Information Literacy Grant Lower Columbia College, Spring 2009

1. Information Literacy Grant Lower Columbia College, Spring 2009

2. Introduction At LCC we have been involved in two basic projects: • Project One is based on evaluation of sources, in particular, periodical articles. • Project Two is based on creation of a research guide, and leading students to do appropriate research.

3. Project One: Source Evaluation • Three classes were involved. • Rather than giving students a rubric for identifying whether an item is scholarly, substantive, popular, sensational, or newspaper, we give students samples of different kinds of articles, and have them build their own rubrics. • Once they have identified differences between the types of articles, and their audiences, students need to select an article appropriate for different needs.

4. Basic Evaluation Rubric We have used this basic idea in three classes: • Environmental studies capstone class, • introductory English class, • English research class

5. The lesson plan will be available to other instructors at the end of the grant period. • Assignment evaluating sources accessed through databases (or online). • Read about the differences between Scholarly and Popular articles. • Pick a topic or be given one by your instructor. • a disease such as lupus or juvenile diabetes or OCD. • The influence of gaming or television on academic performance. • Contributions of a minority (jews, BGLST, Blacks, Chicanos, etc) to mainstream American culture). • Review how to access periodical articles. • Using either Gale or Proquest, you need to find two articles on the same topic: (pick 2 of the three). They should deliver the same general message, but of course the way it is presented would be different. • One article would be appropriate for a teenager. • One would be appropriate for a professional in the field • One appropriate for the parent of a teenager. • Print the first page of both articles. • Cite both articles. • Write a paragraph for each article, explaining why it would be appropriate for the audience you have identified. • You will be graded on the following 4 criteria, 25% for each one: • correct MLA citations • college level writing, including grammar and sentence structure • thoughtful evaluations of the sources • appropriate choices of sources.

6. Results from the first presentation are not yet in. • Students had to review three different articles and identify differences between them. • They also learned techniques for locating articles and steps in doing research. • The instructor gave students an assignment which used these ideas, but it has not yet been evaluated for information literacy.

7. Results from the second presentation are mixed. • Students evaluated the articles to see how they fit into the rubric above. • They did not analyze their articles to determine whether they were scholarly, popular, or substantive. • They did not apply these criteria to other articles they identified on their own. • Students did, however, notice that the articles were different, and also got practice locating articles identified by another person (me).

8. Papers were evaluated using the following rubric: • Results indicated that students could locate articles, and could differentiate between writing styles, but they had difficulty identifying a reason for these differences.

9. The third group produced the most effective results. • This group had an in-class presentation, and the opportunity to interact with the librarian and the instructor – the librarian was embedded in this part of the class. • Students also received the explanation in person, and the assignment was posted in Angel. • The instructor and the librarian worked together to develop a grading rubric and grade students’ responses.

10. These papers were evaluated using the following rubric: • In general, we found that students did an adequate job of finding and evaluating sources. • They tended to assume that individuals could read at a higher level than is generally true (i.e., high school students reading Business Week, parents reading technical or scholarly journals). • Evaluations were thoughtful, writing was good.

11. Project One: Identifying the level and type of information in different articles is one piece of the information we have been trying to provide through this grant. • Project Two, the second aspect of the grant, is larger and the follow-up activities after the pilot will take longer.

12. Project Two: Research Guide • Together with a business administration instructor, library staff created an online subject guide for research in business administration. • Business classes are frequently distance classes, and students can not come for research orientations on campus.

13. The subject guide was created as a web page on the library’s web site.

14. We followed the general guidelines of the library on research steps, but tailored them to business administration. Suggested sources included: • business encyclopedias, • call numbers for business administration, • databases for research in business, • search tips, • web pages, • citation guidelines.

15. A Camtasia video was made to demonstrate the research process for students. • The video was inserted into the online class. • The instructor required the students to view it and had a quiz for them afterwards.

16. Students have been using some of the information from the tutorial already this quarter. • The final project for the class will require that students use the correct citation format and an appropriate type and variety of sources.

17. As an extension of the grant activities, Library Services has been preparing “subject guides” in a few disciplines. • Instructors are currently reviewing the drafts to provide us with professional association links, but students are still finding the “beta” subject guides to be useful. • Subject guides are handed out in orientations, and linked on the Library Services web page.

18. Subject guides have so far been prepared for environmental science, psychology, and sociology.

19. FUTURE PLANS • More research guides • Additional information literacy workshops