Can I help you find anything? No thanks, I’m just browsing!

In a previous post, I mentioned an article I read by Anne-Marie Deitering. She talked about using Wikipedia as a browsing platform in the information literacy classroom; or at least that perhaps it’s better suited to browsing then the databases we’re advocating. Inspired by her article, I decided that most web 2.0 applications are better tools for teaching students how browsing is different than searching. I also decided that because browsing is overlooked in favor of searching (or we assume the student has already gone through those motions prior to coming in for library instruction), I wanted to emphasize the importance of browsing as a crucial component of the research process because it leads to discovery.  Instead of just saying that, however, I wanted to actually host a browse session.

After doing some ice-breakers and introductions, I opened the class with a browse session. In other words, I created a fun handout in which I encouraged students to think about topics that “boiled their blood” or “confused them beyond belief.” (Students were in between assignments when they came in.) The handout had a picture of a woman pushing a shopping cart through the aisles at walmart. Below that, I urged them to choose topics guided by their own interests (the former composition instructor in me.) I provided a list of news portals (BBC news, CNN news, Yahoo news, Youtube, New York times, etc.) and gave them 7 minutes to peruse the headlines noting things that caught their attention. (Only a 50 minute class…)

What I found was a little shocking, though: students were really browsing AND writing things down! What joy! As I walked around the room, occasionally glancing at monitors, no students were checking their email, looking at their facebook page, or playing solitaire. It was a miracle. I was witnessing the beginnings of the research process and it was a beautiful thing. I really hated to have to stop them because I could tell they were really using their time productively.

I asked them: “so you just did a brief browse session to see what kinds of things are out there. What’s the difference between “browsing” and “searching”?

One student is always willing: he said that you search when you want something in particular, but you browse when you don’t have anything in mind. Indeed! Here, I insert a little anecdote about shopping with my mom. A clerk would always ask: “is there anything I can help you find?” My mom replied: “No thank you:) I’m just browsing.” I think this little anecdote exposes my humanness and clarifies the differences between searching and browsing quite simply.

I was pleased that students got to see that browsing is a crucial part of the whole research process…AND the library was a premiere space that celebrates and facilitates that discovery and curiosity! The browsing activity was a great segue into the group work that proceeded it: how you can begin to create a search strategy and brainstorm key words.

All of this experimenting with browse sessions and collaborative group work hints at my obsession with how NOT to teach information literacy to undergraduates. (That wretched demo comes to mind here in which the instructor stands like a statue at the front of the classroom while students sleep or talk to their friends.) We are always walking a fine line in the information literacy classroom, and students’ “success” comes from the balancing of engaging instructors on one hand and and motivated students on the other. It get’s really exciting somewhere in the grey areas.  I am trying to be careful not to place all of the burden of effective teaching on the shoulders of instructors alone. (You may have heard musicians talk about the energy exchange between performer and audience: there are bad audiences–the unaffected or uninspired.) But the best of instructors or performers have the ability to shape an experience and draw people into it, even if only for a little while.  (Bill Hicks did this often. He worked with “tough crowds” that were virtually unresponive and was able to amazingly reinvigorate them.)

That said, it’s tough NOT to talk too much when you’re an instructor. But I’ve been getting away from talking the more I teach. My last two classes, I think, were far more engaging then any other class I’ve taught. I included a mixture of mediums in the classroom to better serve a multiplicity of learning styles. (I had some individual work, collaborative work, and integrated web 2.0 technologies like Youtube in addition to the browse session.) For the most part, the students were always doing something.

It’s easy to do boring demos,  but I can’t do that anymore in my work with undergraduates. Maybe that I’m a new librarian makes me overzealous. But when you lose the responsiveness of an audience, you lose the energy that propels the class forward. It’s the energy and motivation that make a classroom environment stimulating and meaningful; and I think you can get that by creating a space of action or hands-on learning rather than the space of sedation or passivity that just won’t cut it anymore–if it ever did.

