Transforming First-Year Information Literacy: Understanding Authority in a Sea of Information
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•218 views
This panel presentation was presented at the Association of College and Research Libraries Conference on March 24, 2017, in Baltimore, Maryland.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to Transforming First-Year Information Literacy: Understanding Authority in a Sea of Information
Similar to Transforming First-Year Information Literacy: Understanding Authority in a Sea of Information (20)
More from Michelle Reed
More from Michelle Reed (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Transforming First-Year Information Literacy: Understanding Authority in a Sea of Information
- 1. Transforming First-Year Information Literacy: Understanding Authority in a Sea of Information
- 2. Presenter Information Jill Becker, KU Libraries Head of the Center for Undergraduate Initiatives & Engagement jkbecker@ku.edu Stephanie Gamble, Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University Librarian for History and Anthropology sgamble@jhu.edu Sofia Leung, MIT Libraries Teaching & Learning Program Manager and Liaison for Comparative Media Studies/Writing sofial@mit.edu Michelle Reed, University of Texas at Arlington Libraries Open Education Librarian michelle.reed@uta.edu
- 3. Institutional Overview The University of Kansas Total Enrollment - 28,401 Undergraduates - 18,734 First-Time Freshmen - 4,233 FTE Students - 22,726 First-Year Experience at KU First-Year Seminars University 101 Learning Communities Common Book
- 4. University 101: Orientation Seminar • 2-credit hour, elective • 52 sections in Fall 2016 • 19 or 25 students per section • Information Literacy Learning Outcome
- 5. University 101 Learning Outcome • (2012-2015) Students will develop information literacy skills, including identifying an information need, distinguishing between different kinds of information sources, composing search strategies, and retrieving useful and relevant information. • (2016) Students will demonstrate information literacy skills by identifying the credibility and authority of various information sources; students will recognize libraries and librarians as valuable resources in this process.
- 6. Project Overview ● Shift from finding information to evaluating information ● Shift from one-shot to course integration ● Academic and non-academic contexts ● Authority is Constructed and Contextual ● Assessment
- 7. Information Literacy Unit Library Anxiety Game & Library Event Day 1 - Information Cycle Day 2 - Authority is Constructed & Contextual Discussion Day 3 - Authority Game Exam
- 9. Library Anxiety Game and Library Event Learning Outcome: 1) Students will experience library spaces and resources in order to recognize KU Libraries as a partner in their academic success.
- 10. Library Event at the Learning Studio
- 11. Day 1: Information Cycle Outcomes: 1) Identify the attributes of a source 2) Identify the source type 3) Describe the value of the source
- 13. Day 2: Authority is Constructed and Contextual Discussion Outcomes: 1) Consider meaning of authority by identifying examples in their own life 2) Recognize that level of authority needed is dependent on the information need 3) Select and evaluate sources based on specific information needs 4) Demonstrate awareness of information privilege
- 14. Day 2: Authority is Constructed and Contextual Discussion Source evaluation: a) Author b) Audience c) Purpose d) Relevance e) Date published f) What would this be authoritative for
- 15. Day 3: Authority Game Outcome: Students will apply what they’ve learned about evaluating the authority of information sources in an active-learning game.
- 16. Day 3: Authority Game
- 17. Implementation & Assessment • Manual • Instructor training and support • Exam (574 students)
- 18. Based on the scenario, organize the sources along the authority spectrum from “Most Authoritative” to “Least Authoritative” Let’s Play a Game!
- 19. Scenario 1: Write a research paper about how young people decide who to vote for in the 2016 elections. Let’s Play a Game!
- 20. Scenario 2: How do you decide who to vote for? Let’s Play a Game!
