Chapter 4. From Sage on the Stage to Mobile and Engaged: One Community College’s Evolution of Library Instruction
Deana Brown
Introduction
Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) in Santa Fe, New Mexico, has a student population of approximately 6,500 students. The campus community is served by a library director and staff consisting of 2¾ FTE librarians, a library technician, a library administrative assistant, and four work-study students. The majority of library instruction sessions are led by the reference and instruction librarian, with other staff filling in as needed. Fall semester instruction sessions increased from twenty-five to fifty-eight between fall of 2009 and 2014.
This success was the product of SFCC’s librarians embarking on the process of redesigning their instruction sessions to include more experiential elements, incorporate technology, and listen to users’ needs. The result was a journey that began the summer of 2011, when the reference and instruction librarian, with the assistance of colleagues, turned a critical eye to their instruction sessions.
Though the physical space was often a limiting factor, the changes in instructional design inspired librarians to seek out technology and space that was in line with their new teaching style. This led librarians to investigate how to effectively integrate technology into their instruction sessions. In the end, students, faculty, and librarians all agree a good fit was reached.
Each iteration in the evolution of instruction was comprised of three major components: instructional design, physical space, and access to technology. Each component will be covered in this chapter, while focusing on the incorporation of technology and how reassessing available space and resources improved service.
Background
According to a report from the New Mexico Department of Higher Education, in 2012, 51.4 percent of incoming college freshmen in New Mexico had to take remedial math or reading courses or both.1 A 2012 New Mexico State Library report stated that 46 percent of the state’s population was considered functionally illiterate.2 This data translated to SFCC students being enrolled in 1,330 credit hours of just remedial reading courses alone, which according to SFCC’s report on enrollment by discipline, was up almost 10 percent from 2006.3 This ongoing trend of low literacy skills meant a good number of the incoming 800 first-time college students would need extra help to succeed in college, and librarians knew information and digital literacy skills were key to success in college and beyond.
The goals of the project evolved over time, but ultimately, librarians wanted to reach more of the student population, develop standardized experiential instruction sessions, and develop students’ digital fluency by making technology an integral part of instruction. Librarians decided the best way to reach these goals was to be intentional with their changes and incorporate feedback from formal surveys, observations, and informal conversations with faculty and students.
The Journey
Sage on the Stage
The first iteration of instruction, used from 2009 to 2011, was mostly lecture with limited demonstrations and virtually no experiential elements. Students were not engaged, and faculty members voiced a desire for sessions to incorporate hands-on time. It was also a struggle for librarians to remain motivated in a less-than-ideal class setting.
During this time period, instruction sessions were held in one of two spaces, only one of which had computers available for instructional use. Sessions were originally held in the library’s Special Collections room, which was completely lined on three sides with locked glass-front bookcases, with the fourth wall being glass that looked out into the library’s circulating collection. The room seated ten comfortably around a table; however, most instruction sessions needed space for fifteen to twenty students. To accommodate these numbers, the room was staged and reset for each of the twenty to thirty sessions being held each semester. The table was removed, and extra chairs were brought in from elsewhere in the library.
The lack of tables caused students to struggle to find a surface for taking notes, and the close quarters made the room become uncomfortably warm. Special Collections’ lack of technology provided no opportunity for students to have hands-on time with the library’s resources and increase their digital literacy skills. To provide students the opportunity to, at minimum, watch a demonstration, a projector cart with laptop was wheeled in for instruction sessions. However, the small space and the location of the room’s only outlet resulted in the projector being placed too close to the screen, resulting in an image too small to see from the back. To alleviate the issue, an experiment was done with five library laptops. The hope was to have the laptop screens supplement what was being projected, provide students the opportunity to engage with technology in a meaningful way, and incorporate experiential components into the session.
One laptop was provided to each row of five students. The student sitting in the middle of the row was given the laptop and the responsibility of “driving” along with the demonstration for his or her seatmates. The result was increased engagement by those students sitting next to or using the laptop. The number of questions directed toward the instructors increased, as did the amount of interaction between students. Questions such as, “How did you get to that page again?” and “Here is where I clicked to get the citation” became the norm rather than the exception. Though the experiment was deemed a success, only five students in each class had a true hands-on experience, with another ten able to closely observe. Based on session observations, five to ten students were having an experience that was not positively impacting their digital and information literacy. The attention of these students, who were furthest from the laptops, floated in and out, and they asked fewer questions than those closer to the laptops.
