- Email: [email protected]
Working Toward Scalable Instruction: Creating the RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
TECHNOLOGY
WORKING TOWARD SCALABLE INSTRUCTION: CREATING THE RIO TUTORIAL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY LAURA J. BENDER JEFFREY M. ROSEN University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA ABSTRACT: To be considered literate in today's society, it is necessary to possess a set of information skills. Librarians are being called upon to help teach these skills in partnership with faculty. Expedient ways are being sought to facilitate this teaching, especially when institutions are dealing with increased enrollments. How, for example, do 7,000 entering freshmen become information literate? This article will relate the process used to design and create RIO (Research Instruction Online), a Web-based tutorial designed to address identified competencies that comprise required information skills.
INTRODUCTION The use of information technology has permeated every facet of society. In higher education, students from all majors must now use computers for much of their coursework, and many class assignments assume that students possess information literacy skills. Students must know how to recognize their information needs and must know where to find appropriate information. They must then be comfortable and confident in using the appropriate tools to find, evaluate, and synthesize that information. The University of Arizona Library identified information literacy as the key focus for an education-related goal for the 1996/97 fiscal year. An Information Literacy Project
Direct all correspondence to: Laura Bender, University of Arizona, Main Library, Tucson, AZ 85721-0055, USA. E-mail: [email protected] RESEARCH STRATEGIES, Volume 16, Number 4, pages 315 ± 325. Copyright D 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0734 ± 3310
316
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Team was formed and it carried out an extensive data-gathering process to identify not only the educational needs of our students and faculty, but also ways that the Library could successfully meet the demands of our expanded educational role on campus. These demands center on helping to graduate information literate students and on becoming full partners with faculty in restructuring higher education to achieve successful learning outcomes.
Our Motivation Our work had shown us, our customers had told us, and our faculty had indicated to us that students were not equipped to handle, or were not experiencing success with the assignments given them in class. Over the years, librarians have attempted to teach basic research skills in a variety of walk-in workshops. Clearly, however, teaching information literacy skills through a traditional program of course-integrated library instruction to thousands of incoming students was not a practical plan. Through our planning process, we realized that the Library could position itself strategically on campus by developing an information literacy program that would reach all incoming students. We needed a platform from which to spring and developed the following definition of information literacy: An individual is information literate if s/he recognizes that s/he has a need for information; possesses the knowledge and skills that enable her/him to discover where and how to find the information s/he is seeking; is comfortable using the necessary tools to find, modify, and present that information in another format; and can critically evaluate and synthesize the information s/he finds to understand the social, economic, and political implications of the information.
What We Learned from Students and Faculty After defining what was meant by information literacy, we talked with students and faculty to help us identify the best strategies for our program. We embarked on a needs-assessment approach to glean their definition of successful learning, or information literacy, in relation to their teaching and assignments. The University of Arizona faculty and library staff indicated that students had no idea how to begin a research project. Students were confused about resources, whether print or electronic, and needed grounding in the fundamentals of online catalogs, indexes, networks, databases, bibliographies, and the Web. This confusion was corroborated by the students themselves, many of whom did not know what an index was. Students also needed to learn the distinctions between scholarly journals and magazines, methods for citing sources, and so forth. As we shared information about our project with various library audiences both within Arizona and out of state, we were often asked what kind of questions we posed to students, faculty, and staff. We implemented a variety of assessment toolsÐfocus groups, individual interviews, and short e-mail surveysÐto elicit responses. The project team advertised and offered cash payments to students who participated in the focus groups. We attempted to get a cross-section of students, freshmen through upper classmen, from a variety of majors. In the focus groups, we asked students what they thought they needed to successfully complete their assignments. We did not want to lead the students in their answers, so we
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
317
left the question open-ended. We asked what kind of assignments they were given and, if the situation were ideal, what they would like to have in the way of help to find the information they needed. We learned that students were coming to the University of Arizona with varying levels of technological experience. Some of the students were coming from high schools in rural areas that were not yet connected to the Internet, while some of the more experienced students could teach the faculty a thing or two about doing research on the Web. We learned that many students were completely unprepared for college-level research. For the faculty focus groups, the project team tried to get faculty from a variety of disciplines and teaching backgrounds. We invited faculty who were involved with freshmen, who had experience with the General Education (required) curriculum courses, and who had assignments that required students to use many information sources. We asked them what their students needed to successfully complete their assignments. As with the students, we did not want to lead the faculty by mentioning ``information literacy,'' computer skills, or the like. We asked them to describe the types of assignments they gave their students. We asked point blank: ``Do the students in your classes know how to do research?'' As indicated above, faculty said most of their students, including some upperclassmen, did not have even the rudimentary skills needed to perform basic research. The students were confused about resources and did not know where to begin the search process. The project team sent an e-mail request to all library staff, especially to librarians and staff working closely with students at service desks, soliciting their input. The team wanted to gather information about, and insights into, stumbling blocks that students (particularly undergraduates) encounter as they work to complete their class assignments. One librarian stated: ``[I see students] getting lost in electronic databases, not knowing where they are in the library's catalog, and not knowing there are differences between the databases.''
