Exploring ACRL Framework for IL: Information Creation as a Process

Learning outcomes: At the end of the session, learners will be able to:

discuss different ways to show information creation is a process.
critique different active learning activities attempting to show how information is created

Pre-class: To facilitate how I’d use this in a classroom setting, please read/skim the short letter to the editor here. (I realize it’s science, but I hope it’s of general interest to many.)

Schwarzfuchs, D., Golan, R., & Shai, I. (2012). Four-year follow-up after two-year dietary interventions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367(14), 1373–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1204792 [open here: Schwarzfuchs_2012]

Using a curriculum map, you may be either introducing this as a topic or expanding on it.

slides here

Introduction: 1 minute essay

scenarios: in pairs complete 1 of the following. complete another one if time.

a. Large lecture class, 100-220 students with iClickers, we’ll use poll everywhere for the activity today.

b. Smaller research class, 20-35 students, with or without laptops, arrange the index cards to represent information creation.

c. Smaller research class II, 20-35 students, arrange the pieces to create a story.

Jigsaw: switch groups and discuss what worked and what could be improved.

Summary and wrap up.

clicker questions

some of the finer points of using them:

Ready, Set, React: Getting the most out of peer instruction using clickers

I liked how this source had me consider when and how to start a clicker poll, how to consider the answers I got and the variations I could expect to see.

These were also helpful:

The Clicker Resource Guide: (http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Clicker_guide_CWSEI_CU-SEI.pdf)
CWSEI has some great resources on its Clicker page.

I still think I need better questions though. Most of mine are very simple, “are you paying attention?” and I’d like more challenge questions that expand on student understanding.

using technology v. using information

in response to this:

“The Horizon Report annually provides insights into the future trends and technologies in higher education.  The 2015 edition has just come out – http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf – and I am more than a little dismayed by the chapter on “Improving Digital Literacy,” (p 24-25).  Apparently academia is now waking up to the reality that students are using technology, but not very effectively, for educational purposes.  … They can’t even agree on a definition for “digital literacy,” but instead appear to be circling the wagons around the idea that students somehow need to learn how to use their phones, tablets and laptops with skill to deal with information intelligently. …

Am I just a curmudgeon, or are we still on the outside looking in on an academia struggling with issues for which we have solid answers?”

- William Badke

“What they fail to understand is that digital literacy (using technology) is a different beast from information literacy (using information). They lump the two together. I see digital literacy as the mechanics of using the computer – ie, how to push a button. But once they can use technology, then what? …how to apply that knowledge to other buttons? That’s information literacy. Lumping the two together may be efficient, but it does a disservice to… the work we do to help students move beyond the mechanics.”

from A. Rovner, librarian from Charlotte, NC

Carl Wieman visited last week.

I only had my phone for notes, so here is what I was able to write down for reference.


links to a .pdf of his slides: the physics one and the one I attended.

My to do list:

1. I need better clicker questions.

2. I need to get students to struggle more in those large lecture classes.

3. I wonder how to apply these principles to library classes. Will they work with a 1 shot class too?

4. Does this help me explain and use concept thresholds?

5. I’d like to try to use that Teaching Practices Inventory tool soon.

use open access or be cited less

Because he did all this work so I don’t have to, Ben Wagner “…review[ed] studies on the citation advantage (or in a few studies, non-advantage) that open access articles have over non-OA articles. http://www.buffalo.edu/~abwagner/OA-CiteImpact-Bibliography.doc.
I normally would not note this update, excepting a colleague in Great Britain call my attention to an amazing, massive October 2014 study of OA articles done for the European Commission, an analysis of over 1 million articles indexed in Scopus<http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/148714/scopus_facts_and_figures.pdf> from 1996-2013.  Data on the growth of OA, the proportion of various types of OA articles, and the OCA citation advantage are reported. It is the only study to my knowledge that includes a breakdown of OA articles by country, region, discipline, publication year, and type of OA: gold, green (in official repository), other (free, but not in official repository.
Since this is not a burning issue for everyone on this list, please refer to my blog post <http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/blog/sciences/?p=962> or the bibliography cited above for a slightly expanded summary. The report’s 7-page executive summary is well worth a read: http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf.
–A. Ben Wagner, Sciences Librarian
Science & Engineering Information Center
226 Capen Hall (Silverman Library)
University at Buffalo
I read the summary and would recommend you do the same.

white boards in the classroom

the cheap kind, not the interactive fancy ones.
For conceptual work:

with videos

this has to be legit right?

