Assessing the Value of Course-Embedded Information Literacy on Student Learning and Achievement

Abstract

A team at the University of California, Merced, collaborated to evaluate the value of integrating information literacy into introductory composition courses through a curriculum developed by librarians and writing faculty. Using a mixed-methods approach, the team investigated the impact of the curriculum on students' learning and achievement at the end of their first semester of college. Students participating in the curriculum demonstrated greater gains than their peers in using suitable sources and presenting arguments and multiple viewpoints with evidence. This learning did not translate to higher student achievement as represented by course grades and grade point average. IntroductionAs educators and librarians at a research university, we are eager to contribute to student learning, especially to students' information literacy and critical-thinking skills. Often those contributions have been limited to one-shot instruction sessions introducing students to basic research skills and strategies. An exciting collaboration between University of California (UC), Merced, librarians and faculty from the Merritt Writing Program (MWP) focused on a course-embedded approach to information literacy in introductory composition curriculum. This project and curriculum, called TRAIL (Teaching Research and Information Literacy), 1 meant that writing faculty introduced students to content about the research process and information literacy via activities, readings, tutorials, and reflections before students had in-person instruction with a librarian. Five writing faculty members piloted the first sections of TRAIL in spring 2014, and librarians, with a desire to evaluate the effectiveness of this courseembedded model, applied for the Association of College & Research Libraries' (ACRL) Assessment in Action (AiA) program.2 Upon acceptance, they formed a campus AiA team to assess the impact of this course-integrated writing and research curriculum on student learning and achievement. Team members included the MWP co-director, an MWP faculty member, and the Director of Institutional Assessment. In addition, the campus's Principal Research Analyst from Institutional Research and Decision Support doi:10.5860/crl.77.2.164 Assessing the Value of Course-Embedded Information Literacy 165consulted with the team. The assessment project exhibited some of action research's key characteristics, including collaboration with others, systematic planning with ongoing reflection, a focus on producing change, and a flexible and adaptable practice. 3 Research QuestionsAs the team considered how it might design an assessment that could determine the impact of this course-integrated model of library instruction (TRAIL) on students' learning and achievement, team members articulated research questions. Did TRAIL students who participated in Writing 10 sections with curriculum crafted around integrating the research process with the writing process express the knowledge, skills, and attitudes representative of developing student researchers? Did they ...

Data Management Practices in Academic Library Learning Analytics: A Critical Review

“…A significant number of studies, 46 of the 54 examined, imply transferring individual-level data between the library and a central university office (Allison, 2015;Black & Murphy, 2017;Bowles-Terry, 2012;Çetin & Howard, 2016;Collins & Stone, 2014;Coulter, Clarke, & Scamman, 2007;Cox & Jantti, 2012a, 2012bde Jager et al, 2018;Fransen & Peterson, 2016;Goodall & Pattern, 2011;Haddow, 2013;Haddow & Joseph, 2010;Jantti, 2016;Jantti & Cox, 2013;J. L. Jones, 2010;Kot & Jones, 2015;LeMaistre, 2015;LeMaistre et al, 2018;Massengale, Piotrowski, & Savage, 2016;McCarthy, 2017;Montenegro et al, 2016;Murray et al, 2016;Nackerud et al, 2012Nackerud et al, , 2013Odeh, 2012;Pepper & Jantti, 2015;Renaud et al, 2015;Scarletto et al, 2013;Scott, 2014;Soria et al, 2014Soria et al, , 2017aSoria et al, , 2017bSoria et al, , 2013Soria et al, , 2015Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016;Stemmer & Mahan, 2015Stone, Pattern, & Ramsden, 2012;Thorpe et al, 2016;…”

“…Scarletto et al (2013) received data "without identifying information" (p. 373) from the university, even though the data contains "department, major, grade point average, class standing, international status, home campus, ethnicity, and gender" (p. 373). An additional five library projects say that they anonymize data but offer no information on how they actually do so (Cherry et al, 2013;Collins & Stone, 2014;Goodall & Pattern, 2011;Samson, 2014;Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016).…”

“…Six studies discuss sharing data and results apart from their publication (Black & Murphy, 2017;Kot & Jones, 2015;LeMaistre, 2015;Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016;. Some take the approach of making aggregated data available, such as through a dashboard (LeMaistre, 2015) or by presenting their aggregate findings to campus stakeholders to advocate for increased library engagement.…”

Making sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction

“…Unlike the traditional "one-shot" model where a librarian visits a class once and addresses everything a student needs to know about research (Hoffman et al, 2017), an embedded session is a more integrated approach (Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016;Van Epps & Nelson, 2013;Detlor et al, 2012). Embedded sessions move beyond suggesting and providing resources for students and classroom faculty (Hoffman et al, 2017).…”

“…Even though there are pros and cons to both embedded and library credit-bearing instruction, most academic librarians agree the more integrated information literacy instruction is into the curriculum the greater the student learning outcomes (Van Epps & Nelson, 2013;Hardesty, Lovrich & Mannon, 1982;Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016;Riehle & Weiner, 2013).…”