- 21. Next Steps Analyze exam results Review feedback from UNIV 101 instructors Consult with FYE leadership Update manual and materials
Editor's Notes
- This presentation is licensed under an Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ It was presented at the Association of College and Research Libraries Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 24, 2017. The manual and ancillary materials discussed in this presentation are available in the institutional repository for the University of Kansas (KU): Becker, Jill, Michelle Reed, Stephanie Gamble, and Sofia Leung. 2016. “University 101 Information Literacy Unit Instructor Manual.” University of Kansas Libraries. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/23403
- Presenters: Jill Becker, Stephanie Gamble, Sofia Leung, and Michelle Reed
- Project files for the Digital Storytelling Project on Library Anxiety are openly available in KU’s institutional repository, KU ScholarWorks: http://hdl.handle.net/1808/21508
- Handouts were created by Leighann Dicks. The files are openly available in KU’s institutional repository, KU ScholarWorks: http://hdl.handle.net/1808/21508
- Event attendance Incentive for attending Event outcome
- Video tutorials used in Day 1 of this unit are located at http://guides.lib.ku.edu/evaluatingsources Additional information about PQRC: http://www.proquest.com/products-services/rescomp.html
- Instructor kits for Day 1
- Outline Day 2: Lecture and Discussion -students come to class with one information source selected on an assigned topic -Discussion begins with conversation about authority. Students are asked to think about and share who has authority in their lives. The instructor then progresses through several definitions of authority (Webster, OED) and asks students to discuss elements of those definitions (“true”/”real”, “extensive or specialized knowledge”/”expert”, “reliable”/”credible”. -Instructor then asks series of questions designed to get students thinking about the meaning of an information need in order to guide the discussion to the notion of context. (Where do you go when you have a question about a medical issue? About your new phone? About academic research?) -Instructor introduces a topic (diabetes) and two different information needs; one academic, one non-academic. Leds discussion of information need for either context. STudents are then given a source on the topic and asked evaluate the source for how it would meet the information need in either context. They are reminded to draw on knowledge from Day 1 (author, publication type, etc.) to fill out their worksheet. -To connect this back to information they have learned (peer-review) and their new academic environment instructors point out that different scholarly communities construct authority (i.e. peer reviewed articles) but also the types of information that is authoritative (STEM fields vs. humanities). -class concludes with students working with partner to evaluate the source they brought to class to determine its authority, then as a group, to identify what types of authority their sources represent and what types of sources might be missing if they were to use these sources in the context of conducting academic research.
- Outline Day 2: Lecture and Discussion -students come to class with one information source selected on an assigned topic -Discussion begins with conversation about authority. Students are asked to think about and share who has authority in their lives. The instructor then progresses through several definitions of authority (Webster, OED) and asks students to discuss elements of those definitions (“true”/”real”, “extensive or specialized knowledge”/”expert”, “reliable”/”credible”. -Instructor then asks series of questions designed to get students thinking about the meaning of an information need in order to guide the discussion to the notion of context. (Where do you go when you have a question about a medical issue? About your new phone? About academic research?) -Instructor introduces a topic (diabetes) and two different information needs; one academic, one non-academic. Leds discussion of information need for either context. STudents are then given a source on the topic and asked evaluate the source for how it would meet the information need in either context. They are reminded to draw on knowledge from Day 1 (author, publication type, etc.) to fill out their worksheet. -To connect this back to information they have learned (peer-review) and their new academic environment instructors point out that different scholarly communities construct authority (i.e. peer reviewed articles) but also the types of information that is authoritative (STEM fields vs. humanities). -class concludes with students working with partner to evaluate the source they brought to class to determine its authority, then as a group, to identify what types of authority their sources represent and what types of sources might be missing if they were to use these sources in the context of conducting academic research.
- The Authority Game is an active learning activity that asks students to apply the information from Day 2 to consider the authority of a range of source types in multiple contexts. Students are each given a Source Card, like the blue-edged card in the slide, to place in a headband without looking at the content of card. They are supposed to guess what their source is by using the questions provided in the Evaluation Card. The instructor reads out the first scenario (purposely academic) in which students are told they will be writing a research paper about how young people decide who to vote for in the 2016 elections. They then have to organize themselves along an “authority spectrum” from most authoritative to least authoritative. As they go through the process, they’re meant to discuss where to place each source along the spectrum. Then gameplay repeats with a non-academic scenario, such as how do they decide who to vote for. After placement of the sources is complete, the class has a discussion about how and why the sources changed places along the spectrum. Recognizing that there is room for discussion is an important part of the activity. Therefore, the scoring guide provided for instructors organizes the sources into four categories--worse and worst, better and best for each scenario. A recipe for the game was recently published in ACRL’s The First-Year Experience Cookbook edited by Raymond Pun and Meggan Houlihan.
- Given our available time, we will play an abbreviated version of the authority game. Each participant will be given a source card from the set and use their knowledge of authority and context and work together with their group to arrange the sources along the authority spectrum.