Traditional instruction (TI)

The traditional lecture–demonstration method has been widely used in every field of education, and traditional instruction has become the most popular teaching method for information literacy programs. It favors the long established custom of teacher-centered instruction where the instructor talks and the learners listen. It is favored by most librarians because of the popularity of the ‘one-shot’ single class period instructional sessions. Librarians are limited by time constraints and the lecture method seems most appropriate to deliver all the information in the short time allotted for their instruction periods. Perhaps the greatest advantage of the lecture method is control. The librarian has control over the aim, content, organization, pace, and direction of the presentation. The lecture can also facilitate any class size and is ideal for large-class communication. The fundamental problem with lecture–demonstration is that the method is not student-centered. The lecture method places students in a passive role and this has been proven to hinder student learning. It encourages one-sided communication and the instructor must make extra effort to identify student problems and student understanding of content.

Traditional instruction is developed based on numerous factors, including audience, course nature and curriculum, class assignments, class settings, availability of instructional tools, and instructor needs. Project specific information competence instruction and instructor collaboration have a great influence on traditional instruction. The librarian collaborates with instructors to target specific classes and class assignments in the development of the lecture–demonstration for each class orientation. The instructor communicates to the librarian the objectives of the class and the major assignments requiring research. The librarian designs a curriculum to inform the students on use of the library and highlights the library resources that would contribute to completion of the class assignments. The lecture–demonstration is usually delivered in a mediated classroom equipped with a computer, projector, and projection screen. The lecture method supports a simple outcome-based approach that is effective in the onetime instructional periods a librarian typically has with students. Here is a list of common learning outcomes a librarian may attempt to achieve with the one-shot traditional lecture instruction:

Content of a one-shot ILI session could include a presentation on what the library can do for the students, and a tour of the library’s web page, highlighting the catalog and bibliographic databases. Additionally, there can be a introduction to citation generators, resources to assist in different writing and citation styles (MLA, APA, and others), and information on the evaluation of websites. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 provide a basic ILI curriculum for an ENG 101 class and a PSY 101 class. Figure 1.3 is a form used by the California State University at Chico Libraries for evaluating web-based information.

With the advent of technology and the Internet, the lecture method is no longer confined to a synchronous, face-to-face format. Now lectures can be recorded and delivered via a DVD or over the Internet through streaming media to students at any time. Though streaming video is a web based method of instruction and has long been considered part of computer assisted instruction (CAI), here it will be classified with traditional instruction because the content of most videos is lecture and demonstration by some type of instructor. Streaming media and delivering instruction through DVD can be more efficient and more effective than traditional face-to-face sessions. Research studies have shown that students who received video instruction recalled more information than students who received the same instructional content through the traditional face-to-face lecture method (Bennett et al., 2009). Streaming media is a web-delivered audio-video presentation that participants can view and download simultaneously on their own computers. Video instruction lets the student learn whenever they want and also allows the participant to view the instruction as many times as necessary.

Preparing video instruction is more complicated than developing a traditional face-to-face lecture to be delivered in a classroom. The process requires recording, editing, digitizing and delivery technology. Recording equipment consists of a camera, camera support, microphone, lighting, and studio. The cameras can be expensive and cost tens of thousands of dollars, but any consumer-grade camcorder or digital video camera will get the job done. A good sturdy tripod for support can be purchased at any camera store. If possible do not use the camcorder’s built-in microphone: for best audio results purchase a wireless remote microphone that can be worn on the speaker’s lapel. The video can be shot on location in the library, or a studio setting with fixed lighting will provide a much higher quality video. If the library does not have its own video department, it is inexpensive to rent a TV studio. There are numerous editing and digitizing softwares available, from expensive Avid Xpress to Adobe Photoshop Elements 1.0 and Jasc Paint Shop. To render the video in streaming format Microsoft Windows Media Encoder can be downloaded for free and used, and for delivery a web server to store the video is required (Cox and Pratt, 2002). In addition to the technology needed, there are other factors to consider when developing video instruction. First, keep the demonstrations short. Internet participants can exit with the click of a mouse and studies of participant behavior have shown they will do so unhesitatingly with anything they find uninteresting or difficult, so multiple short segments of three to four minutes will be more effective than a long detailed video (Crowther and Wallace, 2001). Content should be carefully scripted so the narration is brief, direct and descriptive. Colorful graphics and entertaining delivery also go a long way to keeping participants interested.

Whether choosing the face-to-face traditional lecture or video, both offer different advantages and disadvantages.

