Tag Archives: library instruction

OR Info Lit Summit Debrief

Here are my notes/debrief on the 2008 Oregon Information Literacy Summit (11/21/08)- including planning process and things to consider for next year.

As members of the Summit, it is our job to raise consciousness, generate language and buzzwords around information literacy that bring others in to the conversation, and distribute information to our colleagues who are not able to attend the Summit.

8:30 – 9:00 am Registration coffee and tea

  • Registration was approximately 40. The smaller group size worked well for large discussions and reporting out from the small group breakout discussions. I would have liked to have a larger group because I know there are many who wanted but were unable to attend. To consider for next year: start planning earlier, send invitations and agenda with as much detail as possible, send invitations earlier, create a listserv of past participants then send invitation and updates to that list, choose date that does not conflict with other conference, have a Summit Planning committee member volunteer to coordinate registration.  (note: small group assigned to look at technology options for a hybrid Summit, see below).

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome & updates

  • On the evaluation forms someone noted that it would be good to “add a brief social gathering at the beginning or the evening before the Summit to become familiar with attendees.”
  • Also noted on the evaluation was that the planning committee needs to “realize that you have new attendees and do a better job of recapping last year’s meeting and work in between….I was wondering for the first half hour if I was at the right meeting.” So, as the planning committee, we need to prepare a stronger introduction to set the context for the Summit and bring everyone into the conversation.

9:30 – 10:30 am Panel discussion – collaborative IL models

  • Cooperative Library Instruction Project. Allen took the lead with a modified version of the presentation he gave at the ACRL OR/WA conference in October. Robert chimed in to help clarify the project vision. I added comments about the stage of the project (i.e., we at the beginning and want input, we have been talking to OWEAC colleages from the get go…)
  • Information Literacy Articulation Group of Greater Portland. Anna and I talked about our work articulating the Summit IL proficiencies. We talked about the creation and use of the proficiency poster “College students who are ready to begin upper-level coursework” (I posted updated pdf and word versions of the poster on this blog under Info Lit Links).

10:30 – 11:30 am Breakout session on institutional collaboration. Robert Monge from WOU facilitated the first breakout session. He asked each small group to consider: What can we share? What should we share? What kind of instruction and types of collaboration might we share?

  • Although we had a good discussion, our small group veered off topic considerably.
  • Wolfgang noted the need for different levels of information literacy…a continuum.
  • Kate mentioned the recursive nature and that it is unrealistic to think we can set specific objectives that students will come out of class with.
  • I noted a recommendation of the book Writing to Learn by William Zinsser (requested and received!)
  • Starting place for each institution is to identify which classes require research
  • Characteristics of Info Lit in sciences = APA, journal study, currency study, using .com as a springboard into current topic, Kate compared to writing across the curriculum…that just as you write differently in a science class so too would you write research differently.

11:30 – 12:00 noon Presentation: sharing materials and licensing (Rachel Bridgewater)

  • I asked OSU to post Rachel’s handout on the OR IL Summit site and I will link to when possible
  • I noted Bryan’s suggestion to allow students to comment on tutorials via multi-media u-tube type comments…how will we have students license their own materials? Apply copyright to student’s work!

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch (spent time catching up with Dan Bjerke from OSU)

1:00 – 2:00 pm Presentations on Information Literacy in the Classroom

2:00 – 3:00 pm Breakout sessions…discussion tables

“Set expectations as high as we can, support from the bottom as much as we can.” Bryan Miyagishima.

  • Our table broke in to groups of three and were tasked with reporting back about 2 things that work and 1 thing that works better. Here is a list of ideas we generated:
  • break up material into segments so you don’t exceed students’ attention spans
  • use small group work (have them report back, charge students with teaching their classmates)
  • physically move around the classroom
  • wow factor of technology such as smart boards sometimes works to keep students’ attention
  • small groups come up with 5 tips around one study skill theme
  • scholarly/popular activity
  • model conversation with instructor (talk about why we are here…)
  • model a search
  • see student presentations and assignments (analyze for strong/weak areas)
  • use call number feature to see shelf list (browse online)
  • hand-held technology to help people work through info tech challenges because it is their tech of preference
  • annotated bib (source relevancy, structure course around a final content, formatting) helps students move from collecting sources to reading and engaging with the content of the sources
  • do the assignment yourself (!good idea!)
  • scaffolding
  • have students write from their passion
  • work to build community in a one hour session

Notes from the Assessment discussion table

  • the challenge of the One-shot
  • proficiencies from the last summit…make them in to measurable activities
  • have a strategy you can communicate to people outside of the library
  • IL can be scattered, messy, difficult to assess…so you are not crazy if you think this is hard work!

