The new Framework for Information Fluency states that every discipline has a unique culture and paradigm ... and to be effective one must understand the tools, the techniques, the scholarly behaviors, and the weighted variables for the specific scholarly network.
While basic information fluency skills such as critical thinking, advanced navigation, information capture/organization/sharing, and data manipulation are relevant to all scholars -- there are unique considerations for higher-level knowledge management in every community. The library attempts to integrate our skills and tools into the suite of information skills and tools developed within each discipline using subject pages, course-specific pages, point-of-need tutorials, and one-on-one consultation sessions.
The library embeds a suite of short tutorials and quizzes into Phil 140/150 to ensure that all freshman are introduced to basic library services. We can also provide advanced subject orientation as in-class visits, embedded tutorials, or one-on-one student sessions.
The following elements are incorporated into all library and information handling sessions:
Information Life Cycle — changing roles, responsibilities, and associated information tools utilized as one develops academic expertise.
Appropriate tool for type of information — highlighting format, currency, media type, data vs text, autolalerts, and advanced navigation options.
Critical analysis — the CRAAP Test is used to evaluate and justify the quality of the articles and web pages you have selected to support your position.
The following CRAAP criteria must be addressed for each of the five items you use as a reference in your bibliography:
See our short video: Why use "peer review" material?
One excellent example of critical analysis is provided by FactCheck.ORG - which reviews public statements by politicians.
Assistance — librarians, remote services (subject guides, tutorials, FAQ, chat, shared screens).
Knowledge management: Personal Knowledge Databases and Management (Zotero to capture/organize/share/cite).
Intellectual property — copyright, Fair Use, plagiarism, Creative Commons permissions, Open Access models, embargoes and rights assigned within Institutional Repository submissions. You must always give credit for ideas ... so we provide a web page of plagiarism guidance and a Plagiarism video.
******* Enhanced and Advanced Services *******
Scaffolded Instruction: the program will document subject-specific behaviors, tools, and cultural features (weighted network considerations, special publications, media use, etc.) for researchers to consider in order to perform effective research in their discipline.
How might scaffolded information fluency elements fit into an ever more interdisciplinary curriculum program?
The library-related “discipline” reviews may provide significantly different frameworks and perspectives on a topic as seen from the interests of the specific populations. (For example, imagine ecological concerns from the economic vs bioethical viewpoints.)
These searches may emphasize the unique scholarly network characteristics in each field – such as the priorities and weighting of various publication types, emphases on peer-reviewed conference presentations vs public presentations for media purposes, requirements for subject specific writing styles, and comprehensive fact-based presentations vs intentionally persuasive opinion papers allowing for selected resources.
In addition to highlighting the multiplicity of search tools to be used, this experience will also demonstrate the variety of terminologies found across communities, various scholarly criteria used for authority determination, and even demonstrate alternative authority positions based upon unspoken biases (imagine the legitimacy of an evidence-based laboratory fact vs a Marxist perspective on the acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory).
All of these examples will emphasize the need for more critical assessment and an awareness of differing communication norms and behaviors from discipline to discipline.
Six Advanced Service Expectations:
Subject: RE: Library evidence of Information Fluency learning
The library has spent the past two years developing point-of-need help for students. The first materials provided are a combination of (1) a text-based Scholarly Research Process Outline guide which describes the various steps of performing in-depth research, and (2) a suite of short video tutorials describing the individuals steps in every stage of the discovery and information handling process <the Quick Tutorials found on http://lib.sxu.edu/undergraduates>. These resources assist students in remote settings and provide refreshers for those who want to revisit ideas described in classroom instruction visits.
The next phase of our training program is targeted videos and surrounding quizzes built into our CANVAS learning platform. Introductory library video Tutorials and Quizzes are embedded into Philosophy 140 and Philosophy 150, the courses required of all students within the General Education core curriculum. These tutorials present the basic approaches to finding types of information, within customized subject pages. The tutorials highlight tools for identifying basic facts and definitions, in-depth expert information, current news, video materials, raw data and statistics. The tutorials also describe more advanced navigation options such as citation tracking, critical thinking about quality assessment of sources, and capturing information into a knowledge tool for further reflection and the use of appropriate citations to avoid plagiarism. The quizzes test comprehension of these concepts, and a completely correct set of answers is required for passing the module.
Recent additions to this program included scaffolded subject-specific video tutorials and quizzes which are embedded within higher level undergraduate and graduate courses. These customized tutorials present specific tools for more in-depth discovery and navigation among specific population resources. The quizzes test comprehension of these concepts, and a completely correct set of answers is required for passing the module. These higher level modules are embedded within the following disciplines: School of Education, Graham School of Management, and School of Nursing.
We are planning to expand these tutorials and quizzes into other disciplines, based upon the Information Fluency Framework approach, within various departments in the College of Arts and Sciences. At this time, these subjects are still addressed by class-specific web pages and site visits into classes throughout the semester, supported by the previously mentioned suite of student help tutorials found on our library web site. We know point-of-need resources in these areas will be even more effective for distance education and customized purposes.
This approach is complemented by a General Education assessment in the History Department that includes an information literacy rubric.
Our initial quiz reviews have shown very successful completion (85%) and the tool does help provide early indicators of potential problem students. Small modifications are being made to the materials based upon student feedback, which is requested at the end of each semester during the usual course feedback process.
We are now looking to introduce context-specific pedagogy elements into embedded assignment modules. An embedded reading and/or media item will be preceded by a few questions to consider as the student reads/watches the material. This will help them actively percolate and assimilate as they read. (These materials might often replace commericial textbook material with free Open Educational Resources (OER) or library materials already purchased or leased.) Then a set of questions will test (1) whether the person actually read the material, (2) if they understood the key points, (3) if they can reflect and re-state the key points in their own words, and (4) if they can apply the concepts under different conditions. (image of an example embedded module) Responses to the quizzes may lead to revised or flipped classroom sessions which concentrate on the problem areas and/or revised course material.
In general, the quiz results look good -- close to 90% success, and some early problem identification to help with retention.
OK means not a perfect score but demonstrates a decent level of understanding (except for following instructions).
In general, Fail is 80% “did not attempt”, but there are a few poor scores within some classes. We will track these folks over time.
If we can remove the “did not attempt” folks through greater faculty emphasis we can really identify and help the problem students.
Program Course Semester Total Students Success (%) Fail (%)
GE Phil 140/150 2015 Fall 607 84 16
GE Phil 140/150 2016 Spring 380 90 10
GE Phil 140/150 2016 Summer 381 89 11
GE Phil 140/150 2016 Fall 544 83 17
GE Phil 140/150 2017 Spring 279 86 13 (11% never taken)
GE Phil 150 2017 Summer 21 100 0
GE Phil 140/150 2017 Fall 525 89 11
GE Phil 140/150 2018 Spring 390 73 27 (never taken)
GE Phil 140/150 2018 Summer 31 75 25
GE Phil 140/150 2018 Fall 581 84 16
GE Phil 140/150 2019 Spring 474 80 20
GE Phil 140/150 2019 Fall 610 80 20
GE Phil 140/150 2020 Spring 448 76 24
GE Phil 140/150 2020 Summer 28 75 25
GE Phil 140/150 2020 Fall 643 80 20
GE Phil 140/150 2021 Spring 385 81 19
GE Phil 150 2021 Summer 13 100 0
Gen Ed program 6,347 82%
Ed EDU 200 2016 Fall 38 92 8
Ed EDU 470 2016 Fall 41 99 1
Ed EDU 200 2017 Spring 26 100 0
Ed EDU 200 2017 Fall 29 90 10
Ed EDU 470 2017 Fall 36 94 6
Ed EDU 570 2017 Spring 9 100 0
Ed EDU 200 2018 Spring 10 80 20
Ed EDU 470 2018 Spring 1 100 0
Ed EDU 470 2018 Summer 23 96 4
Nursing NURS 329 2016 Fall 98 99 1
Nursing NURS 329 2017 Fall 96 96 4
Nursing f-2-f 2017 Spring 61 92 8
Nursing NURS 329 2018 Spring 48 92 8
Nursing NURS 329 2019 Spring 48 80 20
Nursing NURS 329 2019 Fall 88 99 1
Nursing NURS 318 2020 Spring 31 100 0
Nursing NURS 318 2020 Fall 23 100 0
Nursing Undergrad online 2017 Spring 8 88 12
Nursing Graduate online 2017 Spring 258 * 67 33
Bus BUSP 101 2016 Fall 96 83 17
Bus BUSP 101 2017 Spring 62 77 16 (never taken)
Bus BUSP 101 2017 Fall 130 79 21 (never taken)
Bus BUSP 101 2018 Spring 49 80 10 (never taken)
Bus BUSP 101 2018 Fall 156 77 35 (never taken)
Bus BUSP 101 2019 Spring 46 70 30 (never taken)
Bus BUSP 101 2019 Fall 105 82 18
Bus BUSP 101 2020 Spring 68 85 15
Bus BUSP 101 2020 Fall 132 84 16
Bus BUSP 101 2021 Spring 33 79 21
Bus MKTG 300 2016 Fall 46 82 18
Bus MKTG 300 2017 Spring 36 83 17 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2017 Fall 66 86 14 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2018 Spring 75 81 15 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2018 Summer 12 92 8 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2018 Fall 67 90 7 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2019 Spring 55 82 18 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2019 Fall 90 80 20 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2020 Summer 22 91 9 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2020 Fall 82 84 16
Bus MKTG 300 2021 Spring 67 97 6 (never taken)
Bus MKTG 300 2021 Summer 13 100 0
Bus MKTG 300 2021 Fall 72 97 3
* Includes 45 students who, close to graduating, were not required to take the quiz.