Active learning instruction (AL)

Active learning has become a popular approach for ILI at academic libraries. It is much more than just a buzzword or pedagogical fad; it is a formal movement. From the earliest roots of library instruction in the United States, it was believed that the traditional lecture may not be the best way to teach students about the library (Lorenzen, 2001). Though active learning has received considerable attention recently in higher education and ILI, its use in education is not a new idea. It dates back to ancient Greece and the early teaching methods of Socrates. The Socratic Method relied on students interacting with each other and the teacher. Socrates did not lecture to his students – lecturing did not become popular until much later in history when large formal institutions of education were established (Lorenzen, 2001). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries academic librarians introduced active learning as an instruction method and an alternative to lecturing, believing that lecturing was hindering the students’ education about the library. The recent driving force behind the active learning movement in academic libraries, and in higher education in general, was a report released by the National Institute of Education in 1984 titled Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. The report was an attempt to improve students’ participation in their own education and recommended that students take greater responsibility in their learning (Lorenzen, 2001). Since then the active learning approach to instruction has spread throughout higher education and attracted strong advocates within the academic library community. Librarians are incorporating active techniques into ILI traditional lectures, embracing the active learning approach, and developing a wide range of active learning ILI sessions.

Active learning stands in contrast to the traditional method of lecturing where the student is passive. The difference has been aptly compared using the metaphors of a glass jar being filled with liquid and a lamp being lit. The jar is filled by pouring liquid into the empty vessel similar to the traditional learning paradigm where an expert instructor transmits class content as the student sits passively absorbing the information. Active learning employs the latter metaphor where an instructor creates opportunities and engages students, guiding them to understand and encouraging them to apply the information during instruction. They help ‘light the lamp’ of student learning (University of Minnesota, 2008). There are four types of learning that fall into this category: active learning, cooperative learning, collaborative learning and problem-based learning (PBL). Each is distinguishable by core elements that differentiate between each method.

Problem-based learning (PBL)

Problem-based learning is an active learning technique by which learning takes place through the solving of real-world problems. It was pioneered with medical students at McMaster University whose website defines PBL as ‘any learning environment where the problem drives the learning’ (Department of Chemical Engineering, 2006). Problems relevant to the subject content are introduced at the beginning of the lesson and are the motivation for learning throughout the instruction period. The approach challenges students to learn by engaging the problem and places them in an active problem solver role. There are several unique aspects that define the PBL approach:

PBL is gaining in popularity and can even be integrated into the one-shot library instruction periods most favored by librarians and faculty (Kenney, 2008). PBL is a group activity: students are separated into groups and given a real-world current problem to analyze. PBL is a ‘teaching strategy that takes everyday situations and creates learning opportunities from them’ (Macklin, 2001). Students start by recording the information they already have about the problem and what additional information is needed to solve the problem. Then students develop a strategy for solving the problem. The librarian can act as a guide, showing the students the types of resources they will need, and how to use and evaluate the resources. The students collect the information and develop a worksheet of the resources they found. Each group can then present the information and review their performance (Kenney, 2008). The problem topic should be relevant to the discipline of the class receiving the instruction. Kenney developed the following problem for an ILI session she planned to give a Speech Communications class.

In a presentation at the ACRL’s Immersion Program, Deb Gilchrist presented a list of questions that can be used to develop a lesson plan for solving problems in a PBL instructional period. Figure 1.6 shows instructional goals developed by Kenney for solving the problem she presented to the Speech Communications class.

Advocates of the use of active learning in ILI claim it is more effective than traditional instruction at everything from encouraging library usage to increasing student retention rates. The method offers many advantages and benefits; however, there are some disadvantages to using an active learning technique.

Computer assisted instruction (CAI)

Computer assisted instruction (CAI) refers to any instruction presented on a computer. Most ILI CAI is delivered through web-based tutorials. The web-based tutorial (WBT) is an attractive method for delivery of ILI and has become ubiquitous in academic libraries. WBT is an innovative approach in which CAI is transformed by Internet technologies. It allows participants to engage in self-directed, self-paced learning in almost any topic. Tutorials should not be a collection of information pages full of text and descriptions. Instead, they should be an interactive tool with different activities that engage the student in active learning with feedback and quizzes. A tutorial usually includes numerous modules with a variety of subjects to walk the student into becoming information literate. The subjects can include:

Figure 1.7 is a list of subject modules developed by the librarians at the State University of New York at Oswego.

