A Tale of Two Classes: Embedded Librarianship vs. the One-Shot

1. A Tale of Two Classes: Embedded Librarianship vs. the One-Shot Jill B. Hampton, Associate Professor of English, University of South Carolina Aiken, JillH@usca.edu and Kari D. Weaver, Assistant Professor of Library Science and Library Instruction Coordinator, University of South Carolina Aiken, KariW@usca.edu Results Students were asked to complete an annotated bibliography assignment and a linked research paper comparing a literary element of a book and a movie version of the same fairy tale. The annotated bibliography required seven sources, including the two primary sources. The research paper did not require a specific number of sources. Discussion Students felt better supported by having a librarian present more frequently in the classroom and readily available for consultation after class hours. While there was little difference in the number of average sources used on the research paper, there were distinct differences in the types of sources students selected between the embedded course and the control course. In particular, the increased use of books and book chapters for research in the embedded course indicates the impact of having a librarian in the classroom to provide intervention in the research process. Though both courses used journal articles more than other source types, books and book chapters often provide more accessible and readable for first year college students. Also notable is the emphasis the control course placed on primary sources, indicating some level of discomfort with finding and using secondary sources. Introduction While English and Library Faculty at the University of South Carolina Aiken have worked together for years to deliver information literacy instruction to students, particularly in the introductory composition sequence. However, assessments of student work from the composition sequence indicated students continued to be deficient in information literacy skills, especially documenting information and selecting appropriate source materials in their writing. Based on these assessment results, and in an effort to improve student information literacy outcomes, the Coordinator of Instruction and an Associate Professor of English began to discuss addressing this problem through a series of assignments and direct interventions with students on the part of the librarian. In short, they wondered how to best leverage the expertise of the librarian to improve student performance. This collaboration developed into a plan to embed the librarian in one section of ENGL 102, the second course in the composition sequence, and compare the student work in that section with the professor’s second section of the ENGL 102 acting as a control group for the experiment. • Future Directions • These data represent the analysis of the first of a four semester sequence to evaluate the impact of embedding a librarian in a course vs. using traditional one-shot information literacy instruction. Based on these results, the collaborators are reviewing several ideas for improvements over time. Ideas for the future include: • Include specific questions on the submission notes regarding the information literacy content. • Practice with mini-research papers throughout the semester to help students become less fearful of research and writing. • Focus early and often on the relationship between the classroom and the library. This may include involving the librarian in mini-research papers, through the course management system in a more defined way, or other unexplored options. • Consider creating and posting short videos to supplement classroom instruction. Literature Review The adjective “embedded” in the term “embedded librarianship” arises from a couple of sources. First, it can mean directly “'an integral part to the whole' based on the geological definition of an embedded element.” (Dene, 2011, p. 225). It can also harken to the sense of a journalist embedded with the military who is “experiencing and observing, as near as possible, the daily like of the primary group” (Dewey, 2005, p. 6). Drewes and Hoffman trace the origin of embedded librarianship to the creation of branch libraries in the late 19th Century, where special collections for specific educational objectives required support from librarians who were specialists in the selected subjects. Shumaker (2012) identifies three critical areas that distinguish embedded librarianship from other types of librarianship as “ongoing working relationships, knowledge of and commitment to information user-group goals and objectives, and highly customized and value-added contributions to the group” (p. 5). These sorts of collaborations can take place in a range of environments, including academic, commercial, or research organizations. In academia, the range of activities that constitute “embedded librarianship” can vary widely based on circumstances. Becker (2010) focuses on the embedded librarian primarily in the context of an online classroom, where the librarian can provide immediate support to the users and provide reference material relevant to the course. Carlson and Kneale (2011) discuss embedded librarianship in the context of specialized research, where a librarian may help find information, analyze data, archive results, or even help secure funding for one or more projects. McCluskey (2013) details her experience as an embedded librarian in the Higher Education Action Research in Teaching group at York St. John University in the United Kingdom. Many authors also explore embedded librarianship in the classroom, where the librarian plays an active role in developing and co-teaching the course with another instructor. Saunders and Taylor (2014) discuss their experiences in developing and co-teaching a course focused on environmental art, and Olivares (2010) conversely explores her challenges with establishing an embedded librarian relationship with the business school at Saint Cloud State University in Minnesota. The skills, traits, and attitudes necessary for successful embedded librarianship are numerous. Carlson and Kneale(2011) highlight many, including being a team player, support from organization and colleagues, an entrepreneurial mindset, acceptance of risk, innovation, and relationship-building. Olivares (2010) also emphasizes the importance of persistence, communication skills, marketing, and “schmoozing” (p. 141). While establishing the relationships and expertise necessary for successful embedded librarianship may be challenging, many researchers have detailed the benefits of exactly this type of collaboration. Knapp, Rowland, and Charles (2014) identify benefits including improved quality of student projects, streamlined classroom instruction, development of new types of projects, improved student performance in courses outside of the embedded course, and higher student retention rates. Saunders and Taylor (2014) also highlight the additional depth of learning provided by the participation of two coordinated and complimentary instructors, increased student familiarity with library resources and online education tools, and instruction facilitation via library space, facilities, and technology. Comparison of Source Use by Type of Source Embedded Course vs. Control Course References Becker, B.W. (2010). Embedded librarianship: A point-of-need service. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29, 237-240. Doi: 10.1080/01639269.2010.498763 Carlson, J., & Kneale, R. (2011). Embedded librarianship in the research context: Navigating new waters. College & Research Libraries News, Need Volume, 167-170. Dene, J. (2011). “Embedded librarianship at the Claremont Colleges.” In C. Kevinld & K. Calkins (Eds.), Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot instruction, 219-228. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Dewey, B.I. (2004). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 17, 5-17. Kvenild& K. Calkins (Eds.), Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot instruction, pp. 219-229. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Knapp, J.A., Rowland, N.J., & Charles, E.P. (2014). Retaining students by embedding librarians into undergraduate research experiences. Reference Services Review, 42, 129-147. Doi: 10.1108/RSR-02-2-13-0012 McCluskey, C. (2013). Being an embedded research librarian: Supporting research by being a researcher. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 4-14. Doi: 10.11645/7.2.1815 Olivares, O. (2010). The sufficiently embedded librarian: Defining and establishing productive librarian-faculty partnerships in academic libraries. Public Services Quarterly, 6, 140-149. Doi: 10.1080/15228959.2010.49768 Saunders, H., & Taylor, R.W. (2014). The art and environment of embedded librarianship. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21, 145-154. Doi: 10.1080/10691316.2014.906775 Shumaker, D. (2012). The embedded librarian: Innovative strategies for taking knowledge where it’s needed. Medford, NJ: Information Today. • Students were also asked to complete submission notes with each assignment. This portion of the assignments asked students to reflect on their experiences with both major assignments and their experiences completing the research. Here are some major points directly from the students related to this project: • Research is still hard. • Knowing a librarian is helpful. They are really knowledgeable. • It is important to find credible sources. • The more they practice research based assignments, the easier they become. • Do not procrastinate!