Identification of Information Literacy Competencies The project team realized that any program we designed would require a foundation of competenciesÐa set of intellectual and technical skills that students would learnÐso that we could measure our success. We embarked upon a series of research steps to aid us in the definition of these competencies and decided upon the development of a Web-based tutorial designed with these competencies in mind. As we examined the current literature, we found much to support the incorporation of information competency skills into students' work. For example, in an article on critical thinking, Craig Gibson notes that ``students and many others lack sound mental models of databases and therefore make incorrect assumptions about the content and structure of databases.''1 This speaks directly to the issue of developing search strategies and locating information regardless of format or medium. He states that instruction about various technologies (e.g., the Web and electronic journals) and databases should engage students in evaluative thinking, a concept that influenced our decision to include the competencies of synthesis and assessment. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield found that information literacy encourages users to become more effective consumers of information. ``As the volume of information grows,
318
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
staff, students, and faculty must be prepared not only to ask for and locate what they need, but to evaluate what they find.''2 The Information Literacy Project Team also interviewed some of the people who had been instrumental in setting up information literacy programs at other colleges and universities. A questionnaire was sent out to various programs, and in some cases, telephone interviews were transcribed and put on the Information Literacy webpage. One answer of particular interest came from Betsy Wilson of the University of Washington. We include a section of it here to illustrate the impact it had on our future list of competencies. We endeavored to make the list minimally prescriptive; the concepts are universal, and can be adapted to different instructional situations. Question: Does your program address the idea of technical/computer skills versus evaluative/critical thinking skills? Answer: Yes. We do need to address certain competencies, but we have continually focused our longer view on the tech/computer skills to the purpose of x or of y for a specific class or program. We have tried to provide students with technical skills and abilities, but continually in the context of a specific assignment. Evaluation/critical thinking is what librarians brought to the original conception of UWired, allowing it to develop beyond, ``giving students computers.'' [. . . snip . . .] I have seen extensive lists of competencies developed by other institutions and distributed via the WWW, but UWired has not, to date, developed such explicit technical or information literacy competencies. ( Note: The Libraries did develop a list of ``Information skills all UW Graduates should have,'' which has influenced library instruction efforts, but that has not taken on the form of formal policy or curriculum). Since UWired has attempted to provide support to faculty for including appropriate uses of technology for their courses, we continually return to the questions of ``what is appropriate for this assignment'' or ``for this class'' or ``for this group of students.''3 In addition to Uwired, some of the other online models we evaluated include Internet Navigator at the University of Utah; the Summer Bridge Program at California State University, San Marcos; PLUTO, the Purdue Libraries Universal Tutorial Online; The Teaching Library, University of California, Berkeley; Go For the Gold at James Madison University; and Project Renaissance at SUNY Albany. See Appendix A for a bibliography and Appendix B for a webliography listing the readings and websites that were useful to us in our research for the RIO project*. Based on this research, the Information Literacy Project Team adopted the following seven competencies, which were incorporated into the RIO project. Listed under each competency are various skills and attributes that appertain to it. 1.
Task definition . .
Identifies and defines a problem, question, or issue Recognizes a need for information
*Editor's Note: The University of Arizona Library's RIO (Research Instruction Online) Project, described in this article, was the recipient of the Association of College and Research Libraries' Instruction Section's 1999 Innovation in Instruction Award. Project team members were Laura Bender, Ann Eagan, Louise Greenfield, Cathy Larson, Claire Macha, Judy Marley, Jeff Rosen, and Karen Williams.
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
2.
Information-seeking . . . . .
3.
Analyzes and evaluates results of information retrieval in terms of utility and quality
Synthesis . .
7.
Logically organizes and manages information from multiple sources
Analysis and evaluation .
6.
Locates information sources, regardless of format or medium. Locates and retrieves relevant information within sources, using all appropriate tools.
Organization of information .
5.
Develops a search strategy Creates appropriate group of search terms for both controlled and keyword searching Identifies requirements for necessary information Determines range of possible sources by usefulness, appropriateness, function, and format Prioritizes use of above sources in search strategy
Location and access . .
4.
319
Synthesizes information using critical thinking skills such as selection, logic, organization, and association Is able to communicate or present the synthesis effectively in a variety of formats and media
Assessment .
Assesses both product and process, either through self-assessment or through consultation with peers, instructors, and so forth, in terms of innovative representation, pursuit of identified goals, or possible contribution to the greater world of knowledge.
Decisions About the Scope of Our Project The project team decided that our first priority would be the development of a Webbased, interactive tutorial, subsequently named RIO (Research Instruction Online). This would allow us to deliver scalable instruction via the Web, available anytime and from anyplace, aimed at developing information literate students. We learned that we would have to build in flexibility. Students would work with RIO when they have a need to do so. It would serve to complement the skills they already have and teach them new skills in the process.
320
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Primary Audience Our tutorial would be designed for anyone with an information literacy need. However, we decided to design the look, feel, and tone of the tutorial to be appealing to undergraduates, especially freshmen and sophomores. The project team made the decision to design its online tutorial with the on-campus user as its primary audience. We knew, for example, that most labs, offices, and workstations on the University of Arizona campus use the Netscape Navigator browser rather than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Plans for the portion of the tutorial that teaches customers how to use Web-based journal indexes, such as EBSCOhost, called for the user to call up a live session of the online index while working through the tutorial. Off-campus users would not be able to access the Web-based indexes due to license agreements requiring an on-campus IP address.
Minimum Platform Standards and Scalability The University of Arizona, like many campuses, has a number of computer labs available for student use. Individual departments also maintain computer labs or areas where students can access the Web. The variety of hardware and software in these labs is astounding in its inconsistency. Many of the computers are outdated or running very early versions of the Netscape software. We decided to use Netscape version 3.0, which usually requires no more than a ``486'' PC compatible computer, as our minimum standard in terms of our tutorial design. The downside of this decision was not being able to employ Netscape plug-ins, client-side Java, Shockwave animation, and many other features that make Web pages more interactive and interesting. The upside of choosing Netscape 3.0 was feeling confident that the tutorial would be scalable to our entire audience; that is, it would operate properly from any computer on campus.
Priority of Module Creation Our focus groups with faculty and staff, along with the experience of Library staff working at the Reference and Information Desks, told us that there were certain skills, competencies, and types of information that students needed more than others. This information guided our decisions about which sections or modules of the RIO tutorial to design first. The project team divided into subgroups, and two or three individuals worked together to design the content and concepts to be taught in each module. Since the University of Arizona Library had long been teaching hands-on workshops that correlated with most of the RIO modules, the curriculum materials for these workshops served as a natural starting place for the design. As modules were created by the subgroups, they were brought back to the entire RIO team for feedback and criticism. Once the content of a particular module was agreed upon, another subgroup looked at the module to see where charts, diagrams, or other graphics would help clarify or augment a particular point. The initial modules for the tutorial that were fully functioning for the fall, 1998 semester were detailed below. .
Using SABIO SABIO is the University of Arizona Library's gateway to books, journals, articles, and other library collections. This module helps students who were confused by the
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
.
.
.
321
variety of information linked to the Library's homepage. It also focuses on how to use the Library's online public access catalog. Database Basics We wanted a module of the tutorial to deal with the basic steps and common characteristics of searching all electronic databases. This module defines indexes and databases and teaches how to use Boolean searching techniques, how to narrow or broaden a search, and so forth. Finding Articles Experience has shown that students need a lot of help determining which index or database to use and locating journal and magazine articles within the libraries. This module is designed to help students in these two important areas. It also addresses the difference between popular and scholarly publications, citation style differences, and so forth. The World Wide Web This module teaches students what the Internet and the Web are, how to use the various types of search tools, how to evaluate information found on the Web, and so forth.
Usability Testing Although librarians have not traditionally been the sole designers of systems and interfaces to be used by the public, that is exactly what the RIO project team had to become when creating the different sections or modules of the tutorial. Before the tutorial would be ready for public use, we learned that students and faculty would be invaluable sources of constructive feedback. They would let us know how easy the modules were to use and how effective they were in getting the job done, i.e., in teaching them what they needed to know. The usability tests were developed and administered by subteams of two persons each, and the results for each module were critiqued and analyzed by the rest of the team members. We then began to conduct usability testing for each section by paying students ten dollars for an hour of their time. Each student worked through two RIO modules while being monitored by two team members. Students were encouraged to think aloud about why they clicked on a certain item or what they expected to find after selecting a link. One RIO team member would ask questions of the student or elicit comments while the other team member would write down everything the student said. Each module of RIO was ``tested'' by seven to ten students, and the process proved to be very revealing. Certain elements of the tutorial that all RIO team members had been convinced were easy to understand proved difficult for many students to follow. Decisions about styles of layout, colors, word choice, and graphics versus text explanations were all substantially changed due to the usability testing. The project team will continue to conduct usability tests with students over the next year.
Next Steps in Module Design Work is almost completed on a RIO module dealing with computing resources on campus, including lab locations, student account information, computer training, and
322
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
other aspects of computer use at the University of Arizona. A module that provides an online visual tour of all campus libraries is also being developed. Another RIO module designed to teach new students how to do research and write their first papers is also in the final stages of completion. This module will likely replace or supplement the library instruction that is normally conducted for first-year English classes.
RIO Marketing and Implementation The RIO tutorial officially went online in August 1998. The project team has developed an extensive publicity campaign to introduce RIO to the campus. In fact, the largest percentage of our budget has been dedicated to bookmarks, mouse pads, buttons, and T-shirts displaying the RIO images and logos. The team will also run advertisements in the campus daily newspaper about the advantages of using RIO. Library staff will be trained how to use and introduce RIO to students, and will be given T-shirts and buttons to wear while working at service desks during the first few weeks of the semester. Librarians introduced and explained RIO at both the Graduate Student Orientation and the Graduate Teaching Assistant Orientation sessions. Both groups were enthusiastic about using RIO, and the latter group will be working primarily with undergraduates. We piloted the use of RIO within targeted classes during the fall 1998 semester including 20 sections of English composition classes. We anticipate that RIO will be used in a variety of ways. Some regular classes are being assigned to work through several sections in RIO prior to their inlibrary instructional sessions. Other classes are working through some of the sections of RIO during their library instruction sessions. Some librarian liaisons to specific departments on campus are creating partnerships with faculty who have Web pages designed to help students through assignments. Some of these pages are linked directly to specific RIO pages to deliver online instruction at the point of need. The University of Arizona reference librarians are using RIO as a learning tool at the reference desk, directing students to the appropriate RIO page for their information need. Another large component of the charge to the RIO project team centers around the integration of the tutorial into the General Education courses taught on campus. This should prove to be an exciting and challenging endeavor. We believe that the RIO project stands out for a number of reasons. Before building RIO, the project team examined several online library tutorials and noted the best and worst features of each. We wanted our tutorial to have easy navigability, to make full use of the medium of the Web, and to have assessment (quizzes) built into the modules themselves. We also wanted it to be pleasing to the eye, fun and easy to work through, and engaging for undergraduates while still addressing the key information competencies that we ascertained students needed. Although we are pleased with the first generation of the RIO tutorial, our efforts at graduating information literate students will continue indefinitely. In that sense, our work has just begun.