To be effective these tutorials should be learning modules that promote the institutional needs of the library and relate the information library skills the library wishes its participants to achieve (Tobin and Kesselman, 1999). There are two important points to keep in mind when creating a web-based tutorial. First, find out exactly what it is your audience needs to learn and teach them that. Next, keep it simple and basic. When discussing the principles of designing web-based instruction the textbook Information Literacy Instruction (2001) refers to this quote by library web designer Mark Stover: ‘If content is clearly king, then need is surely emperor’ (Stover and Zink, 1996). Grassian and Kaplowitz state, ‘Simply designed web based materials may take great time and effort to create, yet they can make an enormous difference in insuring that significant learning takes place’ (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2001). Grassian and Kaplowitz assert the basic steps in planning instruction are always the same:

Any web editing software can be used to create the tutorials, though many libraries use animation created with Flash software, video, and other graphics which can present many interactivity possibilities and add interesting visuals to the tutorials.

The spread and popularity of distance education has driven librarians to embrace CAI. While many librarians are excited about the great potential and advantages of using this medium, there are disadvantages and warnings against using CAI just for the sake of using a new technology. CAI has a number of advantages; first and foremost, it can save time that is being devoted to repetitive instruction by delivering asynchronous instruction available anytime, anywhere to participants for first time use or a review (Kaplowitz and Grassian, 2009). Another important valued benefit is that it actively involves the student in the learning process. It is impossible for the student to be a totally passive member of the situation, and this very activity and involvement facilitate learning (Chambers and Sprecher, 1980). It also allows the students to learn at their own pace. Furthermore, CAI provides immediate and systematic feedback that supports more effective student learning. The main drawback to using CAI is the fact that not all students have access to the Internet and knowledge of Internet technologies to use the tutorials. Though this is becoming less of a problem there still remains a digital divide in participant access and knowledge.

Recent research has shown that CAI in academic libraries is still at an early stage of development and though most tutorials follow sound pedagogical strategies for instruction, there is much room for improvement (Somoza-Fernández and Abadal, 2009). Areas most in need of improvement include defining learning objective and outcomes more clearly and giving more attention to the concepts behind the mechanics of CAI. Other suggestions include increasing interactivity: ‘The exercises should incorporate more elements of feedback because the existing ones are too simple. More game-type exercises should be included to complement the questionnaire-type exercise’ (Somoza-Fernández and Abadal, 2009). The tutorials should also offer different levels of difficulty, such as a basic and an advanced level. Finally, CAI should develop more instructional methods to accommodate distance-learning students, and the tutorials should develop elements that enhance usability and accessibility to allow greater interactivity of the students with the system (Somoza-Fernández and Abadal, 2009). CAI is the future of ILI and will someday overtake traditional instruction as the favored method of delivery by all academic libraries. Librarians are still just learning how to achieve the full benefits of this learning tool.

Learner-centered instruction (LCI)

In learner-centered instruction (LCI), learners are partners in their own learning and they learn from one another as well as from the instructor. Student involvement is the foundational element of LCI and as in active learning the student is encouraged to participate in the learning process. However, in LCI the students are not just active participants in learning, they are also active participants in instructing and teaching. Grassian and Kaplowitz claim that the LCI approach rests on three principles, collaboration, participation and responsibility (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009). There is sharp contrast between LCI and teacher-centered instruction. Teacher-centered instruction is considered the banking approach to teaching by which the teacher deposits the information into the empty account of the student, metaphorically giving the student a fish. LCI teaches the student to fish and the students take on a larger role in the learning process, actually teaching themselves as they learn. Table 1.4 presents the differences between a teacher-centered classroom and a learner-centered environment. It defines the principles mentioned by Grassian and Kaplowitz, as students collaborate with other students and the instructor by taking on more instructional and learning responsibility through their participation. The center of power and authority of the teacher-centered classroom is diffused, with students seeking out knowledge rather than knowledge primarily coming from the teacher.

The idea behind LCI is to empower students in the learning process and cultivate life-long learning skills. Instead of instruction being delivered in the form of information-laden lectures, lessons are designed to engage students in learning experiences that enable them to learn content and ‘learn how to learn’ at the same time (Cuseo, 2006). The students are not passive learners, sitting in a classroom listening to the instructor. They are engaged learners participating as active agents in the learning process. The instructor’s role also changes from a ‘knowledge-laden professor’ to a class facilitator, coaching the students while they instruct themselves. The ‘sage on the stage’ becomes the ‘guide by the side’ (Cuseo, 2006).

