July 3, 2002
Outlines course objectives for an online information literacy tutorial young adults and beginning college students provided by a special library focused on environmental resources. Discusses course objectives, organizing strategies and evaluation. Provides key assumptions for target audience and instructional design with strategies for meeting potential problems in the context of instructional and learning theories.
In our small environmental library, we have good reference staff and knowledgeable volunteers, but the library is staffed only during limited hours. High school (10-12) and beginning college undergraduates are directed to our library in their environmental studies courses because of our uniquely focused collection. How do we connect these students (and, incidentally, others seeking information) with our resources in a way that complements the one-on-one reference service? Can we design a program that will work better for these students than the traditional bibliographic instruction (BI) and information literacy (IL) course? Because we do not yet have a web-accessible OPAC, students need to understand the breadth of our holdings, as well as limitations before they can use the library effectively. Furthermore, we cannot assume users of this age group have sophisticated searching and evaluation skills.
For the purpose of class assignments, learners need to know how to find information for project and paper topics, as well as how to evaluate it. They need to acquire a mix of practical skills (the mechanics of locating information) and abstract, conceptual skills (evaluation). In order to meet our young patrons' information needs with the maximum flexibility, we would like to provide an online tutorial. The tutorial will:
Introduce the library resources [skills-based learning]
Provide an overview of other sources [skills-based learning]
Provide basic tools for evaluating resources [concept-based learning]
As an organizing strategy, the "big six" method can be applied to the tutorial. This method, developed by Eisenberg and Berkowitz in the 1980s, is based on the six-part thinking process people use in solving problems, from defining the task through evaluating the results. Jones (1998) and Canning (no date) both provide step-by-step guidelines for developing courses focused on information resources and technology. Both suggest ways to encourage active learning through simulations and exercises.
Once students have completed the tutorial, they will be better prepared to research paper topics or other projects using the resources we have to offer. Reference staff will benefit by being able to focus on higher-level questions. To reinforce the lessons presented in the tutorial, handouts will be available online (as PDF files) for printing and at the reference desk. The tutorial will, of course, be available through the library's own public computers, as well as remotely.
In order to gauge the effectiveness of the tutorial, no matter what approach is taken, students should complete an evaluation at the end. Jones (1998) recommends asking the following questions:
These questions could only be answered after the assignments are completed (and with the cooperation of the instructor). A more immediate evaluation at the end of the on-line tutorial would also be useful, similar to the one provided with the University of Texas' TILT program (1996-2002). Feedback from these evaluations will guide changes to the tutorial to make it more effective.
The tutorial will supplement, not replace, personal instruction by reference staff.
Reference staff will still be needed to answer in-depth questions, as well as basic questions from students who didn't understand all the information presented in the tutorial.
If the library were located elsewhere in the country, access might be less likely, but even if students don't have access at home, their university will have computers available in the library and elsewhere. Tutorial should be designed to work with low-bandwidth Internet connections, if possible.
This is a somewhat risky assumption. Without a needs assessment, we may aim at a more sophisticated level than is appropriate, but don't wish to make the instruction at too low a level.
Most students will have at least moderate experience with the Internet and with using their college or public library OPACs. They are less likely to be sophisticated users of their library OPACS. Fortunately, our OPAC is fairly straightforward and easy to use, even for novices.
These assumptions point toward a formal needs assessment. Reference staff is unlikely to have personal contact with students before they walk in the door (and presumably after they have completed the tutorial); needs assessment could take place with the instructors' help in the form of an experience questionnaire (About Web-Based Instructional Design, n.d.) handed out to students in class. From this, two main possibilities flow: the tutorial can be designed to accommodate the least web-enabled students, or a live session can be arranged for those students while the rest use the online program.
Students will be comfortable using a web-based tutorial and will actually use it if available
The tutorial must be designed attractively and hold students' interest. Implications include graphics (possibly some animation), presentation that is not heavily text-oriented, engaging content, opportunities for problem solving or other active learning tasks. In addition, we should work with course instructors to integrate the tutorial into their own lesson plans (most likely as homework). Web design issues are similar to those for any website - recognized usability guidelines should be followed, including easy, redundant (and obvious) navigation, clear organization, logical placement of elements, and attention to disabilities needs.
In part, this is a design problem. An attractive and carefully designed tutorial can facilitate learning; a poorly designed one will turn all but the most motivated students off and cause us to lose credibility. A larger problem may be accommodating different learning styles or intelligences; a web-based tutorial offers fewer options to address the kinesthetic learner or the musically intelligent student. It also loses the immediacy of a face-to-face presentation, including the opportunity to ask questions (both ways) and for the instructor to make changes on the fly if the presentation isn't going well. These shortcomings are only partially addressed by assessment tools such as questionnaires and the ability of students to review material at will.
