sections
Pragmatism
- April wanted to
use primary
sources
- We wanted to
conduct a
study
- Design of the
assignment
Flexibility
- Adapting
previous rubric
- April was
willing to treat
her two
sections
differently

16. Case Study
1. What kind of document are you looking at? When do you think it was created? Why do
you think it was created? Give a brief description of what is going on in this document.
2. What perspective(s) are present in the document? Who do you think the audience
for this document is? What do you think was going on in the culture/time this document
was written?
3. After reading this document, imagine you’re a female student at the time this
document was published. How do you think you might have felt about these policies?
How would you feel about these policies if you were a fe/male student at the time?
4. How far have we come, or not come, as a result of these policies? Have these
policies done what they intended to do? What could be some unintended consequences
of these policies that are playing out now in our time?
5. What pressures were on those in charge of students such as the President &
Trustees in making the policies (or changing them when they were unpopular)? If you
were in charge, what pressures do you think would have been the hardest to resist?
6. Can you defend a policy you saw today under one of the frameworks we’ve studied
(virtue, Everybody Matters, etc.)? Would any framework say these policies are wrong?
7. In what ways does IU still treat women and men differently? Are any of those things
unethical in your view?

20. Engagement Rubric Results

21. What We Learned
▹ About collaborations
▹ About IRB studies
▹ What we’ll do differently next time
▹ Communities of practice

22. ACTIVITY
Take 5 minutes to share with your
partner that collaboration
how you think it's going well
how your characteristics match up
with ours

23. Participants’ responses --
unproductive collaboration
▹ Unclear assignments from instructor
▹ Unrealistic expectations about feasibility of
assignment
▹ Failure to communicate directly with others
▹ Actively avoiding communicating with others
▹ Going over your head; engaging multiple
librarians and departments
▹ Making lots of assumptions about who will do
what

24. Participants’ responses --
productive collaborations
▹ Set clear parameters/boundaries about
what’s possible
▹ Listen; communicate often; be willing to
exchange ideas
▹ Make sure collaboration is mutually beneficial
▹ Cultivate a good spirit of invitation when
beginning a collaboration

25. Participants’ responses --
productive
collaborations(cont’d)
▹ Know priorities ahead of time; be mindful of
workloads and looming deadlines of other
projects
▹ Clarify your ultimate destination
▹ Make sure collaboration is mutually beneficial
▹ Develop a vision statement; include a
description of how everyone should interact
with each other

26. QUESTIONS?
Contact us!
Meg Meiman / mmeiman@indiana.edu
Meggan Press / megpress@iu.edu
Presentation template by SlidesCarnival / CC-BY-SA 4.0