One of the major limitations attached to library instruction is the problem of connectedness. The students are confronted with a new teacher and with content that they realize will not be graded or assessed. Consequently the students do not feel connected to the instructor or the material and they do not talk or engage with each other. An LCI approach is a possible solution to this connectedness problem. Michael Lorenzen, an academic librarian at Central Michigan University, designed an LCI lesson plan for use in a 90-minute library instructional period. He claims this technique was successful at overcoming the connectedness limitation. He used an LCI technique called a jigsaw. In a jigsaw activity, instructional content is broken into several small parts and the class is divided into several small groups. Each part is assigned to a group; the groups analyze the material, working among themselves to develop a presentation about the material. The groups then reform as a class and present what they have learned about their part. As the groups are teaching the class about their content, the instructor acts as a facilitator, adding expertise to the process and filling in any relevant points the groups may have missed. Figure 1.8 has a description of the lesson plan Lorenzen used.

LCI has many advantages. For example, students obtain information and direction from themselves and do not rely on gaining these from the teacher. It helps the student develop leadership skills and become familiar with the role of information provider instead of passive learner. Additional benefits to both student and teacher are that students learn to problem solve by themselves, and the teacher is exposed to new learning experiences and lessons. There are also disadvantages. For example, the open-ended lesson plans of LCI may not give enough direction for students to obtain the intended knowledge and skills. Also, students often need encouragement to stay on task and may lack the initiative and motivation to get all the required work done to disseminate the information to the whole class. Finally, students need teachers to be more than a facilitator; the teacher has to command accountability so that students learn to listen to the teacher when necessary. LCI requires a balance between teacher-centered and participant-centered instruction and an effective LCI lesson plan incorporates elements of both (ELED Blog, 2006).

Self-directed, independent learning (SDIL)

In SDIL students take the primary responsibility for their own education. They take the initiative of what occurs, and select, manage, and assess their own learning activities. The activities can be pursued at any time, in any place, by any means, asynchronously or synchronously. The activities can be delivered through handouts, workbooks, both physical hard copies and web-based tutorials. A basic library skills worksheet is depicted in Figure 1.9. Materials and content are provided to the students and they complete the lessons at their own pace. Self-directed learning requires a commitment from the student. Grassian and Kaplowitz claim that being a self-directed learner is a characteristic of the learner, not the methodology or instruction (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009). The self-directed learner goes beyond the material presented in the worksheets, exploring other resources to expand on the learning experience, and looks for supplemental material to help them understand the lessons.

Supporters of SDIL claim it is the most effective method for actively engaging the student in the learning process. They believe SDIL personalizes the learning experience and motivates the students to discover things by themselves. There are many advantages and disadvantages when using the self-directed method.

American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final Report. Chicago, IL: American Library Association; 1989.

Anderson, F., Palmer, J., The Jigsaw Approach: Students Motivating Students. Education 109. 1988. [no. 1(59)].

Ardis, S. Instruction: Teaching or Marketing? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Available at http://www.istl.org/05-spring/viewpoints.html, 2005.

Bennett, B., Dacio, H., Logan, T., Rousseau-Smith, M., Strathman, K., Video Instruction Versus Traditional Lecture: Recalling Simple Steps. Master Thesis. Californina State University, 2009. San Bernardino available at. http://emurillo.org/Classes/Class2/documents/VideoInstruction.doc

Bruce, C.S. Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press; 1997.

Campbell, S., Defining Information Literacy in the 21st Century August 22–27. Paper presented at the World Library and Information Congress. 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, Buenos Aires, 2004. available at. www.ifla.org/IV/ifla70/papers/059e-Campbell.pdf

Casenovia College. Library Skills Worksheet. Available at http://www.cazenovia.edu/default.aspx?tabid=705, 2009.

Chambers, J., Sprecher, J. Computer Assisted Instruction: Current Trends and Critical Issues. Available at http://www.csuvc.com/drupal/files/ed1.pdf, 1980.

Crowther, K., Wallace, A. Delivering Video-Streamed Library Orientation on the Web. College & Research Libraries News. 2001; 62(3):280–285.

Cox, C., Pratt, S. The Case of the Missing Students and How We Reached Them Through Streaming Video. Computers in Libraries. 2002; 22(3):40–45.

Cuseo, J., The Case for Learner-Centered Education. On Course Workshop, Student Success Strategies. 2006 Available at. http://www.oncourseworkshop.com/Miscellaneous018.htm

Department of Chemical Engineering. Problem-based learning especially in the context of large classes. Available at www.chemeng.mcmaster.ca/pbl/pbl.htm, 2006.