These assumptions touch on deeper questions. Young adults may not have the critical thinking skills or, for that matter, the attention span necessary to wade through the morass of information they are likely to encounter as they begin their research (nor will many adult users). The tutorial must be incorporate learner centered design to succeed. With the possibilities of hypertext, the web fits the constructivist model (Campbell, 1999) with its basic tenets (summarized) of
These strategies fit the portions of the tutorial centered on evaluation, but less well on the more fact-oriented portions. In those portions, a more directed (even a behaviorist) approach would be more appropriate. The tutorial should be designed in modules, with more choices and more problem-solving available for the more conceptual parts. The University of Texas' TILT (1996-2002) provides a good model for this integrated approach.
Campbell (1998) notes "humans learn through experimentation with the real world, rather than by memorizing a list of rules. This statement has implications for the design of instruction: learning opportunities should be based, as much as possible, on authentic tasks and environments, and include opportunities for reflection and application." She provides a table of instructional theories (strategies) within the general cognitive theory umbrella, with accompanying design implications and learning domains. Two theories, Anchored Instruction (AI) (developed by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV)) and lateral thinking (LT) are both relevant to BI/LI.
AI is useful for problem-solving and concept-learning. Instructional components include:
LT is also helpful in problem-solving, as well as reasoning. Components include:
For the more straightforward aspects of the tutorial - which materials or tools provide what type of information, where they can be found, and how to use them - the AI approach can build on knowledge the student already has, as well as the knowledge gained in the course of the tutorial. LT can help students find information when their first choices are inadequate or can't be located; they need to be able to reason through their options. LT could also help students evaluate the information they find.
Shank and Cleary (1994) outline a variety or teaching architectures that includes case-based teaching and simulation-based, perhaps the two most appropriate for the tutorial. Case-based teaching "architecture depends upon these two ideas: experts are repositories of cases, and good teachers are good storytellers. The task of this architecture is to tell students exactly what they need to know when they need to know it…Because isolated facts are difficult for students to integrate into their memories, useful knowledge is typically best presented in the form of stories." Simulation-based teaching is useful when the subject matter is experiential and the students can learn by doing.
How should these teaching strategies and architectures be incorporated into a BI/LI course? Campbell (1998) proposes frameworks for web-based instructional environments, based on the principles of constructivism, which includes the various strategies and architectures. Her "real-world, case-based contexts" framework uses cases or problems (similar to those the student might encounter in the real world and reflecting their interests or needs) that serve as springboards for learning new information or strategies. Her "authentic tasks" framework uses anchored instruction, with new information presented in a manner closely resembling how students will use it in real life. One of the underlying goals of the tutorial is to teach students how to navigate all the information sources available in a productive manner; once again, elements of both frameworks can be included.
Theories, including those developed by practitioners, all reflect some aspects of observable phenomena. Some describe the conditions better than others, but all have useful elements under particular circumstances. In reading the literature, the overlaps between theories become obvious. Even more importantly, the best strategy appears to be approaching different learning tasks with different theories and methods. As Reigeluth (1997, p. 43) noted, "Like a carpenter who needs to deal with all types of conditions (e.g. different woods) and kinds of learning (e.g. different kinds of furniture), it is important to be able to use all different types of tools. Some situations call for behaviorist tools, some for cognitivist, and some for constructivist." To which I would only add, "If one tool doesn't work as well as it should, get out the toolbox and try a different tool."
Instructional Design References. Ithaca, NY: Academic Technology Center, Cornell University. Retrieved June 25, 2002, from http://www.cit.cornell.edu/atc/ed/design.shtml
Campbell, K. (1999). The Web: Design for active learning. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta. Retrieved June 25, 2002, from http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/idesign/activel.cfm
Canning, A. B. An introduction: Big6TM information problem-solving with technology. [Syracuse, NY: Big6 Associates]. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from http://www.big6.com/index.php
Eisenberg, M. & Berkowitz, B. (2001-2002) The Big6: Information literacy for the Information Age. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from http://www.big6.com/index.php
Learning to Learn: About Web-Based Instructional Design (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2002, from http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/design.html
Henke, H. (1997). "Evaluating web-based instruction design." In HCIZine: Special issue. Retrieved June 27, 2002, from http://www.scis.nova.edu/~henkeh/story1.htm
Jones, P. (1998). Connecting young adults and libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Latham, D. (1998). Web-Based Instructional Design. Tallahassee, Fla.: School of Library and Information Science, Florida State University. Retrieved June 22, 2002 from http://slis-two.lis.fsu.edu/~design/wbides/
Love, P.K., & Gosper, M.V. (1996). Developing interactive course materials: Using HTML to integrate conventional and internet resources. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne95/smtu/abstracts/love.html
Reigeluth, C. M. (1997, January-February). "Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections." In Educational Theory, 41-47.
Schank, R.C., & Cleary, C. (1994). Engines for education. [Hypertext version]. Chicago, Ill.: Institute of Learning Science, Northwestern University. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from http://www.ils.northwestern.edu/e-for-e/nodes/I-M-NODE-4121-pg.html
Soloway, E., et al. (1996). Learning theory in practice: Case studies of learner-centered design." In CHI 96 Electronic Proceedings. Retrieved June 24, 2002, from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/papers/Soloway/es_txt.htm
The University of Texas System Digital Library. (1998-2002). TILT -- Texas Information Literacy Tutorial. Retrieved June 19. 2002 from
http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/