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
323
APPENDIX A Bibliography Eileen E. Allen, ``Active Learning and Teaching: Improving Postsecondary Library Instruction,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 89 ±103. Lee R. Alley, ``Technology Precipitates Reflective Teaching: An Instructional Epiphany,'' Change 28.2, no. 7 (1996): 48. S. Behrens, ``A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy,'' College & Research Libraries, (July 1994): 302 ± 322. Sonia Bodi, ``Scholarship or Propaganda: How Can Librarians Help Undergraduates Tell the Difference?'' Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (1995): 21± 25. Katherine Branch and Debra Gilchrist, ``Library Instruction and Information Literacy in Community and Technical Colleges,'' RQ 35 (Summer 1996): 476± 483. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield, ``Information Literacy for College and University Staff,'' Research Strategies 13 (Spring 1995): 94 ± 106. Patricia Daragan and Gwendolyn Stevens, ``Developing Lifelong Learners: An Integrative and Developmental Approach to Information Literacy,'' Research Strategies 14 (Spring 1996): 68 ± 81. Kirk Doran, ``The Internot: Helping Library Patrons Understand What the Internet Is Not (Yet),'' Computers in Libraries 15 (June 1995): 22 ± 26. Lorraine Evans and Peggy Keeran, ``Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: Expanding Students' Information Horizons,'' Research Strategies 13 (Fall 1995): 235± 244. Craig Gibson, ``Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,'' RQ 35 (Fall 1995): 27 ±35. Philip C. Howze and Dana E. Smith, ``Library Instruction as Independent Study: The Summer Enrichment Program at Iowa State University,'' Reference Services Review 23 (Winter 1995): 75± 82. Trudi E. Jacobson and Beth L. Mark, ``Teaching the Information Age: Active Learning Techniques to Empower Students,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 105 ±120. J. Liebenau and J. Backhouse, Understanding Information (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990). Lynne M. Martin, ed., ``Library Instruction Revisited: Bibliographic Instruction Comes of Age,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 5 ±447 (entire issue). Janet Martorana and Carol Doyle, ``Computers On, Critical Thinking Off: Challenges of Teaching in the Electronic Environment,'' Research Strategies 14 (Summer 1996): 184 ±191. T. G. McFadden and T. J. Hostetler, eds., ``The Library and Undergraduate Education,'' Library Trends 44 (Fall 1995): 221 ± 457 (entire issue). Cerise Oberman, ``Unmasking Technology: A Prelude to Teaching,'' Research Strategies 13 (Winter 1995): 34± 39. Hannelore Rader and William Coons, ``Information Literacy: One Response to the New Decade,'' in The Evolving Educational Mission of the Library, edited by Betsy Baker and Mary Ellen Litzinger (Chicago: Bibliographic Instruction Section, Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1992), 109 ±125.
324
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Patrick Ragains, ``Four Variations on Drueke's Active Learning Paradigm,'' Research Strategies 13 (Winter 1995): 40± 50. James Rettig, ``The Convergence of the Twain or Titanic Collision? BI and Reference in the 1990's,'' Reference Services Review 23 (Spring 1995): 7 ±20. Gabriella Sonntag and Donna M. Ohr, ``The Development of a Lower-Division, General Education, Course-Integrated Information Literacy Program,'' College and Research Libraries 57, no. 4 (1996): 331 ±338. Marsha Tate and Jan Alexander, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources,'' Computers in Libraries 16 (November/December 1996): 49 ±55. Gary B. Thompson, ``Library Instruction for Changing Times,'' College and Research Libraries News 57, no. 7 (1996): 437 ±438.
APPENDIX B Webliography Below are Web addresses to information literacy related programs at other institutions. Library Tutor IntroductionÐCD-ROM:http://www.pcs.sk.ca/libtutor/ÐAltaVista: Simple Query ``information literacy'' + library CIC Program: http://cedar.cic.net/cic/cicprog.html Curtin University Library and Information Service Home Page: http:// www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/library/ Database Search Skills: Overview, New Jersey Libraries: http://www.state.nj.us/ statelibrary/srchover.htm DeLiberationsÐContents: http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/ Educom Review: http://www.educom.edu/educom.review/review.96/mar.apr/shapiro. html Gateway to Information, Ohio State: http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/gateway/ GET READY, U of Oregon: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/getready/ Griffith University Gold Coast Information Literacy Skills: http://www.ins.gu.edu.au/ lls/litskill.htm I103 Information Literacy Course Syllabus, Indiana U: http://www.iue.indiana.edu/ mcclell/I103.html Information Literacy for Diverse Groups: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/abstracts/ ej494146.html Information Literacy Links, U of Louisville: http://www.louisville.edu/infoliteracy/ infolinks.htm Information Literacy Skills Program Home Page, Griffith U, Australia: http:// www.gu.edu.au/gwis/ins/infolit/home.htm Information Literacy, Augustana College: http://inst.augie.edu/~asmith/infolit.html Information Literacy, Maricopa County CC (1994): http://hakatai.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ ocotillo/report94/rep7.html Information Literacy, Maricopa County CC (1995): http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ ocotillo/report95/rep6.html
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
325
Instructional Innovation Network (Maricopa CC): http://www2.emc.maricopa.edu/ innovation/sections.html Internet Research, McFarlin Library Research Guide, U of Tulsa: http://www.lib. utulsa.edu/guides/rsrch.htm JCU Library Futures Forum, James Cook U, Australia: http://www.jcu.edu.au/gen/ library/general_info/services.html Lehigh Libraries' Instructional Services: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inlib/services/lib. instruct.html Library Explorer on the World Wide Web, U of Iowa: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/libexp/ Library Instruction, Houston Community College: http://distance.hccs.cc.tx.us/ Library Research Guides, Berkeley: http://library.berkeley.edu/teachinglib/guides/ Library Research: A Hypertext Guide, Cornell: http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/ research/tutorial.html LIS5937 Section 777 Internet Resources University of South Florida: http://www.cas. usf.edu/lis/lis5937/fall96.html LOEX Sites: May 1996: http://www.cl.utoledo.edu/userhomes/wlee/loex/loex0596.html NMSU Library Shortcuts, Home Page: http://library.nmsu.edu/projects/tutorial/ index.html Project Renaissance, SUNY Albany: http://www.albany.edu/projren/ Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for WWW Resources, Widener University: http:// www.science.widener.edu/~withers/webeval.htm Teaching Library Entrypage, Berkeley: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/teachinglib/ THE FLASHLIGHT PROJECT: http://www.learner.org/ THOR + : Purdue University Libraries Tutorials: http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/ library_info/instruction/pluto/tutorials/index.html UW, Parkside Information Literacy Program: http://www.uwp.edu/library/
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Craig Gibson, ``Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,'' RQ 35 (Fall 1995): 33. 2. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield, ``Information Literacy for College and University Staff,'' Research Strategies 13 (Spring 1995): 95 ± 96. 3. Betsy Wilson, response to a questionnaire sent out by the Information Literacy Project Team of the University of Arizona Library.