Notes from the Collaboration table

  • How do librarians try to connect to faculty? Frequently attend meetings and participate on committees together
  • Tutorials can help with the lack of time
  • Class page for assignments
  • non-research paper info-lit activities !assignments!
  • challenge to work with discipline instructors who already feel proficient in research

3:00 – 4:00 pm Future of the IL Summit and next steps

  • participants were in favor of keeping a face-to-face portion of the Summit
  • participants were in favor of adding technological components for increasing access (hybrid model)
  • participants agreed to have small groups discuss and make a recommendation for 1) structure of the Summit committee 2) Program of the Summit “conference” and 3) technological options for increased capture and access
  • Anna suggested we start and end the day with work with our regional partners
  • consider ‘unconference’ model where program is set the day of
  • consider setting aside time for lightning talks (people sign up and give ten minute talks on current projects/research…etc)
  • Bryan proposed we find institutions who are willing to host or fund (WOU, Linn-Benton, Chemeketa have volunteered)
  • Sara suggested we consider an OWEAC like structure (set meetings, open membership, officers)
  • Lynda suggested we add themes to the program that will attract other partners (e.g., IL in the sciences theme to attract science faculty)
  • Dan to send out a survey asking for nominations of persons to sit on JBAC and/or the IL Subcommittee
  • Consider: what is the name of our group
  • Consider: piggy back on the Oregon Rhetoric Conference

Volunteers to work on Structure:
Doyne, Kate, Robin, Michele

Volunteers to work on Proposal for Face to Face:
Anna, Sara, Bryan, Uta

Volunteers to work on Tech Blend:
Robert, Ann-Marie, Candace

note about the Cooperative Library Instruction Project

I’ll post updates about the Cooperative Library Instruction Project as it develops. I hope your input will shape the vision and realization of this project! Below is the project overview from the handout I distributed at the fall OWEAC meeting in Bend. Although it has only been a short time since we met, my concept of this project has morphed and I think changing vision will be the norm for awhile. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and will put out a more formal call for ideas soon. ~Michele

Cooperative Information Literacy Project

Goal: Create a collection of information literacy tutorials that may be shared by Orbis Cascade Alliance institutions and eventually non-Alliance members.

Funding: The LSTA grant proposal has been selected for funding pending board approval, which happens sometime in October. The board has never rejected a proposal that has been recommended for approval, so the Project Team is moving forward with initial implementation work.

Project Team: Liaisons from four Oregon Cascade Alliance member institutions (Chemeketa Community College, Western Oregon University, Oregon State University, and Willamette University) plus a Project Coordinator to be hired pending final approval.

Have Your Say:Which tutorials are most needed? If only ten tutorials are created- which ones should they be? What is not needed? What’s missing that should be considered? What should the Project Team know going into this effort? Who else should be involved? How should we collect, add, and make available tutorials and materials that have already been created?

Ah, the Old Dog and Pony Show

I saw a dog and pony show two weeks ago. Like I tell my daughter, yes, for reals. Live! Little energetic dogs scantily clad in sequined bikinis and feathers, riding ponies, climbing ladders and diving into the arms of a not-so-energetic woman scantily clad in sequined bikini and feathers…in short; the whole shebang.  And you know what? At the end of the daredevils and acrobats, tightrope walkers and motorcycles zipping around a steel cage, the dog and pony show was right up at the top of my favorite acts (since you asked…a clown who “accidentally” put soap in his gas tank (I think he did this on purpose) and a juggler who kept dropping stuff…for reals, I’ve never seen a juggler drop so many things and still attempt the flaming bowling pins…and the elephants…but I digress). My point, if I have one, is that today an instructor gushed that I was going to pull out the whole library dog and pony show- and she was sincere, and happy! And actually, I was happy too. It was just what her class needed, and she wasn’t coming up with it on her own, so she was pleased. Why? More on this later. I have to go help my daughter…for reals.


Standing out from the crowd: what makes a notable transcript

Our L-net Quality Team session for the Oregon Virtual Reference Summit  Friday is Standing out from the crowd: what makes a notable transcript. Barbara O’Neill from Washington County Cooperative Library Services, Emily Papagni from Multnomah County Library, and I will report on the rubric we use for selecting notable transcripts.  I expect it to be a fun session because participants will have the opportunity to conduct their own transcript evaluations using the rubric. It makes for good conversation! For the small group exercise, Barbara, Emily and I selected transcripts that illustrate (either positively or negatively) elements of the rubric that we want to highlight. 

The criteria we look for on the rubric can be used to improve chat sessions- but it can also be used to improve face-to-face reference and reference instruction in library school curriculum. The criteria we examine isn’t new, but the process of reviewing reference transcripts against the criteria gives librarians and library students another avenue for dissecting and learning about the reference encounter regardless of the venue in which it takes place.