Xtranormal and Instruction

Way back in March, I attended the ITIG DigiCamp (and blogged about it here, here, and here), and saw a tool I decided to try in my information literacy class this spring.

Jason Soohoo from the Salem State College Library showed us how he uses Xtranormal videos in his LibGuides to get students’ attention and to promote the services he offers. While I couldn’t quite see using it the same way myself, it occured to me that it might be a great alternative to the brief presentations my students were creating as part of the course. I told students that they could do a traditional PowerPoint or Keynote presentation, or they could create a skit in Xtranormal.

About a third of the class opted for this format, and those who used it told me they enjoyed learning a different tool that resulted in a more engaging presentation. A few students who didn’t use Xtranormal said they enjoyed those presentations more than the typical PowerPoints.

This time around, I offered it as an alternative, and it was pretty successful. When I teach next Spring, though, I may require pairs of students to write a script in Google Docs, then create the presentation. It’s certainly more fun for the students to view!

Have you used Xtranormal for instruction? If so, how?

Amanda Izenstark
Reference & Instructional Design Librarian
University of Rhode Island

NELIG Fall 2010 Program

NELIG’s Fall 2010 Meeting is scheduled for October 22, 2010 from 9am to 12pm at Bryant University in Smithfield, RI. Mary MacDonald (URI) will be giving the presentation: “Finding the Right Information Literacy Fit for Your Institution: It’s All in the Design.” Following this will be a discussion of the ACRL Immersion program by Immersion alumni. There will also be an optional NELIG Annual Program Planning Meeting from 12pm to 1pm.

Register for NELIG Fall 2010 meeting here: http://nelig.eventbrite.com/

Kieran Ayton
Reference Librarian
Bryant University

New Report Out From Project Information Literacy

Project Information Literacy just released a new report about handouts used for research assignments.  This reminds me that even if we are not “embedded” or invited into the classroom to teach, promoting the use of our handouts to supplement courses may be a way to collaborate with classroom faculty and address some of the issues that this report points out.

Here’s the YouTube video as well.

Summer: Quiet but busy for many of us!

While many students are gone for the summer, some of us are as busy as we are in the academic year, just with different tasks!

The relative quiet sometimes offers time to go back and catch up on reading, and start thinking about plans for the coming year. For some time, part of the process for me has included reviewing notes from past classes to see what worked, what didn’t, and what I might want to change or explore for future sessions.

Since I started teaching classes, I’ve made notes on how the class I’ve just taught has gone. As I prepare, I generate a plan, and then I use that same sheet for the notes afterward. I refer back to that sheet as I plan similar classes later.

Way back in January, though, a post on the ProfHacker blog gave me an idea for a new system that I’ve been trying out. While the post, Lesson Planning for the University Classroom, is mostly geared toward instructors of ongoing classes, the planning method described could easily translate to one-shot instruction planning or a series of sessions with the same class just as well. I’ve been using this for both my summer course and the one-shots I’ve been teaching, and I think it might even simplify things in the event that someone else has to teach a class in my absence, as it outlines goals, announcements, and even the time devoted to in-class activities.

How do you plan for classes? Do you leave notes for your future self? What techniques work for you?

Amanda Izenstark
Reference & Instructional Design Librarian
University of Rhode Island

NELIG 2010 Closing Session: Crossroads of Learning: Librarians and IT Professionals...

Clarence Maybee and Charlotte Droll from Colgate University described how their group re-invented themselves and worked together with professors and IT folks to enhance student learning and reach information literacy and media goals…

Continue reading NELIG 2010 Closing Session: Crossroads of Learning: Librarians and IT Professionals…

Live from NELIG: A Perfect Storm - Cloud Computing and JiTT

Presenter: Ann Perbohner, Dartmouth College
Description from program: Just In Time Teaching (JiTT) is an instruction method that creates a “feedback loop” where students are engaged in pre-class cloud computing based active learning exercises, and the ensuing in-class time together. Student responses are then used to form the basis or starting point for a classroom discussion led by their librarian. This presentation will include instruction ideas that can be implemented right away with little or no cost.

