Nercomp 2009 Presentation

Web 2.0 for Information Literacy: Using wikis for research, collaboration, critical thinking, and knowledge building

Jay Fogleman, Instructor, School of Education Mona Anne Niedbala, Education & Curriculum Materials Librarian

Acknowledgments Dr. David Byrd, Director, School of Education David Maslyn, Dean, University Libraries David Porter, Director, Media & Technology Services Mary Jane Palm, Manager, Instructional Technologies & Media Services Julie Coiro, Professor, URI School of Education URI School of Education Faculty Members

Overview

Problem statement Approach Context Methods Results Conclusions

Problem: Student Research & Writing In the context of a freshman-level introductory course in Education, our students struggle to: 1. Identify high quality information sources 2. Synthesize data in their writing 3. Write a technical paper How can we use students' online acumen to strengthen their ability to use university resources to research, synthesize, and write about a local educational context?

Our Approach: Provide Supports Organize student writing in a class wiki Provide library instruction* Provide online research tutorials Include a peer-editing cycle*

Theoretical Frame ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards: The information literate student : 1. Standard 1: determines the nature of information needed 2. Standard 2: accesses information efficiently 3. Standard 3: evaluates information 4. Standard 4: uses information effectively 5. Standard 5: understands economic, social, legal issues Scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978) Writing to Learn (Emig, 1977) Knowledge Building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992)

Strategies Class wiki Organize all assignment information, resources, and student work in a wiki

Library Instruction: 1. Graphic describing the role of library sessions in the project process 2. Modeling data collection 3. Modeling statement writing 4. Engaging students in data collection and statement writing

Online Scaffolds: Online research tutorials

Peer-review Cycle 1. Provide assessment rubric 2. Have students who opt to work in triads provide each other feedback 3. Provide opportunity for students to recognize efforts of their editors

Context: Curriculum Materials Library

Mission Collection Technology

Curriculum Materials Library

Curriculum Materials Library

Curriculum Materials Library

Context: Introduction to Education 28 Students 25 Freshmen 15 Education majors

Context: Faculty/Librarian Partnership • Bi-weekly face-toface meetings prior to project for library session design • Exchange of emails for finalizing library scaffolds • Analysis and evaluation of library sessions

Class Wiki

Library instruction Research process

Library instruction using data Write Synthesize (In-class samples) Represent (Suggest data tables) Locate (Model search)

Interactive scaffolds

Peer Editing Cycle Draft

Encourage students to read others’ work Support triad editors with rubric template, time Provide opportunity to recognize helpful editors

Revise

Assess

Data Support

Description

Assessment

ACRL Standards

Library instruction

Three library classes focusing on different phases of the research

Student artifacts Student feedback survey

Standard 1: 1.1 Standard 2: 2.5 Standard 3: 3.3 Standard 4: 4.1 Standard 5: 5.3

Online research scaffolds

Step-by-step research tutorials included in the class wiki

Student feedback survey

Standard 1: 1.1 Standard 2: 2.5 Standard 3: 3.3

Peer-editing cycle

Time period during project where students edited each other’s drafts using a rubric

Student papers Student feedback survey

Standard 3: 3.3 Standard 4: 4.1 Standard 5: 5.3

Class wiki

Private, editable website where students were able to publish their work and view the work of others

Page edits per student Page visits per student Student feedback survey

Standard 2: 2.5 Standard 3: 3.3 Standard 4: 4.1 Standard 5: 5.3

Analysis Support

Library Instruction

Description

• Income/Poverty data tables and statement example

Assessment

• Student artifacts • Student feedback survey

• Collect additional data and create synthesis statements • Use data tables for studying the impact of community data on educational issues • Use wiki features for data collection and working within the final project

• Student reports • Student feedback survey

• Use wiki features to evaluate peer work • Evaluate peer report against research goals • Evaluate peer report content organization • Evaluate ethical use of information

• Race/Ethnicity data tables and statement example

Peer-editing cycle

Time period during project where students worked in triads to edit each other’s drafts by offering feedback and using a rubric to estimate report score.

Information literacy outcomes

Results: Library Instruction Library Instruction

Usage

Average Report Score (%)

High Participation: Three or more data tables integrated in the report

75%

77 %

Low Participation: Less than three tables/some data integrated in the report

25%

55 %

Results: Peer-editing Cycle Peer Editing Cycle

Usage

Average Report Score (%)

High Participation: Edited a peer’s paper and received feedback from another student

61%

81 %

Low Participation: Did not give or receive peer feedback

39%

75 %

Discussion/Conclusion Students who took advantage of the available supports tended to produce more complete context reports . What about others? By the end of the project, students saw the value of the various support strategies Faculty working in partnership with librarians can support research by novice students

Implications Learning theories such as social constructivism (Knowledge Building) and constructivism (Writing to Learn) can inform the use of new online tools with students New online technologies such as “Web 2.0” tools provide opportunities to develop new teaching approaches and support strategies that build students’ information literacy

What did you think? • Your input is important to us! • Click on “Evaluate This Session” on the Mid-Atlantic Regional program page.