Nancy Weiner William Paterson University

MaryBeth Meszaros Monmouth University

VALE Users’ Conference January 5, 2011

First Year Seminar @ WPUNJ

• A 1.5 credit course required for graduation

• Acclimates students to William Paterson University's campus

• Educates students in the areas of critical thinking, academic integrity, study skills strategies, information technology and other topics that will provide a foundation for student success

Connecting with FYS

• Office of First Year Experience holds training sessions for FYS faculty

• Cheng librarians invited to present at training sessions for nearly a decade

• Opportunity to introduce new FYS faculty to the importance of library instruction

• Established a relationship with Director of First Year Experience

FYS and Library Instruction

• Library instruction session is not mandatory

• Nearly 90% of the sections do schedule a library session

• Instructing in a vacuum since most classes do not have research assignments

• Common Reader Selection Committee• Common Reader first used in 2005 • Use of Common Reader provides content

to develop the library in-class assignment

FYS and Library Instruction

• Provide students with an overview of available Library resources and services

• Focus on the various format types and potential sources of information

• Introduce students to basic elements of the research process

• Provide students with opportunity to use the Library web page to access article databases and the online catalog

Common Readers and FYS

• Assigned to students to read during the summer

• Discussion of common reader varies from class to class

• Library benefits since it provides content for us to work with in devising assignments

• Covers the basics of searching – Library catalog – Academic Search Premier Database

• Web site Evaluation • Citation preparation/identification

The Pact

• Fall 2005 • Instruction provided for 62 sections

(88% of total number of FYS classes)• Random sample of assignments

graded (n=334) using a scoring rubric • Average score 11.8 out of 15 • Assignments developed around

themes: – Peer pressure – Friendship – Self Esteem

What we learned…..

• Not enough time to cover everything

• Focus on basic Information Literacy skills

• Spend more time on website evaluation

• Eliminate the bibliography part

• Results of assignments are reported at FYS faculty training each year

• Identify student competencies and deficiencies

The Pact • Fall 2006• Assignment revised based upon results

of previous year • Instruction provided for 56 sections

(89% of total FYS classes) • Graded assignments used by

instructors in 22 sections • Convenience sample (n=345)– Comparing completed assignments – Those used by faculty had higher scores

• Average score 10.54 out of 12 • Only used three themes

The Kite Runner

• The Kite Runner selected in spring 2007 for use in fall

• Topics related to selected book identified in spring/early summer–Women in Afghanistan – Kites

• Assignment revised and included citations to sources relevant to the topic

• Convenience sample (n=284) • Average score 12.65 (15)

Freakonomics

• What do teachers & sumo wrestlers have in common?

• How is the KKK like a group of real estate agents?-

• Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?

• What makes a perfect parent?

Freakonomics • Fall 2008

– A random sample (n=265) of the collected assignments were graded

– The average score was 10 using a 15 point scoring rubric– Students had difficulty completing the assignment– Students demonstrated competency in using the catalog

and a database– Assignment revised to incorporate more questions on

web site evaluation criteria

• Fall 2009– A convenience sample (n=472) of the collected

assignments were graded. – The average score was 11 and a 15 point scoring rubric

was used. – The assignment included evaluation of a Wikipedia page

and was the first question on the assignment– Students still had difficulty completing the assignment

and revisions were made to reduce the number of questions

Common Reader Library Assignment

• Library assignment shared with FYS faculty at training

• Supporting material also provided along with suggestions for follow up assignments

• Training for librarians held prior to start of the fall semester

• Librarian cheat sheet provided • Rubric also revised to reflect any

changes

Common Readers and FYS

Advantages

• Provides content to develop questions for in class library assignment

• Provides a common topic to engage students with during library session

• Grading the assignments allows for tracking of information literacy skills

• Data used to revise assignment

• Involved with selection process and FYS Faculty training

Disadvantages

• Not all FYS faculty incorporate/discuss the contents of the common reader

• Not all students read the common reader

• Students do not take FYS course seriously and assume they know it all during the library session

• Annual revision to assignment is time consuming

• Difficult to identify library resources related to selected book

First-year Seminar Program, Monmouth University,

launched Fall 2010

OUTREACH :STAGES 1 & 2: AY 08-09

Stage One: Attended several FY Faculty Seminar Workshops (AY 08-09)Stage Two: Presented for FY Faculty Seminar Workshop (Aug. 2009)Stage Three: Developed Ongoing Communication with FY

Seminar Program Directors—demonstrated knowledge of pedagogy & learning theory was crucial in establishing credibilityStage Four: Accessed (download) course syllabi; requested all remaining

approved course syllabi

Information Literacy, Epistemological Beliefs, and the First-year Student Researcher: How

Librarians Can Help

Dr. M. Beth Meszaros First-year Seminar Workshop

August 2009

What Librarians Can Do• Librarians are experts at teaching search strategies for effective retrieval;

we offer instructional sessions designed to help your students get started and we encourage subsequent follow-up supervised research sessions for students; we can also offer on-on-one assistance by appointment and we are now on-site in the Campus Writing Center.

• But librarians are not just about searching; ACRL standards have broadened the librarian’s support role; we are just as concerned as you are that students evaluate information and use it effectively and ethically; good thinking and good writing matters to us too!

• We can help you incorporate IL Objectives into your assignments and suggest doable grading rubrics

• We can ensure that resources are available for students• We understand that knowledge construction is discipline-inflected. We can

guide you to ACRL IL standards that have been developed specifically for your subject matter.

What Instructional Faculty Can Do

• Bring your classes to the library for (an) instructional session(s) and/or for supervised research.

• Seek how-to advice for weaving IL outcomes and objectives into your course assignments and/or for designing a grading criteria rubric. You need not cover every outcome. Start small.

• Since First-year students have not had time to acquire a disciplinary vocabulary, try to provide lots of support and scaffolding if you assign peer-reviewed literature. Multi-subject databases and quality journalism are often better choices for freshman research.

• Don’t assume good gross reading comprehension. Model active reading strategies (or ask us for help) and frequently test student comprehension. Ask students to summarize what they read.

• Check with us first to ensure that we have on hand the resources your students will need; ensure that your assignment is practical and doable by carrying it out yourself.

What Instructional Faculty Can Do• Encourage metacognition by asking students to keep research

journals or logs. These need not be onerous to grade, and they provide a wealth of information about how students are conducting their research

• If practicable, require submission of an annotated bibliography, one that requires students to weigh evidence and evaluate knowledge claims

• Tell us what we can do to serve you and your students better!

FY Seminar Course Objectives (assessable learning outcomes – “students will be able to…”): 3-credit course. transition + academic content

1. *Students will demonstrate critical thinking as they actively engage in course material.

2. *Students will be able to seek out, evaluate and integrateevaluate and integrate information from multiple sources based on a course topic.

3. Students will demonstrate awareness of ethical debates pertaining to the course topic.

4. *Students will demonstrate awareness of ethical considerations of academic life.

5. *Students will articulate and evaluate their experience with college resources (such as but not necessarily limited to one academic and one non academic resource).

6. Students will demonstrate strategies for improving academic skills (such as but not necessarily limited to time management, stress management, and study skills).

7. Students will demonstrate an understanding of academic culture and its norms, values, and practices, including the differences between college and high school intellectual activity and work.

STAGE 4: ANALYSIS OF COURSE SYLLABI

52 syllabi analyzed for activities, assignments and outcomes that pertain to Information Literacy, broadly construed (May-June 2010) See handout for list of course syllabi approved.

Lists…

• Instructors requesting tour and/or library instructional session (+ tentative dates)

• Instructors expressing particular concerns about plagiarism

• Instructors assigning metacognitive activities, e.g. research narrative

• Instructors mandating use of at least some library resources

More Lists

• Instructors requiring students to work with Writing Center tutor (have draft read)

• Instructors providing guidance regarding use of web sites

• Instructors specifying number of sources• Instructors forbidding use of non-

academic sources • Instructors requiring summary and/or

comparison of popular vs academic sources

OUTREACH, STAGE 2Customized email to each instructor. Letters specifically addressed each course syllabus in terms of library support offered. Syllabus quoted in email. Released June 2010. Follow-up reminder email August 16, 2010. (Not customized.)

Number of FY Seminar Sessions offered Fall 2010

Number of One-shot Sessions Booked & Delivered

Number of Supervised Research Sessions Booked

Number of Tours

45 36 (80%) 5 2

Bookings Fall 2010

Assignment-specific LibGuides

• Evil and Human Cruelty required 2 research assignments, one focused on course content, the other

focused on the “transition element”—common problems encountered by first-year students

• Tea Appreciationrequired the student to seek out, evaluate, and integrate findings from

scholarly sources (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles) in order to characterize the influence of tea on a particular health outcome; student also required to discuss draft with writing center tutor

End-of-semester Faculty “Debriefing”

• “I overestimated their reading level”• “We have too many learning objectives”• “They don’t seem to know what is going on in the world”; “I

overestimated their knowledge of American cultural history”• “Some students didn’t think this would be a challenging

course—they had to be prodded”• “Many aren’t doing the readings”

Feedback from One Instructor• “Lots of variation in the extent to which the students engaged in critical

thinking…”• “For many …being asked to draw upon several sources to answer a

focused question was an entirely new experience. Some did not understand the connection…”

• “At first, some reacted as if I had invaded their privacy by setting deadlines and insisting on having approval of their focused questions in advance. “

• “…students used the Web page created for us. …verbal feedback suggested that they found it helpful and immensely convenient (they also gave high marks to the targeted lesson in the library).”

Advantages/Disadvantages of Themed, Discipline-specific vs. Common Reader Approach

advantages

• High buy-in from students—they can choose what interests them

• High buy-in from faculty—they get to teach their “passion”

• High buy-in from librarians—no burn-out due to repetitious one-shot delivery; deeper engagement of faculty & students resulted in more engaging class sessions

disadvantages• Some students may pay insufficient

attention to course descriptions… “I didn’t get any history majors…”

• The transition elements were sometimes seen as vying with course content

• No common academic content—no opportunity to assess information literacy component; left to discretion of course instructor; no access to student papers

• More labor and time-intensive for librarians

Going forward…..

How to move from tools-based one-shots• to deeper involvement with assignment design and

assessment rubrics in terms of fostering critical thinking/information literacy objectives?

• to a more collaborative model of faculty/librarian interaction?• to addressing faculty concerns such as student reading

comprehension issues and faculty “overload” in terms of multiple learning outcomes?

One thing at a time! Slow and steady wins the race….

• Provide faculty workshop addressing assignment design (“piggybacking” information literacy outcomes with other learning outcomes) utilizing successful faculty-produced examples

• Provide follow-up faculty workshop to help foster active reading in students (directed reading activities)—train the trainer

• Sensitize program directors to benefits of multi-sessions (as opposed to one-shots) and true partnership