It was clear from the experiment that a location with more computers was needed to provide every student the opportunity for hands-on time in sessions. The need for such a space led library staff to assess alternative locations for instruction. After weighing various options, the community college’s language lab was seen as a viable alternative.
Engaged with the Sage
With its ten desktop computer workstations, the language lab seemed like it would be a good fit. Unfortunately, each station had divider walls to reduce sound traveling while students practiced speaking out loud. It was difficult to fit a full library instruction class and media cart in the lab, but there was more room than in Special Collections, and more students would have the opportunity for hands-on activities. Though the language lab was located in the library, it was under the purview of the World Languages department. After negotiations, an agreement was struck that would allow librarians to conduct sessions in the lab, as long as the reference and instruction librarian gave the chair of the World Languages department at least a week’s notice before a session.
This agreement worked well, and from 2009 to 2011 over half of all instruction sessions were held in the language lab. There was more room for students, computers were available for hands-on learning, and there was room for the projector to function effectively. To maximize these features, sessions were changed to offer hands-on time for students to conduct searches on their research paper topics during class. This made sessions more relevant to students’ information needs and provided a supportive environment for them to begin their research. The larger space also meant librarians could circulate and serve as a safety net as students stretched their information and digital literacy comfort zones.
Though the room was a vast improvement over Special Collections, it wasn’t without its drawbacks. The language lab was set up with students facing away from the front of the room, there were enough computers for only half of the class, and group work was difficult to achieve with the dividers. There was also the ongoing issue of scheduling the room, which ultimately made it unavailable to some students. With these concerns in mind, instruction was moved back to Special Collections with the aim of finding a dedicated instruction space. Until such a space could be found, librarians moved forward with their instruction goals, including seeking out and incorporating more technology into their teaching.
Mobile and Engaged
To better utilize funds and staff resources, the next phase in the redesign project was to be implemented in stages. The planned changes included new technology and instructional design elements combined with repurposed space and technology. New instructional design elements were incorporated that would require students to assume a more active role in instruction sessions. Mixing new iPads with a slightly outdated SMARTboard proved to increase student engagement and strengthened the case for further technology purchases. Providing students the opportunity to engage with technology not available across campus positively impacted their digital literacy by increasing their knowledge and comfort levels with new technology. The physical component was an underutilized room that would be repurposed and ultimately serve as a dedicated library instruction room.
Instruction sessions were made more experiential by developing a standard set of activities that lessened the lecture aspect and fulfilled regular instruction request needs, but could serve as a basis for more customized instruction sessions (see appendixes A–C for exercises and appendix D for instruction learning outcomes standardization matrix). These redesigned sessions took place in a room that previously housed part of the library’s art book collection. The room was in a back, almost hidden corner of the library and was rarely occupied. Through informal interviews, it was learned that the few students aware of the space were using it for quiet study. Though this was a valid use of the space, the benefit to the greater student population was weighted more heavily. Also, the room would still be available for quiet study when not being used for library instruction. Library staff assessed the situation and decided the best way to move forward was to remove all the art books and intershelve them with the rest of the collection. This would not only make the books more findable, but the whole of the art collection would then be shelved together. This decision set in motion the shifting and recataloging of hundreds of books, removal of various shelving units, and reconfiguration of tables and chairs. The end result was a space intentionally designed for instruction that could incorporate technology.
Initially, instruction in the new room utilized ten third-generation iPads from a pilot project, which is discussed in more depth later in this chapter. An old mobile SMARTboard 600, and a projector cart with laptop rounded out the new technological components. The pilot project was a success, and shortly after, new bond money became available that was used to upgrade the technology in the instruction room. Twenty fourth-generation iPads were purchased, along with a Bretford PowerSync cart that would streamline device management and transport issues. In addition, the older mobile SMARTboard 600 was replaced with a larger and permanently mounted SMARTboard M600 with ultra-short-throw projector.
The Plan and Implementation
The four goals of the instruction redesign project were (1) to create a standardized curriculum (2) that incorporated technology, thereby (3) providing students with hands-on time in instruction sessions that would be (4) evaluated both formally and informally by students, faculty, and librarians. Funds from General Obligation Bonds would be used to create a dedicated instruction space and purchase the necessary technology.
Developing the Curriculum
When I started as the new reference and instruction librarian in the summer of 2011, I was tasked with reviving the current instruction curriculum and given autonomy in how to do so. This trusting and supportive environment enabled me to be open to any methodology and take chances. My creative perspective on library instruction resulted in sessions that engaged students with content through the use of technology.
All librarians at SFCC had teaching experience, but none of them had formal instruction training. To gain a better understanding of current instructional theory and harvest ideas, presentations, blogs, and articles discussing the creation of engaging library instruction were consulted. These included College & Research Libraries, College & Research Libraries News, ACRLog, and resources cited and discussed further in this chapter. These resources served as a valuable starting point, but hearing about a project firsthand is often the best way to learn a new skill. With this in mind, in the summer of 2012, I attended LOEX of the West to gain further inspiration on how to rework SFCC library’s instruction curriculum.
I attended many sessions during LOEX, but Katherine O’Clair’s presentation on her “Amazing Library Race” activity, and Heidi Blackburn’s presentation on incorporating pop culture into instruction stood out.4 The ideas behind these two sessions seemed to be the easiest to implement with SFCC’s small staff and limited resources. Sessions that focused on the incorporation of technology were attended, but the projects presented were too big in scope for SFCC’s small staff to take on.
It was the summer semester when I returned from LOEX. Classes were smaller, and it seemed like a good time to take a calculated risk and apply some of the knowledge gained at the conference. A willing faculty member was consulted, and the revised session was scheduled. Blackburn’s LOEX presentation on incorporating pop culture was used for inspiration, and one of the new activities was introduced with a reference to the TV show Parks and Recreation. There was a recurring bit on the show where two of the characters would declare it a “Treat yo’ self” day, where they would have a day full of shopping and spa treatments. “Treat yo’ self” sounds very similar to “teach yourself,” which is what students would be doing. With this in mind, and the motivation to incorporate pop culture into the session, I generated a meme to introduce the exercise. Only one student in the class of twenty had seen the TV show, so the reference did not resonate with the majority of the class. However, the session was not a complete failure. After reflecting on the experience, I realized the overall session had been a success, and in subsequent sessions, I introduced the exercise without the meme.
The Teach Yo’ Self exercise utilized a set of cards developed by library staff (see appendix A for Teach Yo’ Self cards). The class was broken into groups of two to five, and each group was assigned a library resource by handing them the corresponding Teach Yo’ Self card. The right side of the card had a series of guiding questions the students were to address while demonstrating the resource to the class. The left side of the card was a screenshot of how students would navigate to their assigned resource. Students were given time to work in groups to answer each question and decide who would present to the rest of the class. This resulted in a session where students taught their classmates about the various resources available to them, and the librarian stepped in only when needed. Students were highly motivated to understand the content and were attentive and empathetic when their classmates presented.
There was much talk in the literature at the time of incorporating tablets into instruction as a way to engage students and familiarize them with new technology. A webinar by Barbara Glackin and Amy Vecchione on incorporating mobile technology into instruction helped solidify the idea that standardized instruction would create consistent learning outcomes and enable more staff to help with instruction sessions.5 These outcomes were based on the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education6 (see appendix D for Instruction Learning Outcomes Standardization matrix). Glackin and Vecchione’s team had created a universal curriculum that ensured all students received the same information and supported librarians not comfortable with teaching by providing a script. Though Boise State University’s student population was larger and vastly different from SFCC’s, their presentation drove home the idea that librarians needed to take the lead, embrace technology, and share it with our students. The librarians set about seeing how they could implement portions of Boise State University’s model on their own campus.
iPads and SMARTboards
With the passing of General Obligation Bonds for libraries in 2008 and 2010, funds became available in July 2009 and July 2011 for libraries to purchase equipment. Discussion among staff began about how best to use the funds. The funding was seen as an opportunity to invest in the library’s instruction program, and a portion of the funds were allocated to purchase ten third-generation iPads for a pilot project for instruction sessions.
