When Assignment Timing Doesn’t Line Up: Creating Instruction Activities for First-Year Students

1. When Assignment Timing Doesn’t Line Up: Creating Instruction Activities for First-Year Students Alex Deeke, Jennifer Saulnier and Teagan Eastman

2. Introduction • Alex Deeke • 2nd year Research and Information Services Graduate Assistant • Jen Saulnier • 2nd year Undergraduate Library Graduate Assistant • Teagan Eastman • 2nd year Undergraduate Library Graduate Assistant http://www.jettingaround.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Champaign-UICU.jpg

3. Background • Part of a course-integrated instruction program at the Undergraduate Library • Composition I classes taught: • RHET 105 - Writing and Research • CMN 101- Public Speaking • CMN 111/112 - Oral and Written Communication • ESL 112/115 - Academic Writing • Overwhelmingly first-year students

4. Observations • Student engagement depends on timing of the library instruction session in relation to course assignments • Engagement improves when students are already beginning to work on research assignment • Noticeable increase in student engagement from 2014/15 to 2015/16 due to the addition of activity built around using Google • Provides additional relevance to instruction session

5. First-Year Student Information Seeking Behavior • Lack of formalized information instruction in high school • Difficulty applying high school habits to college research needs • Highly confident in information-seeking habits • “Good enough”

6. First-Year Student Information Seeking Behavior • Highly dependent on the Internet • Heavily reliant on Google • Unfamiliar with concept of the Deep Web • Select sources based on information need rather than evaluate for credibility • What information seeking habits have you observed? https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/34/100182005_96f4528ace_z.jpg?zz=1

7. Constructivist Learning Theory • Google/Web/Search Engines are primary starting and ending point for student research • How many of you visit Google first when you’re looking for information? • Use Google to build upon student knowledge and experience to start conversations about academic research and evaluation • Not as an example of a poor source, but as a gateway to discussion • Relevancy • We accept the culture they live in

8. Timing of Class Assignments • When students do not have a research assignment at time of library instruction session, they are not engaged • Relevance / Practicality • Motivation / Confidence

9. Timing of Class Assignments • Stage Four: Formulation Kuhlthau, Carol. "Information Search Process."

10. Connection to Framework • Authority is constructed and contextual • Elements of credibility • Asking critical questions • Research as inquiry • Maintain an open mind and a critical stance • Information Creation as a Process • Knowing how information is created

11. Google vs. Database Search Activity • Group activity • Students evaluate sources from both Google and databases • Critical thinking skills Link:http://tinyurl.com/InfoLitSummit *Activity adapted from the Undergraduate Library

12. Discussion • What has your experience been with students’ search strategies? • Does anyone have activities similar to this? How did they work? • Questions? Comments?

13. Wrap-Up • First-year students have a wealth of information seeking experience • Underdeveloped evaluation skills • Library instruction sessions lack relevancy for students when course assignments are not timed with the session • Flexible library instruction activities that tie into students’ prior knowledge or information seeking behavior increases student learning

14. References Colon-Aguirre, M. and R.A. Fleming-May. “‘You Just Type In What You Are Looking For’: Undergraduates’ Use of Library Resources vs. Wikipedia.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 38.6 (2012): 391-399. Connaway, L.S., T. J. Dickey, and M.L. Radford. “‘If It Is Too Inconvenient I’m Not Going After It’: Convenience as a Critical Factor In Information-Seeking Behaviors.” Library and Information Science Research 33.3 (2011): 179-190 Daland, Hilde Terese. "Just in Case, Just in Time, or Just Don't Bother..? Assessment of One-shot Library Instruction with Follow-up Workshops." Liber Quarterly: The Journal Of European Research Libraries 24.3 (2015): 125-139. Detlor, B., A. Serenko, and H. Julien. “Student Perceptions of Information Literacy Instruction: The Importance of Active Learning.” Education for Information 29 (2012): 147-161. Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. McDonough, Beth. “Beyond Tools and Skills.” In Not Just Where to Click: Teaching Students How to Think About Information, edited by Troy A. Swanson and Heather Jagman, 37-51. Chicago: ACRL, 2015.

15. References Nicholas, D., P. Williams, P. Huntington, M. Fieldhouse, B. Gunter, R. Withey, and C. Tenopir. “The Google Generation: The Information Behavior of the Research of the Future.” ASLIB Proceedings 60.4 (2008): 290-310. Nichols, J., and M. Mellinger. “Portals For Undergraduate Subject Searching: Are They Worth It?” Libraries and the Academy, 7.4 (2007): 481-490. Rempel, Jennifer and Danielle M. Cossarini. "Communicating The Relevance Of The Library In The Age Of Google: Improving Undergraduate Research Skills And Information Literacy Through New Models Of Library Instruction." Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in High Education 5.1 (2013): 49-53.Olson, Whiney M. and Anne R. Diekema. “‘I Just Wikipedia It’: Information-Seeking Behavior of First-Year Writing Students.” Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49 (2012): 1-11. Varlejs, Jana, Eileen Stec, and Hannah Kwon. "Factors Affecting Students' Information Literacy as They Transition from High School to College." School Library Research 17 (2014): 1-23.