WORKING TOWARD SCALABLE INSTRUCTION: CREATING THE RIO TUTORIAL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY LAURA J. BENDER JEFFREY M. ROSEN University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA ABSTRACT: To be considered literate in today's society, it is necessary to possess a set of information skills. Librarians are being called upon to help teach these skills in partnership with faculty. Expedient ways are being sought to facilitate this teaching, especially when institutions are dealing with increased enrollments. How, for example, do 7,000 entering freshmen become information literate? This article will relate the process used to design and create RIO (Research Instruction Online), a Web-based tutorial designed to address identified competencies that comprise required information skills.
INTRODUCTION The use of information technology has permeated every facet of society. In higher education, students from all majors must now use computers for much of their coursework, and many class assignments assume that students possess information literacy skills. Students must know how to recognize their information needs and must know where to find appropriate information. They must then be comfortable and confident in using the appropriate tools to find, evaluate, and synthesize that information. The University of Arizona Library identified information literacy as the key focus for an education-related goal for the 1996/97 fiscal year. An Information Literacy Project
Direct all correspondence to: Laura Bender, University of Arizona, Main Library, Tucson, AZ 85721-0055, USA. E-mail: [email protected] RESEARCH STRATEGIES, Volume 16, Number 4, pages 315 ± 325. Copyright D 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0734 ± 3310
316
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Team was formed and it carried out an extensive data-gathering process to identify not only the educational needs of our students and faculty, but also ways that the Library could successfully meet the demands of our expanded educational role on campus. These demands center on helping to graduate information literate students and on becoming full partners with faculty in restructuring higher education to achieve successful learning outcomes.
Our Motivation Our work had shown us, our customers had told us, and our faculty had indicated to us that students were not equipped to handle, or were not experiencing success with the assignments given them in class. Over the years, librarians have attempted to teach basic research skills in a variety of walk-in workshops. Clearly, however, teaching information literacy skills through a traditional program of course-integrated library instruction to thousands of incoming students was not a practical plan. Through our planning process, we realized that the Library could position itself strategically on campus by developing an information literacy program that would reach all incoming students. We needed a platform from which to spring and developed the following definition of information literacy: An individual is information literate if s/he recognizes that s/he has a need for information; possesses the knowledge and skills that enable her/him to discover where and how to find the information s/he is seeking; is comfortable using the necessary tools to find, modify, and present that information in another format; and can critically evaluate and synthesize the information s/he finds to understand the social, economic, and political implications of the information.
What We Learned from Students and Faculty After defining what was meant by information literacy, we talked with students and faculty to help us identify the best strategies for our program. We embarked on a needs-assessment approach to glean their definition of successful learning, or information literacy, in relation to their teaching and assignments. The University of Arizona faculty and library staff indicated that students had no idea how to begin a research project. Students were confused about resources, whether print or electronic, and needed grounding in the fundamentals of online catalogs, indexes, networks, databases, bibliographies, and the Web. This confusion was corroborated by the students themselves, many of whom did not know what an index was. Students also needed to learn the distinctions between scholarly journals and magazines, methods for citing sources, and so forth. As we shared information about our project with various library audiences both within Arizona and out of state, we were often asked what kind of questions we posed to students, faculty, and staff. We implemented a variety of assessment toolsÐfocus groups, individual interviews, and short e-mail surveysÐto elicit responses. The project team advertised and offered cash payments to students who participated in the focus groups. We attempted to get a cross-section of students, freshmen through upper classmen, from a variety of majors. In the focus groups, we asked students what they thought they needed to successfully complete their assignments. We did not want to lead the students in their answers, so we
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
317
left the question open-ended. We asked what kind of assignments they were given and, if the situation were ideal, what they would like to have in the way of help to find the information they needed. We learned that students were coming to the University of Arizona with varying levels of technological experience. Some of the students were coming from high schools in rural areas that were not yet connected to the Internet, while some of the more experienced students could teach the faculty a thing or two about doing research on the Web. We learned that many students were completely unprepared for college-level research. For the faculty focus groups, the project team tried to get faculty from a variety of disciplines and teaching backgrounds. We invited faculty who were involved with freshmen, who had experience with the General Education (required) curriculum courses, and who had assignments that required students to use many information sources. We asked them what their students needed to successfully complete their assignments. As with the students, we did not want to lead the faculty by mentioning ``information literacy,'' computer skills, or the like. We asked them to describe the types of assignments they gave their students. We asked point blank: ``Do the students in your classes know how to do research?'' As indicated above, faculty said most of their students, including some upperclassmen, did not have even the rudimentary skills needed to perform basic research. The students were confused about resources and did not know where to begin the search process. The project team sent an e-mail request to all library staff, especially to librarians and staff working closely with students at service desks, soliciting their input. The team wanted to gather information about, and insights into, stumbling blocks that students (particularly undergraduates) encounter as they work to complete their class assignments. One librarian stated: ``[I see students] getting lost in electronic databases, not knowing where they are in the library's catalog, and not knowing there are differences between the databases.''
