Monday, October 3, 2016

Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy

Conference presentations at

New insights gained: Library-wide support makes creating instructional videos easier [] by having extensive guidance documentation [], shared “intro” (introduction) and “outro” screens saved on a shared drive, and a small team who reviews videos before posting them to Vimeo (which allows editing or substituting new videos while maintaining the same url, and consistent branding, without advertising (which lessens the cognitive load), unlike YouTube). This allows librarians familiar with software like Captivate to make 2-minute screen-capture videos in half a day.

CUNY libraries have a mobile app for checking out items directly from the shelves: this is something GVSU libraries could use to increase inclusion and equity (reduces fears about library use and privacy).

UNC Wilmington has 9 hours of information literacy competency built into the curriculum via a first-year seminar, first-year writing (e.g., WRT 150), a 200-level writing course; and a 200-level course in each major (e.g., COM 275 Research Methods) which includes a pre-test, homework created by librarians, 4-5 50-minute library sessions taught by librarians, a research log with a reflection component, and a post-library-session exam. An interesting question posed as a reflective prompt was, “Did you find a resource that you didn’t expect or anticipate?”

Eli Arnold, Oglethorpe University, created a good library subject guide for a course assignment using archival material [] and emphasized the need to have a rubric for both instructors and students to evaluate primary sources used in assignments.

April Schweikhard from University of Oklahoma Tulsa, referred to tutorial using the “guide on the side” format with instructions on the left menu and the live website on the right [], to help students conduct searching. She also has students (social work) assessing a situation by creating a word cloud, demonstrating a search then having students practice with their own topics (already approved by instructor), having students work from a research question or problem statement to break it into its people/audience affected, interests, etc. (PICO modified), and then using the abstracts they find to decide if the research question/problem statement is answered in the article.

William Dooling, Creighton University, discussed pre- and post-tests for extra credit participation points that had 3 open-ended questions. A scenario (research question in a disciplinary topic) was presented, asking students to “tell us in a few sentences (including multiple steps) how you would find 1) two journal articles, 2) locate two books, and 3) locate a specific cited article (citation provided from a bibliography). Dooling used a 4-category scoring rubric which added a quantitative value to the qualitative answers, shared results with the faculty, and had “debriefing” conversations with the faculty members. This assessment would be easily doable by GVSU library faculty.

Significant contacts made: Kelly McBride, Coordinator Information Literacy and Instruction, Belk Library and Information Commons, Appalachian State University (instruction and assessment); Carrie Moran, Rachel Mulvihill, Rosalie Flowers and Karli Mair, University of Central Florida (instructional videos); Vonzell Yeager, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Communication Studies liaison librarian - a comprehensive computer based training module and the related library instruction session); Sheila Devaney, University of Florida (advertising library subject guides).

No comments: