Andi Sibley's List: Academic Libraries

• This article examines the connection between ACRL information literacy standards and constructivist pedagogy. This connection is used to support use of Web 2.0 tools for information literacy instruction. Sample exercises using these tools are provided for each ACRL learning outcome, and the tools' suitability for the constructivist approach is reasserted.
• Constructivism is the idea that “learning is in the doing,” and promotes active learning.
• a group of emerging online technologies characterized by the opportunity for almost anyone to contribute and participate in their ongoing creation.
• Web 2.0 tools, if used thoughtfully in information literacy instruction, are not simply the latest flashy trend, but can have a solid pedagogical basis that enhances student learning while at the same time making connections with technologies that are already being used for research purposes and in daily life outside of the classroom.
• By designing instruction in which students actually use current tools to create information as an author does, as well as more skillfully consuming information in all formats, we enable students to understand both the process of evaluating and using these tools and the visceral differences between posting and discussing something publicly as opposed to handing it in to one person (the instructor).

• Technologies like these present a golden opportunity, not generally available previously, for students to see the real world relevance of the skills that they learn through information literacy instruction and to learn how information is created and shared by doing it themselves rather than hearing about it.

  <!-- articleText -->  

   

4 more annotations...

• Should students have to learn to use more complex search strategies, or should designers develop interfaces that more closely relate to millennials' conceptualization of information retrieval with algorithms that more accurately parse a simpler, more natural language query? If developers choose to do the latter, what search behaviors should inform those design decisions? How does this generation of students differ from their predecessors? What are their mental models of search and how can developers of commercial databases design interfaces and algorithms and librarians design information literacy instruction with an understanding of these mental models? This study examines first-year college students' information-seeking behaviors and identifies connections between their mental models of information retrieval and their ability to effectively search for and find scholarly materials.
• While students stated that search engines retrieve sites by matching keywords, most did not demonstrate a strong conceptual model of search such that they could effectively focus a search to retrieve relevant materials. Furthermore, they were often unable to recognize a problem (incorrect Boolean logic, spelling errors, etc.) and resolve it for better results. Most of the students' searching skills were rudimentary at best, and their ability to troubleshoot problems in search syntax was extremely limited. Although those with stronger mental models were able to use more complex strategies, few succeeded in these searches.
• Although several had some understanding of Boolean logic, few chose to use it and gave up quickly if it did not provide the expected results. Most students preferred simple searches even if they retrieved larger lists of results.
• Rather than teaching students more effective search syntax, more attention should be placed on developing critical thinking and evaluative skills.
• Students' lack of robust mental models had a profound effect on the precision of their searches. Unfortunately, most participants considered themselves successful and did not recognize this lack of precision.
• millennials tend to move quickly from one bit of information to the next. This rapid pace may result to ill-considered queries, and students' impatience may lead to a hasty review of results.
• Instructors now observe students' natural search strategies and assist them in identifying important differences between search engine and database queries in order to have better database results. Instructors have also considered the findings related to students' perceptions of website relevance and credibility and are discussing the use of online editions of print news sources and the implications of evaluations based on design rather than content.
• Academic librarians who teach information literacy will face the need to reexamine how college students today search for and retrieve information and rethink the way they teach younger students search strategies and resource evaluation.
• Should not more attention be placed on evaluation and critical thinking skills that will endure beyond the specific techniques and syntax necessary for the current search tools?
• In this study, all 21 students, regardless of the quality of materials located, were satisfied and did not plan to look for additional material unless they found to be missing certain information. Few had performed truly well-crafted searches, but they had found enough for their purposes. Librarians may be forced to accept that users will conduct less-than-perfect searches; many already shift their focus from search to evaluation.
• Librarians may still continue to strengthen students' conceptualizations of search tools but in a way that appeals to millennials' sense of discovery. If today's students prefer to craft simple queries, perhaps information literacy instruction should emphasize problem-solving strategies when searches prove ineffective and concentrate on ways in which students can broaden or narrow results.

9 more annotations...