Identification of Information Literacy Competencies The project team realized that any program we designed would require a foundation of competenciesÐa set of intellectual and technical skills that students would learnÐso that we could measure our success. We embarked upon a series of research steps to aid us in the definition of these competencies and decided upon the development of a Web-based tutorial designed with these competencies in mind. As we examined the current literature, we found much to support the incorporation of information competency skills into students' work. For example, in an article on critical thinking, Craig Gibson notes that ``students and many others lack sound mental models of databases and therefore make incorrect assumptions about the content and structure of databases.''1 This speaks directly to the issue of developing search strategies and locating information regardless of format or medium. He states that instruction about various technologies (e.g., the Web and electronic journals) and databases should engage students in evaluative thinking, a concept that influenced our decision to include the competencies of synthesis and assessment. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield found that information literacy encourages users to become more effective consumers of information. ``As the volume of information grows,
318
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
staff, students, and faculty must be prepared not only to ask for and locate what they need, but to evaluate what they find.''2 The Information Literacy Project Team also interviewed some of the people who had been instrumental in setting up information literacy programs at other colleges and universities. A questionnaire was sent out to various programs, and in some cases, telephone interviews were transcribed and put on the Information Literacy webpage. One answer of particular interest came from Betsy Wilson of the University of Washington. We include a section of it here to illustrate the impact it had on our future list of competencies. We endeavored to make the list minimally prescriptive; the concepts are universal, and can be adapted to different instructional situations. Question: Does your program address the idea of technical/computer skills versus evaluative/critical thinking skills? Answer: Yes. We do need to address certain competencies, but we have continually focused our longer view on the tech/computer skills to the purpose of x or of y for a specific class or program. We have tried to provide students with technical skills and abilities, but continually in the context of a specific assignment. Evaluation/critical thinking is what librarians brought to the original conception of UWired, allowing it to develop beyond, ``giving students computers.'' [. . . snip . . .] I have seen extensive lists of competencies developed by other institutions and distributed via the WWW, but UWired has not, to date, developed such explicit technical or information literacy competencies. ( Note: The Libraries did develop a list of ``Information skills all UW Graduates should have,'' which has influenced library instruction efforts, but that has not taken on the form of formal policy or curriculum). Since UWired has attempted to provide support to faculty for including appropriate uses of technology for their courses, we continually return to the questions of ``what is appropriate for this assignment'' or ``for this class'' or ``for this group of students.''3 In addition to Uwired, some of the other online models we evaluated include Internet Navigator at the University of Utah; the Summer Bridge Program at California State University, San Marcos; PLUTO, the Purdue Libraries Universal Tutorial Online; The Teaching Library, University of California, Berkeley; Go For the Gold at James Madison University; and Project Renaissance at SUNY Albany. See Appendix A for a bibliography and Appendix B for a webliography listing the readings and websites that were useful to us in our research for the RIO project*. Based on this research, the Information Literacy Project Team adopted the following seven competencies, which were incorporated into the RIO project. Listed under each competency are various skills and attributes that appertain to it. 1.
Task definition . .
Identifies and defines a problem, question, or issue Recognizes a need for information
*Editor's Note: The University of Arizona Library's RIO (Research Instruction Online) Project, described in this article, was the recipient of the Association of College and Research Libraries' Instruction Section's 1999 Innovation in Instruction Award. Project team members were Laura Bender, Ann Eagan, Louise Greenfield, Cathy Larson, Claire Macha, Judy Marley, Jeff Rosen, and Karen Williams.
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
2.
Information-seeking . . . . .
3.
Analyzes and evaluates results of information retrieval in terms of utility and quality
Synthesis . .
7.
Logically organizes and manages information from multiple sources
Analysis and evaluation .
6.
Locates information sources, regardless of format or medium. Locates and retrieves relevant information within sources, using all appropriate tools.
Organization of information .
5.
Develops a search strategy Creates appropriate group of search terms for both controlled and keyword searching Identifies requirements for necessary information Determines range of possible sources by usefulness, appropriateness, function, and format Prioritizes use of above sources in search strategy
Location and access . .
4.
319
Synthesizes information using critical thinking skills such as selection, logic, organization, and association Is able to communicate or present the synthesis effectively in a variety of formats and media
Assessment .
Assesses both product and process, either through self-assessment or through consultation with peers, instructors, and so forth, in terms of innovative representation, pursuit of identified goals, or possible contribution to the greater world of knowledge.
Decisions About the Scope of Our Project The project team decided that our first priority would be the development of a Webbased, interactive tutorial, subsequently named RIO (Research Instruction Online). This would allow us to deliver scalable instruction via the Web, available anytime and from anyplace, aimed at developing information literate students. We learned that we would have to build in flexibility. Students would work with RIO when they have a need to do so. It would serve to complement the skills they already have and teach them new skills in the process.
320
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Primary Audience Our tutorial would be designed for anyone with an information literacy need. However, we decided to design the look, feel, and tone of the tutorial to be appealing to undergraduates, especially freshmen and sophomores. The project team made the decision to design its online tutorial with the on-campus user as its primary audience. We knew, for example, that most labs, offices, and workstations on the University of Arizona campus use the Netscape Navigator browser rather than Microsoft Internet Explorer. Plans for the portion of the tutorial that teaches customers how to use Web-based journal indexes, such as EBSCOhost, called for the user to call up a live session of the online index while working through the tutorial. Off-campus users would not be able to access the Web-based indexes due to license agreements requiring an on-campus IP address.
Minimum Platform Standards and Scalability The University of Arizona, like many campuses, has a number of computer labs available for student use. Individual departments also maintain computer labs or areas where students can access the Web. The variety of hardware and software in these labs is astounding in its inconsistency. Many of the computers are outdated or running very early versions of the Netscape software. We decided to use Netscape version 3.0, which usually requires no more than a ``486'' PC compatible computer, as our minimum standard in terms of our tutorial design. The downside of this decision was not being able to employ Netscape plug-ins, client-side Java, Shockwave animation, and many other features that make Web pages more interactive and interesting. The upside of choosing Netscape 3.0 was feeling confident that the tutorial would be scalable to our entire audience; that is, it would operate properly from any computer on campus.
Priority of Module Creation Our focus groups with faculty and staff, along with the experience of Library staff working at the Reference and Information Desks, told us that there were certain skills, competencies, and types of information that students needed more than others. This information guided our decisions about which sections or modules of the RIO tutorial to design first. The project team divided into subgroups, and two or three individuals worked together to design the content and concepts to be taught in each module. Since the University of Arizona Library had long been teaching hands-on workshops that correlated with most of the RIO modules, the curriculum materials for these workshops served as a natural starting place for the design. As modules were created by the subgroups, they were brought back to the entire RIO team for feedback and criticism. Once the content of a particular module was agreed upon, another subgroup looked at the module to see where charts, diagrams, or other graphics would help clarify or augment a particular point. The initial modules for the tutorial that were fully functioning for the fall, 1998 semester were detailed below. .