Dewey, M. The Profession. American Library Journal. 1876; 1(September):5–6.

Doyle, C., Outcome Measures for Information Literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990: Final Report of the National Forum on Information Literacy. Summary of Findings. US Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1992. (ERIC document no; ED 351033). Available at. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/23/4a/12.pdf

ELED, 3110 Blog. 2006. Available at. http://eled3110asturgill.blogspot.com/2006/08/most-of-us-are-very-familiar-with.html

Fitzpatrick, C. Information Literacy and Learning. Available at http://www.edu.pe.ca/bil/bil.asp?ch1.s4.gdtx, 1998.

Fosmire, M., Macklin, A. Riding the Active Learning Wave: Problem-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Creating Faculty–Librarian Instructional Partnerships. Available at http://www.istl.org/02-spring/article2.html, 2002.

Gilchrist, D., Institute for Information Literacy Immersion Program. 2001.

Grassian, E., Kaplowitz, J. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice, second edition. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman; 2001.

Grassian, E., Kaplowitz, J. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice, third edition. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman; 2009.

Hardesty, L.L., Scmitt, J.P., Tucker, J.M. Participant Instruction in Academic Libraries: A Century of Selected Readings. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press; 1986.

Kenney, B. Revitalizing the One-Shot Instruction Session Using Problem-Based Learning. Available at http://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=librarypub, 2008.

Koufogiannakis, D., Effective methods for teaching information literacy skills to undergraduate students. A systematic review and meta analysis. 2006 Accessed 5 September 2009 at. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/viewArticle/76

Kuhlthau, C.C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1993.

Lorenzen, M., Brief History of Library Instruction in the United States of America. Illinois Libraries. 2001 Available at. http://www.libraryinstruction.com/lihistory.html

Lorenzen, M. Active Learning and Library Instruction. Available at http://www.libraryinstruction.com/active.html, 2001.

Lorenzen, M. Encouraging Community in Library Instruction: A Jigsaw Experiment in a University Library Skills Classroom. Available at http://www.libraryinstruction.com/jigsaw.html, 2004.

Macklin, A. Integrating Information Literacy Using Problem-Based Learning. Reference Services Review. 2001; 29(4):307.

National Institute of Education. Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/05/78.pdf, 1984.

Owusu-Ansah, E.K. Information Literacy and the Academic Library: A Critical Look at a Concept and the Controversies Surrounding It. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2003; 29:219–230.

Owusu-Ansah, E.K. Debating Definitions of Information Literacy: Enough is Enough. Library Review. 2005; 54(6):366–374.

Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of Research. Available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/participants/f/felder/public/Papers/Prince_AL.pdf, 2004.

Purser, R., Center for Creative Inquiry. Teaching Philosophy. 2010 Available at. http://online.sfsu.edu/~rpurser/revised/pages/problem.htm

Schools, Saskatoon Public. Instructional Strategies Online. Available at http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/coop/index.html, 2009.

Somoza-Fernández, M., Abadal, E. Analysis of Web Based Tutorials Created by Academic Libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2009; 35(2):126–131.

Staines, G., Web-Based Course Task Force. The SUNY Council of Library Directors. 1998 Final Report. Available at. http://www.sunyconnect.suny.edu/ili/scld.htm

Stover, M., Zink, S.D. World Wide Web Home Page Design: Patterns and Anomalies of Higher Education Library Home Pages. Reference Service Review. 1996; 24(3):7–20.

Teacher vs. Learner-Centered Instruction. Available at http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/goalsmethods/learncentpop.html.

Tobin, T., Kesselman, M. Evaluation of Web-Based Library Instructional Programs. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/102-163e.htm, 1999.

University of Minnesota, What is Active Learning. Center for Teaching and Learning. 2008 Available at. http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/active/what/index.html

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Traditional Lecture Method. 2006 Available at. http://cirtl.wceruw.org/diversityresources/resources/resource-book/advantagesanddisadvantagesofthetraditionallecturemethod.htm

Wang, L. Sociocutural Lear’ning Theories and Information Literacy Teaching Activities in Higher Education. Available at http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/external_link_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=DHWR3NYRPSAUFQA3DIKSFGGADUNGIIV0, 2006.

Weisskirch, R.S., Silveria, J.B. The Effectiveness of Project Specific Information Competence Instruction. Research Strategies. 2007; 20:370–378.