Ann Perbohner is a Physical Sciences Librarian at Dartmouth and tends to think of her users as remote because of distance between collections and services. She teaches mostly in first year seminar classes, and instructors are supposed to have a librarian in each course.

Ann’s story is probably familiar to many librarians: presented with an agenda for library instruction “you must cover this, this and this”, she began by using handouts – paper handouts – and by trying to schedule classes at the most opportune research moment. Ann covered all the requisite bases, printing the handouts on colored paper, targeting them to the specific topic, using all the tricks of the trade to get the students’ attention. She was most excited by her lime-green handout on the “Life Cycle” of scholarly information. But here’s what she discovered: the students fell asleep, the professors were worried about time, and she never had time to cover everything.

Ann decided to use her “Life Cycle” handout as inspiration to change her methods, after one of her students asked a simple question: “What’s the take-home message of this?” She thought: Why not live the information life cycle? As a result, she decided to push more and more of the teaching of library instruction onto the students themselves, and move away from covering the mechanics of doing library research towards discovering how information is organized, selected, and re-used.

Enter JiTT – Just in time teaching -  which is being actively promoted by Eric Mazur after he discovered that students were passing exams and getting good grades without really understanding the material.  The same thing could be happening in our instruction sessions.  Techniques of JiTT include:

  • develop question for students before class
  • post those questions online!
  • questions should be open-ended
  • explore students’ prior knowledge
  • explore students’ beliefs and attitudes
  • instructor reviews responses right before session
  • excerpts from responses are basis for class session
  • students become active participants in creating focus of the session
  • uses research guide (libguide) as supplements or illustrations

Enter cloud computing to achieve some of these goals.

  • To distribute the pre-session questions, she uses SurveyMonkey . The answers to the questions have been very revealing.  She found that students are more confident than skilled, and that they can get easily confused by our paths to information and our “cute names” for things.
  • Instead of the multiple handouts she used to print and distribute, Ann now uses LibGuides to present the information and points the students to them.
  • Ann turns the answers to their questions into a word cloud - a visual representation of their responses and questions and what is most important to them. 
  • Mind maps can also be integrated into the class to illustrate the process of research, instead of the rote path to compensate for the “forgetting curve”. To bring it all together, Ann turned her Life Cycle of Scholarly Information into a mind map so that students can visualize it themselves and really learn how information is organized and delivered.

The concept of a “Google Jockey” – someone who is a participant in a class session who surfs the internet for terms, ideas, or Web sites mentioned by the presenter – has been employed in classes, a form of extreme reference and on-the-fly research.  You have to be comfortable with failure and the possibility of not finding anything!

But Ann’s new mantra is: Fail early, fail often. It motivates us to discover and learn and employ new technologies that will ultimately help our students become better researchers. We may even be able to break through social boundaries and relate to students in a new way.

Ann measures success by the number of contacts following the class, and through faculty response, along with more traditional assessment methods. She also find students are more likely to answer/ask questions anonymously.

So what’s the take away message of this session? Think outside the box – think into the clouds and remember the ultimate goal: to teach students be better researchers.

References are available at http://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/nelig2010

Blogged by Veronica Kenausis, Western CT State University

Live from NELIG: "Redefining Instruction for the Future"

Sarah Walkowiak from Brandeis discussed disruptive change and some of the changes they Library has made to change with the times.

She highlighted that at Brandeis, the learning goals have been put into an official visual and they are on a banner in front of the library, instead of hidden on a web page, putting the goals in front of everyone on campus…

Continue reading Live from NELIG: “Redefining Instruction for the Future”

Live from NELIG: Quality Counts & So Does Low Tech for Games

Presenter: Maura A. Smale, New York City College of Technology, CUNY

Smale is an avid gamer, starting with Candy Land as a child. She has a Wii at home which she plays with her child. Lots of learning happens in games and they are the “original educational technology.” Solving problems in an increasingly complex way are important aspects and using games in the classroom can be fun.