Using SABIO SABIO is the University of Arizona Library's gateway to books, journals, articles, and other library collections. This module helps students who were confused by the
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
.
.
.
321
variety of information linked to the Library's homepage. It also focuses on how to use the Library's online public access catalog. Database Basics We wanted a module of the tutorial to deal with the basic steps and common characteristics of searching all electronic databases. This module defines indexes and databases and teaches how to use Boolean searching techniques, how to narrow or broaden a search, and so forth. Finding Articles Experience has shown that students need a lot of help determining which index or database to use and locating journal and magazine articles within the libraries. This module is designed to help students in these two important areas. It also addresses the difference between popular and scholarly publications, citation style differences, and so forth. The World Wide Web This module teaches students what the Internet and the Web are, how to use the various types of search tools, how to evaluate information found on the Web, and so forth.
Usability Testing Although librarians have not traditionally been the sole designers of systems and interfaces to be used by the public, that is exactly what the RIO project team had to become when creating the different sections or modules of the tutorial. Before the tutorial would be ready for public use, we learned that students and faculty would be invaluable sources of constructive feedback. They would let us know how easy the modules were to use and how effective they were in getting the job done, i.e., in teaching them what they needed to know. The usability tests were developed and administered by subteams of two persons each, and the results for each module were critiqued and analyzed by the rest of the team members. We then began to conduct usability testing for each section by paying students ten dollars for an hour of their time. Each student worked through two RIO modules while being monitored by two team members. Students were encouraged to think aloud about why they clicked on a certain item or what they expected to find after selecting a link. One RIO team member would ask questions of the student or elicit comments while the other team member would write down everything the student said. Each module of RIO was ``tested'' by seven to ten students, and the process proved to be very revealing. Certain elements of the tutorial that all RIO team members had been convinced were easy to understand proved difficult for many students to follow. Decisions about styles of layout, colors, word choice, and graphics versus text explanations were all substantially changed due to the usability testing. The project team will continue to conduct usability tests with students over the next year.
Next Steps in Module Design Work is almost completed on a RIO module dealing with computing resources on campus, including lab locations, student account information, computer training, and
322
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
other aspects of computer use at the University of Arizona. A module that provides an online visual tour of all campus libraries is also being developed. Another RIO module designed to teach new students how to do research and write their first papers is also in the final stages of completion. This module will likely replace or supplement the library instruction that is normally conducted for first-year English classes.
RIO Marketing and Implementation The RIO tutorial officially went online in August 1998. The project team has developed an extensive publicity campaign to introduce RIO to the campus. In fact, the largest percentage of our budget has been dedicated to bookmarks, mouse pads, buttons, and T-shirts displaying the RIO images and logos. The team will also run advertisements in the campus daily newspaper about the advantages of using RIO. Library staff will be trained how to use and introduce RIO to students, and will be given T-shirts and buttons to wear while working at service desks during the first few weeks of the semester. Librarians introduced and explained RIO at both the Graduate Student Orientation and the Graduate Teaching Assistant Orientation sessions. Both groups were enthusiastic about using RIO, and the latter group will be working primarily with undergraduates. We piloted the use of RIO within targeted classes during the fall 1998 semester including 20 sections of English composition classes. We anticipate that RIO will be used in a variety of ways. Some regular classes are being assigned to work through several sections in RIO prior to their inlibrary instructional sessions. Other classes are working through some of the sections of RIO during their library instruction sessions. Some librarian liaisons to specific departments on campus are creating partnerships with faculty who have Web pages designed to help students through assignments. Some of these pages are linked directly to specific RIO pages to deliver online instruction at the point of need. The University of Arizona reference librarians are using RIO as a learning tool at the reference desk, directing students to the appropriate RIO page for their information need. Another large component of the charge to the RIO project team centers around the integration of the tutorial into the General Education courses taught on campus. This should prove to be an exciting and challenging endeavor. We believe that the RIO project stands out for a number of reasons. Before building RIO, the project team examined several online library tutorials and noted the best and worst features of each. We wanted our tutorial to have easy navigability, to make full use of the medium of the Web, and to have assessment (quizzes) built into the modules themselves. We also wanted it to be pleasing to the eye, fun and easy to work through, and engaging for undergraduates while still addressing the key information competencies that we ascertained students needed. Although we are pleased with the first generation of the RIO tutorial, our efforts at graduating information literate students will continue indefinitely. In that sense, our work has just begun.