finally this one, where you can purchase white boards:

steelcase must have them since we use them in a classroom (click on the links in that post for more visuals)
called verb whiteboards for some reason

crummy sites to use for evaluation

not hoaxes, but bad sites for students to develop for critiques annotations from ILI:


member of Medical Veritas, which was a “journal” from 2004 to 2008 whose sole purpose seemed to be to provide “medical” research showing the dangers of vaccines. On its list of Purposes, Medical Veritas says it “values the experiences of laypersons as a means of encouraging physicians and scientists to consider medical evidence instead of medical theories.” [there is also  http://www.vaccines.gov/ ] – Jennifer Farquhar

DrDay.com is not a hoax website. I talk about it to my students because this is a woman who has a medical degree but not in oncology (cancer) and her website is really just for getting money from people who don’t know better than to buy her DVDs and other merchandise that promises to cure them of all cancers if they watch the videos. If you look at all the information about herself and look at the publicity that she includes about how great she is and how her critics are unjustly attacking her, you should see that she is a scam artist and a con woman. Compare her site to actual websites owned by medical programs at universities such as this one: www.oncolink.upenn.edu you will see that Dr. Day is taking money from people and she is not going to help them cure their cancer. – Miriam Laskin

Here is a biased website that has a professional appearance, and is hosted by an organization that at first glance seems reputable and authored by people with strong credentials.  Students might have to do some digging on the web to discover that there is skepticism of the research (and especially the funding) of this organization. http://www.nipccreport.org/ – Oliver Zeff

http://www.globalissues.org. At first glance it looks good, but I point out the About section. Most of the articles (at least as of 2008) have been written by one person–who is not an expert on these global issues. Most students trust .org to be a “good” domain name so I like having a negative example. – Kelly Frost

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html  – Candice Benjes-Small

How about a site like The Daily Currant http://dailycurrant.com/ which is the source of so many articles shared casually on Facebook. – Amy Burger

One of my favorite bad websites is “About” because they never date their sites or give good background on the authors.
* I also “like” http://www.herbwisdom.com/herb-st-johns-wort.html — I love the way they source their information and establish their authority.  (not at all)
*Dr. Clark is interesting:  http://www.drclark.net/
*“Face your back pain” is good for advertising sites disguised as advice.https://www.faceyourbackpain.com/ – Rochelle Gridley

Rubrics 2.0

From the most fantastic Elly Vandegrift:

2011 workshop – AssessmentWorksheet_Elly_Spring 2011

2014 assessment journal club – Fall 2014 Week 5 Rubrics_Elly

This site by the awesome Megan Oakleaf looks amazing. But, I need more context for the rubrics. Still, I hope to sit down with them soon and pick out stuff to repurpose.


Instructional design books

with annotations:
-The Essentials of Instructional Design (Brown & Green). Meant for undergrads
but it’s a fantastic overview and introduction to the topic.
-Instructional Design (Smith & Ragan). Advanced and a slog to get through.
Nonetheless, it’s a standard bearer and with good reason.
-The Systematic Design of Instruction (Dick & Carey). Another advanced one. But
another “essential” for good reasons.
-Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe). A little tangential, and not an
easy read, but really great ideas. Changed the way I think about ID.
Someone mentioned Richard Mayer’s work – I’m not a big fan of him as some of
his conclusions about best practices have been shown to be a little… off.
(Probably the nicest way to put it). That said, the Clark & Mayer book
E-Learning and the Science of Instruction… though having a few fundamental
flaws… is still pretty good. I’d say about 60%-75% of the information is
quite good. So worth reading.
compiled list:
Booth, C. (2011). Reflective teaching, effective learning instructional
literacy for library educators. Chicago: American Library Association.
Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2011). The essentials of instructional design:
Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Boston:
Prentice Hall.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of
instruction proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia
learning, third edition. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of
instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
Dirksen, J. (2012). Design for how people learn. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Heinich, R. (Ed.). (1996). Instructional media and technologies for
learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2013). Streamlined ID: A practical guide
to instructional design.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. (two votes for this one)
Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K., & Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing
effective instruction (7th edition). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. (two
Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid instructional design: Learning id fast and
right. Place of publication not identified: John Wiley. (this newest
edition due out in January)
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: J.
Wiley & Sons.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (two votes)
Other comments:
Michael Allen has several excellent titles regarding instructional design.
The following site offers a lot of book recommendations as well as details
on different Instructional Design models:

better libguide idea

nesting similar courses in 1 tab. from Ken Simon at Pasadena City College:

“We just switched to doing this, and our librarians are relieved not to be swimming in a huge list of largely similar guides for different courses within a discipline — and even guides for different instructors’ sections of the same course. Since we just started doing it this way, we haven’t built up a lot of them yet, but here’s an example. You’ll see the individual course sections under the Sections tab:
No one has complained about this yet, and we’re not concerned about the extra click, since students visit this in the context of an instruction section and first thing they’re shown is how to get to the guide and to their course tab, if one exists.”
also these: (I like how this is organized, but too many clicks) http://www.bu.edu/library/research/guides/