Logistics were considered, such as where the iPads would be housed, how they would be maintained, and who would be responsible for that maintenance. For the pilot project, I would manage the iPads, allowing me time to formulate best practices. After the pilot, and as demand for instruction sessions increased, the time needed to reset the iPads between sessions became too much for one person to manage. As a result, one best practice put into place was utilizing work-study students to assist with the daily management of the iPads. After each class session, work-study students would wipe fingerprints and dirt off of screens, clear the browser history, and connect the devices to be charged. I was still responsible for software updates and general oversight of the devices.
Initially, iPads were to be stored and charged in a modified locking metal credenza in my office. Once the iPads were received and upon their first recharge, the issue of the tablets heating up in the small unventilated drawer was of concern. Because funds were not immediately available to purchase a solution, the drawer was left ajar, and research on alternatives was started. This search led to the discovery of Bretford’s PowerSync cart. The cart could accommodate thirty iPads, would solve the overheating issue, and simplify the syncing and “cleaning” of the devices. The cart would also make transporting the devices to the classroom much easier.
After the purchase of the initial ten third-generation iPads and the successful pilot project, an additional twenty iPads (fourth-generation) were acquired, which increased the library’s ability to accommodate library instruction requests outside the library. Since campus computer labs could be reserved months in advance and fill up quickly, the devices and cart gave librarians the ability to provide the same level of instruction both inside and outside the library, and on short notice.
Library staff researched a number of iPad apps, especially those provided by database providers. However, as most students would be accessing content on a desktop computer, no apps or mobile versions of sites were used. Using the standard version of sites also imitated what the students saw projected during instruction sessions.
Though iPads are fairly intuitive, it was stressed at the beginning of each session that students could sit and watch, if using the iPad became too frustrating. Santa Fe Community College has a diverse student population, with a number of nontraditional students. Some of them found the technology intimidating at first, but the more tech-savvy students helped them through their struggles, and most felt comfortable with the iPads by the end of the session. Users with limited mobility or large fingers also commented that the devices were difficult to use. To increase accessibility, styluses were purchased and left in the iPad charging cart to be offered to all students at the beginning of instruction sessions. The styluses were a nice option to have available, but their use by students was minimal.
Assessment
One of the major goals of the instruction redesign project, and a new element for SFCC library staff, was to formally assess the library instruction program. Library staff decided to achieve this with a combination of self-reflection, a technique learned from reading Char Booth’s book, Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning: Instructional Literacy for Library Educators,7 and formal evaluations from faculty. Faculty were chosen as the recipients of the survey due to their seeing students’ final projects or papers. An internal survey was designed (see appendix E for faculty survey questions) to elicit feedback at the end of every semester from faculty who had a library instruction session. The goal was to have the survey administered at the end of every semester, but due to staffing changes, it has been administered at the end of only two fall semesters (see appendixes F and G for faculty survey results).
Asking for faculty’s feedback let them know the library saw them as partners in the redesign and valued their opinions. Administering a different survey with students was discussed at the time, but it was felt the limited time librarians had in classes was better spent on instruction and that student feedback could be collected informally through class observations. However, some sessions included an assessment of students’ learning outcomes by incorporating a variation of Blackburn’s “Amazing Library Race” exercise (see appendix B for the Great Library Race exercise).
In this exercise, the class was broken into teams of two to five who raced each other through two to three rounds of questions. It was explained that it was indeed a race, but that accuracy of answers was just as important as speed. The game started with each team being given an envelope with slips of paper on which were the same questions. Once all team members completed their slips, they were returned to the envelope and presented to the librarian for evaluation. This allowed the librarian to assess if students were learning the content and it provided the opportunity to adjust the number of rounds if the whole class was struggling. Each team member had to correctly answer all the questions for the team to move onto the next round. If even one incorrect answer was submitted, the whole team’s envelope was returned so the answer could be corrected. Only rounds one and two were used with remedial classes, but the third round was added for all other classes.
Conclusions
There were many observations from this reflective and iterative process, but some of the most memorable were students’ reactions when they saw the iPads and SMARTboard. There was one student who remarked, “Sick!” upon walking into the newly finished instruction room. The students’ excitement about the technology translated into engagement with the content in a way not possible without the iPads and SMARTboard. Laura Smith, SFCC library technician, commented via e-mail that “Using the iPads for instruction definitely has its pros and cons . . . but on the whole I think they’re great—they make group work much more practical than a wired computer lab would, and getting to use ‘the big board’ makes it easier to get students to present to their classmates. The professors love them, too; I think it lends us some cachet and maybe gets us more respect from those teachers who think technology is the be-all-and-end-all of learning.”
Librarians at SFCC believe the instruction redesign project, and the incorporation of technology, was a success, and faculty agree. Over 80 percent of those responding to the end-of-semester survey strongly agreed with the statement, “The equipment used in class fulfilled my students’ needs,” and over 70 percent strongly agreed with the statement, “After the instruction session, I received positive feedback from my students about the session.” One faculty member shared, “The best thing I have done for my students is schedule this session in the beginning of each semester. Thank you.” By providing students the opportunity to engage with technology, librarians enabled them to take ownership of their own learning, while increasing their digital and information literacy skills.
Notes
- New Mexico Higher Education Department, Annual Report, 2013, 43, www.hed.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Data%20Research/Data%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202013%20Final.pdf.
- New Mexico State Library, LSTA Five Year Plan 2013–2017, 2012, 2, www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/NMplan2012.pdf.
- Santa Fe Community College, “Student Credit Hours by Discipline,” January 2012, www.sfcc.edu/files/opie/StudentCreditHourByDiscipine01-12.pdf.
- Katherine O’Clair, “The Amazing Library Race” (paper presented at biennial meeting of LOEX of the West, Burbank, CA, June 8, 2012); Heidi Blackburn, “Et Tu, Bart? Information Literacy with the Simpsons” (paper presented at biennial meeting of LOEX of the West, Burbank, CA, June 7, 2012).
- Barbara Glackin and Amy Vecchione, “Library Instruction Using Mobile Devices” (webinar, Mobile Learning Initiative National Webinar Series/Boise State University, February 2013), http://works.bepress.com/amy_vecchione/45.
- Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Chicago: ALA, 2000), www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf.
- Char Booth, Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning: Instructional Literacy for Library Educators (Chicago: American Library Association, 2011).
About the Author
Deana Brown is an assistant professor and librarian in the Web and Emerging Technologies unit at Boise State University. She was previously the reference and instruction librarian at Santa Fe Community College, where she undertook the redesign of its instruction program. Currently, she liaises with the philosophy and sociology departments and is active in working groups investigating user experience, space needs, 3-D printing and other emerging technologies. She provides reference services for the general campus population, her liaison areas, and emerging technology users. She also teaches the university’s one-credit library research course (ACAD 106), emerging technology workshops, and one-shot instruction sessions for University Foundations courses.
Appendix A. Teach Yo’ Self Cards
|
Library Catalog |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Points of View |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Discovery Search Box |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
eBooks |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Credo Reference |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Films on Demand |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
SFCC LibGuides |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Assignment Calculator |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Databases/Journals |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
LibGuide: Plagiarism |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Literary Reference Center |
What to know: |
|
|
|
|
Academic Search Premier |
What to know: |
|
|
|
Appendix B. The Great Library Race Exercise
Round #1
Your name:
________________________________________________________________________
Team’s name:
________________________________________________________________________
About the Library
- What are the library’s hours today?________________________________________________________________________
- Who is the Circulation Librarian?________________________________________________________________________
- What is the library’s policy on how long students can borrow books from the general collections?________________________________________________________________________
- What is the first item on reserve in the SFCC catalog for the class “SFCC LIB 101”?________________________________________________________________________
Round #2
Your name:
________________________________________________________________________
Team’s name:
________________________________________________________________________
Books and Articles
- What is the call number for the book, The Four Agreements: a practical guide to personal freedom?________________________________________________________________________
- List two databases you could use to find articles for a social science class.________________________________________________________________________
- What format(s) is the title, A River Runs Through It available in? How do you know?________________________________________________________________________
Round #3
Your name:
________________________________________________________________________
Team’s name:
________________________________________________________________________
Citations
- Circle the journal title in the following citation formatted in MLA style.