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
323
APPENDIX A Bibliography Eileen E. Allen, ``Active Learning and Teaching: Improving Postsecondary Library Instruction,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 89 ±103. Lee R. Alley, ``Technology Precipitates Reflective Teaching: An Instructional Epiphany,'' Change 28.2, no. 7 (1996): 48. S. Behrens, ``A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy,'' College & Research Libraries, (July 1994): 302 ± 322. Sonia Bodi, ``Scholarship or Propaganda: How Can Librarians Help Undergraduates Tell the Difference?'' Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (1995): 21± 25. Katherine Branch and Debra Gilchrist, ``Library Instruction and Information Literacy in Community and Technical Colleges,'' RQ 35 (Summer 1996): 476± 483. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield, ``Information Literacy for College and University Staff,'' Research Strategies 13 (Spring 1995): 94 ± 106. Patricia Daragan and Gwendolyn Stevens, ``Developing Lifelong Learners: An Integrative and Developmental Approach to Information Literacy,'' Research Strategies 14 (Spring 1996): 68 ± 81. Kirk Doran, ``The Internot: Helping Library Patrons Understand What the Internet Is Not (Yet),'' Computers in Libraries 15 (June 1995): 22 ± 26. Lorraine Evans and Peggy Keeran, ``Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: Expanding Students' Information Horizons,'' Research Strategies 13 (Fall 1995): 235± 244. Craig Gibson, ``Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,'' RQ 35 (Fall 1995): 27 ±35. Philip C. Howze and Dana E. Smith, ``Library Instruction as Independent Study: The Summer Enrichment Program at Iowa State University,'' Reference Services Review 23 (Winter 1995): 75± 82. Trudi E. Jacobson and Beth L. Mark, ``Teaching the Information Age: Active Learning Techniques to Empower Students,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 105 ±120. J. Liebenau and J. Backhouse, Understanding Information (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990). Lynne M. Martin, ed., ``Library Instruction Revisited: Bibliographic Instruction Comes of Age,'' The Reference Librarian 51/52 (1995): 5 ±447 (entire issue). Janet Martorana and Carol Doyle, ``Computers On, Critical Thinking Off: Challenges of Teaching in the Electronic Environment,'' Research Strategies 14 (Summer 1996): 184 ±191. T. G. McFadden and T. J. Hostetler, eds., ``The Library and Undergraduate Education,'' Library Trends 44 (Fall 1995): 221 ± 457 (entire issue). Cerise Oberman, ``Unmasking Technology: A Prelude to Teaching,'' Research Strategies 13 (Winter 1995): 34± 39. Hannelore Rader and William Coons, ``Information Literacy: One Response to the New Decade,'' in The Evolving Educational Mission of the Library, edited by Betsy Baker and Mary Ellen Litzinger (Chicago: Bibliographic Instruction Section, Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 1992), 109 ±125.
324
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Patrick Ragains, ``Four Variations on Drueke's Active Learning Paradigm,'' Research Strategies 13 (Winter 1995): 40± 50. James Rettig, ``The Convergence of the Twain or Titanic Collision? BI and Reference in the 1990's,'' Reference Services Review 23 (Spring 1995): 7 ±20. Gabriella Sonntag and Donna M. Ohr, ``The Development of a Lower-Division, General Education, Course-Integrated Information Literacy Program,'' College and Research Libraries 57, no. 4 (1996): 331 ±338. Marsha Tate and Jan Alexander, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources,'' Computers in Libraries 16 (November/December 1996): 49 ±55. Gary B. Thompson, ``Library Instruction for Changing Times,'' College and Research Libraries News 57, no. 7 (1996): 437 ±438.
APPENDIX B Webliography Below are Web addresses to information literacy related programs at other institutions. Library Tutor IntroductionÐCD-ROM:http://www.pcs.sk.ca/libtutor/ÐAltaVista: Simple Query ``information literacy'' + library CIC Program: http://cedar.cic.net/cic/cicprog.html Curtin University Library and Information Service Home Page: http:// www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/library/ Database Search Skills: Overview, New Jersey Libraries: http://www.state.nj.us/ statelibrary/srchover.htm DeLiberationsÐContents: http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/ Educom Review: http://www.educom.edu/educom.review/review.96/mar.apr/shapiro. html Gateway to Information, Ohio State: http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/gateway/ GET READY, U of Oregon: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/getready/ Griffith University Gold Coast Information Literacy Skills: http://www.ins.gu.edu.au/ lls/litskill.htm I103 Information Literacy Course Syllabus, Indiana U: http://www.iue.indiana.edu/ mcclell/I103.html Information Literacy for Diverse Groups: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/abstracts/ ej494146.html Information Literacy Links, U of Louisville: http://www.louisville.edu/infoliteracy/ infolinks.htm Information Literacy Skills Program Home Page, Griffith U, Australia: http:// www.gu.edu.au/gwis/ins/infolit/home.htm Information Literacy, Augustana College: http://inst.augie.edu/~asmith/infolit.html Information Literacy, Maricopa County CC (1994): http://hakatai.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ ocotillo/report94/rep7.html Information Literacy, Maricopa County CC (1995): http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/ ocotillo/report95/rep6.html
RIO Tutorial at the University of Arizona Library
325
Instructional Innovation Network (Maricopa CC): http://www2.emc.maricopa.edu/ innovation/sections.html Internet Research, McFarlin Library Research Guide, U of Tulsa: http://www.lib. utulsa.edu/guides/rsrch.htm JCU Library Futures Forum, James Cook U, Australia: http://www.jcu.edu.au/gen/ library/general_info/services.html Lehigh Libraries' Instructional Services: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inlib/services/lib. instruct.html Library Explorer on the World Wide Web, U of Iowa: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/libexp/ Library Instruction, Houston Community College: http://distance.hccs.cc.tx.us/ Library Research Guides, Berkeley: http://library.berkeley.edu/teachinglib/guides/ Library Research: A Hypertext Guide, Cornell: http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/ research/tutorial.html LIS5937 Section 777 Internet Resources University of South Florida: http://www.cas. usf.edu/lis/lis5937/fall96.html LOEX Sites: May 1996: http://www.cl.utoledo.edu/userhomes/wlee/loex/loex0596.html NMSU Library Shortcuts, Home Page: http://library.nmsu.edu/projects/tutorial/ index.html Project Renaissance, SUNY Albany: http://www.albany.edu/projren/ Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for WWW Resources, Widener University: http:// www.science.widener.edu/~withers/webeval.htm Teaching Library Entrypage, Berkeley: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/teachinglib/ THE FLASHLIGHT PROJECT: http://www.learner.org/ THOR + : Purdue University Libraries Tutorials: http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/ library_info/instruction/pluto/tutorials/index.html UW, Parkside Information Literacy Program: http://www.uwp.edu/library/
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Craig Gibson, ``Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,'' RQ 35 (Fall 1995): 33. 2. Tasha Cooper and Jane Burchfield, ``Information Literacy for College and University Staff,'' Research Strategies 13 (Spring 1995): 95 ± 96. 3. Betsy Wilson, response to a questionnaire sent out by the Information Literacy Project Team of the University of Arizona Library.