At CUNY lots of opportunities for collaboration at CUNY. She participates in the CUNY Games Network which brings together faculty and staff each month to discuss how games and simulations can help people learn. Last part of meeting they do playtesting. Participating in the group gives Smale inspiration and ideas for use of games in her teaching. The guiding principles of Games Network are that there are lots of ways to incorporate games into education and we should explore the many avenues. However, barriers to using games in education include: time, access, cost, student interest, support (both pedagogical and technological).

A few examples of existing library games: Quarantined, Easter Oracular Library of St. Jerome, Jeopardy-type games. Smale decided to create a non-digital game for her classroom. She suggests we ease into using games in our instruction and leaving the technological development behind, she forged ahead and creating an exciting learning environment for her students.

Quality Counts is the game Smale developed to help students find and evaluate web sources. Learning objectives were first identified (relating to ACRL standard 3 and others) on evaluation information sources. Smale has used her game in two English Composition first year classes. She went through CUNY’s Institutional Review Board so was able to survey the students after. Equipment needed: whiteboard, markers, computer classroom, projector, index cards, small prizes are excellent motivators (candy, stickers).

75 minute Class Structure

-       Intro (15 min) – rules and criteria for selection of internet sites

-       Group Student Research (15 min)

-       Report back (40 min)

-       Wrap up (5 min)

Gameplay Rules

- Team-based play
- Search for information that match each criteria: find at least 2 sources
- Write info that matches criteria on index cards
- Find sources much meet quality criteria

What criteria you may ask? That’s exactly what Smale was hoping for. They used crowd sourcing to define criteria. Here’s how this works. Ask the students to decide the criteria they should use. Students eventually get to authority, accuracy, date, sometimes the students mention objectivity as well. After the team research time, groups reported back to all their findings and the librarian tallies points & award prizes.

What she learned: next time she’d work more with faculty to help develop criteria, get the faculty member into the discussion. She asked a lot of open ended questions to help guide students in development of the criteria. Another librarian mentioned she has her students do a similar activity then has the student teams to debate over the sites found.

One research topic was to find information on “location aware devices.” Teams found company sites, research reports, an AOL news article and Smale was surprised that one group used library databases and refused to use the web. For a topic related to the history of Brooklyn students found PBS sites, Google Books among others which led to interesting discussions on primary source materials since the Google Book was from the 19th century. One student found a web site with no date, so students used the Internet Explorers Properties which gave a current, incorrect date. This allowed another teachable moment for Smale.

Grey areas: partial credit given when “expertise” of author wasn’t always top rate. She felt using the index cards would be like poker, but didn’t work this way in actuality.

One group accused other group of cheating because they used library sources!

Survey Results: Almost all students enjoyed the game however one felt s/he knew everything already (hmmm… sound familiar?). The majority of students (80%) felt they gained skill in evaluation websites. 64% prefer game-based learning over traditional lesson.

Smale suggests we all take the plunge and incorporate games into our instruction.

Contact Maura Smale at  msmale@citytech.cuny.edu.

Christine Drew
Manager, Instruction & Outreach
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Gordon Library

NELIG 2010: Make No Assumptions

Susanna Cowan and Michael Howser from the University of Connecticut presented “Make No Assumptions: Incorporating the Student’s Viewpoint to Improve Library Spaces, Services, and Resources” and outlined what survey techniques they used to find out what students wanted at the Library. What they wanted to know from users was “What would you change? What do you want?” …

Continue reading NELIG 2010: “Make No Assumptions: Incorporating the Student’s Viewpoint to Improve Library Spaces, Services, and Resources”

Live from NELIG: Keynote speaker John Palfrey

John Palfrey, one of the two authors of Born Digital and law professor (among other things) at Harvard, delivered the keynote speech, presenting several assumptions that we have about digital natives and the realities around them…

Continue reading Live from NELIG: Keynote speaker John Palfrey, “Born Digital”