Kozak, Metin. “Introducing Destination Benchmarking: A Conceptual Approach.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 28.2 (2004): 281-97. Print.
- The following citation is in APA format; is it for a book or an article? How can you tell?
Helfer, M. E., Kempe, R. S., & Krugman, R. D. (1997). The battered child (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
________________________________________________________________________
- The following citation is in MLA format; is it for a book or an article? How can you tell?
Lipper, Tamara, and Michael Hirsh. “Stepping into the Fray.” Newsweek 16 June 2003: 26-29. Print.
________________________________________________________________________
Appendix C. CRAAP Exercise
Go to this website:
- www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm
- or Google: William Harris M.D. Breast Cancer Statistics
Evaluate this website for: Currency
- Do you see a date when this info was published or posted? Are the author’s sources dated?
- Has the info been revised recently?
- Do you see any other red flags that make you doubt this website?
- When might it be a good idea to look at older sources, in print or online?
Go to this website:
- TIME for kids
- www.timeforkids.com
Evaluate this website for: Relevance
- Would this information be helpful in a research paper? Why or why not?
- Does the information add something to your research the other sources don’t?
- Is the research at an appropriate level (not too childish, not too difficult)?
- When might it be appropriate to use this website for research?
Go to this website:
- Save the Endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus from Extinction!
- http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Evaluate this website for: Accuracy, Authority
- Where does the information come from? Did the author cite their sources?
- Who is the author? What else have they written?
- Can you find the same information somewhere else?
- Is there anything over-the-top or exaggerated about this website?
Go to this website:
- Martinlutherking.org
- www.martinlutherking.org
Evaluate this website for: Purpose
- Is the information on this site actually relevant to Dr. King?
- Click on links. Who created this site and why?
- Is there evidence of bias or propaganda?
- What is a paper topic for which you might use this website as an example?
Appendix D. Instruction Learning Outcomes Standardization
This was a working draft used during the time period discussed in this chapter. It has since been updated by current staff, and can be found at http://libraryhelp.sfcc.edu/services/instruction_request.
Instruction Standardization—Course
|
Course |
Resources Covered/ Topics |
Learning Outcomes |
Class Exercises/ Assessment |
|
READ 100—Reading Fluency/Vocabulary Reading comprehension, study skills, using a dictionary to increase vocab |
|
|
|
|
ENGL 109—English Review Basic grammar review, research/writing basics |
|
|
|
|
ENGL 111—Composition and Rhetoric College-level reading/writing, critical thinking, degree seeking |
|
|
|
Instruction Standardization—Topic
|
Instruction Topic |
Resources/ Topics Covered |
Learning Outcomes |
Class Exercises/ Assessment |
|
Library Resources How to use the catalog and Jack tab |
|
|
|
|
Library Tour |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating Web/Print Sources |
|
|
|
|
Citation Tools |
|
|
|
|
Plagiarism |
|
|
|
|
Importance of Source Type |
|
|
|
Appendix E. Faculty Survey Questions
- Scheduling an instruction session with the library was easy.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- The library was able to accommodate the dates/times I requested.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- The equipment used in class fulfilled my students’ needs.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- The librarian kept my students engaged during the presentation.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- After the instruction session, I received positive feedback from my students about the presentation.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- After the instruction session, I saw an increase in the usage of library resources in students’ papers/presentations.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
- Please provide any anecdotal evidence/comments/suggestions you have for the library about their instruction sessions.
Appendix F. Faculty Survey Results, Fall 2011
Instruction Session Follow-up Survey, Fall 2011
A survey was sent to all twenty-six instructors who brought their classes in for sessions during the fall of 2011. Eleven of those twenty-six responded to the survey. Below are the survey’s results.
- Scheduling an instruction session with the library was easy.
63.6% Strongly Agree
18.2% Agree
18.2% Somewhat Agree
- The library was able to accommodate the dates/times I requested.
90.9% Strongly Agree
9.1% Somewhat Agree
- The equipment used in class fulfilled my students’ needs.
81.8% Strongly Agree
18.2% Somewhat Agree
- The librarian kept my students engaged during the presentation.
90.9% Strongly Agree
9.1% Somewhat Agree
- After the instruction session, I received positive feedback from my students about the presentation.
72.7% Strongly Agree
9.1% Agree
18.2% Somewhat Agree
- After the instruction session, I saw an increase in the usage of library resources in students’ papers/presentations.
36.4% Strongly Agree
9.1% Agree
54.5% Somewhat Agree
- Please provide any anecdotal evidence/comments/suggestions you have for the library about their instruction sessions.
This was an excellent introduction to library resources for one of my Critical Reading classes.
[Instruction librarian] rocks! She goes the extra mile for both students and teachers. We’re fortunate to have her.
I was very impressed and pleased with my class’s session.
[Instruction librarian] was fabulous!
I think that all beginning reading/writing classes should automatically include a tour with a librarian. My students all greatly benefited from the tours as have I. One glitch, I was not successful in requesting tours through JACK (the college’s LMS). I needed to follow up in person to make sure that the request was received.
Many of my students were unaware of the tools available to them through our library services. I am very satisfied with the ability that I had as an instructor to have a librarian come to show them just what was available to them. Thank You!
Be sure to present slowly. Lots of info in a short time. Excellent overall. Add some hands-on practice time with students.
Appendix G. Faculty Survey Results, Fall 2012
Instruction Session Follow-up Survey, Fall 2012
A survey was sent to all twenty-eight instructors who brought their classes in for sessions during the fall of 2012. Twelve of those twenty-eight started the survey, and only nine completed it. Below are the survey’s results.
- Scheduling an instruction session with the library was easy.
91.7% Strongly Agree
8.3% Agree
- The library was able to accommodate the dates/times I requested.
91.7% Strongly Agree
8.3% Agree
- The equipment used in class fulfilled my students’ needs.
83.3% Strongly Agree
16.7% Somewhat Agree
- The librarian kept my students engaged during the presentation.
100% Strongly Agree
- After the instruction session, I received positive feedback from my students about the presentation.
66.7% Strongly Agree
8.3% Agree
25% Somewhat Agree
- After the instruction session, I saw an increase in the usage of library resources in students’ papers/presentations.
50% Strongly Agree
33.3% Agree
16.7% Somewhat Agree
- Please provide any anecdotal evidence/comments/suggestions you have for the library about their instruction sessions.
The library demonstration has two great advantages it exposes students to amazing wealth of resources our library provides but it also makes research and writing more approachable for younger students and those less comfortable writing.
The answers to these questions really vary across students. Most students got a great deal from the session, while a few didn’t. I think this reflects far more on the students than on the presentation. Overall, I think that getting students into the library itself and using the library resources on JACK (the college’s LMS) is hugely beneficial.
The sessions were just right for my students’ needs. Thanks!
Excellent in all regards.
The best thing I have done for my students is schedule this session in the beginning of each semester. Thank you.
The instructional session with [Instruction librarian] was great. She is an incredible presenter and really engaged the students. It is such an important and great tool to have and offer our students. I appreciate the library enormously and cannot say enough about how competent and willing the entire staff has always been. As far as usage of the library it is difficult for me to get a sense of whether or not the students were actually using the online capabilities. I did put books on reserve and received information regarding the use of those which was disappointing. This is not the fault of the library; it is the culture in general. How we go about changing that I cannot say but I am willing and available to brainstorm at any time if it would be helpful.
The students to a person in both of my 111 classes expressed that the session increased their understanding of the available resources, even those who had attended a previous session for a reading class or for a 109/108 class. . . . thank you.
These sessions are always so useful and students feel so much more confident using resources. The staff explain everything very clearly and answer questions. Thank you!
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Published by ALA TechSource, an imprint of the American Library Association.
Copyright Statement | ALA Privacy Policy