Youtube, Catalogs, and Databases

child soldiers

Key concepts we’re trying to teach in the information literacy classroom are everywhere–Youtube to be precise. The similarities between interfaces is shocking! Searching in Youtube is very similar to searching in an online catalog or database. Students will see the connections between the interfaces and you can help them to make the transition:)

Each year at the institution where I’m a librarian, incoming freshman read a common book as part of the First Year Studies program. This year’s title, A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah is simultaneously supportive of the Ready for the World Initiative which has been implemented to advocate cultural exploration and discovery. Some instuctors create assignments or activities that are aligned with thematic elements of the book. The library is also in a choice position to lend its hand in integrating Beah’s work into the instruction curriculum and to provide a space that enables students to explore related issues.Plus, Youtube is a user-friendly, exploratory discovery tool that students can use in preparation for catalog and database searching. (Often times, students who come in for information literacy instruction don’t even know what they’re interested in yet; a Youtube browsing session would be a fun way to facilitate intrigue and discovery.)

key word list populated

Anyhoo, I’ve done Youtube, catalog, and database searching using the keywords associated with Beah’s book: child soldier* and africa or sierra leone. First, I did the search in Youtube, paying particular attention to the advanced search option, related topics, limiters, and the populated list of suggested key words. I then looked for these same features in the catalog and database and took screen shots of both interfaces (tutorials in progress!) What I found, for instance, was that the “Related Videos” feature in Youtube is almost identical to the “Related Subjects” feature in Academic Search premiere. The “More or Less Information” feature in Youtube is strikingly similar to the “abstract” or “summary” features in databases and catalogs!!  think if students can make this connection, we will be more successful in teaching the importance of subjects in databases and catalogs. (I’ve had a very difficult time doing this in the past–also because when you just “tell it” to students, it’s highly forgettable.)

I am still working out the particulars of this activity. I think it should definitely included a guided worksheet that students could work on together in groups. Also, just a simple screen capture handout drawing the similarities between the interfaces would really be helpful, too. I will be trying this out next week, so I’ll keep updates here:) I would also love to just facilitate a fun browse session that would actually get students excited about “doing research.”

Thinking about Anne-Marie Deitering’s “Using Wikipedia to eavesdrop on the scholarly conversation”

Wikipedia is Accurate

As a new instructional librarian who has taught basic english composition classes, I have been looking for fun new ways to engage students in the information literacy classroom. As you know, getting people excited about searching in databases and catalogs is no easy task–even if you’re gleefully leaping into the air and cracking jokes at the most opportune moments. It’s difficult–maybe close to highly improbable–to make a meaningful connection with every student in the classroom, establish rapport, and create an environment that allows students to engage with ideas rather than just recalling, broadening, narrowing, and refining information; that these goals are nearly unattainable is all the more reason to pursue them.

Yesterday, I was excited that one of the titles I ILLed had made it safe and sound to Hodges Library where I work as an Instructional Services Librarian. With eternal coffee cup, I briskly walked to the Circulation Desk to claim my treasure. In no time, I was returning to my cube with a shiny new copy of Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0 in hand. All of you know just how excited I really was at this moment (Plus, my last ILL experience was faster and cheaper than my last Amazon experience! How’s that for library advocacy?).If you’re ever anticipated the arrival of a new (or used) book, you know with what level(s) of excitement I approached  the Circulation Desk.

But the point is this: the essays I read in this fantastic collection have inspired me to engage information literacy classes in new and exciting ways. For instance, Anne-Marie Deitering’s “Using Wikipedia to eavesdrop on the scholarly conversation,” enables me to look at Wikipedia from the perspective of–get this–a non-censoring, savvy, and conscious librarian. While other instructors cringe at the use of Wikipedia in academe, Deitering is pulling the rug out from under us, so to speak, and engaging Wikipedia as a tool of discovery and exploration. Let me pursue this a bit more because it’s so exciting….

There were a handful of statements in Deitering’s essay that really knocked me out (is that a strange or old-fashioned expression?) I will first list them here; but keep in mind, these are the statements that really jumped off the page for me:)  This is just what I’ve gathered at this point:

1.) “‘Davidson and Crateau (1998) argue that most instruction librarians are not used to teaching an exploratory research process’” (88). Okay. Um, whoa? Brilliant! Do you see what I mean here? I was shocked when I read this statement. I guess I’ve developed an ability to be highly critical and reflective of very short bits of text since becoming an english major in college about 10 years ago (oh my god! 10 years!). But for me, this statement was a real eye~opener. And I think it’s very true that we often focus too closely on lower-level information retrieval concerns (and I’m calling them that because the implication in this bold statement suggests that we aren’t seeing or teaching the bigger picture–which is that research is situated in a discursive, non-linear knowledge creation process.) So than how do we teach research as a process of inquiry, exploration, and discovery? How might this realization change the goals that we outline in our information literacy “program” mission statements? Is this the missing link? Of course, we have to think about the balance between quality and quantity in the classroom: we provide services to students across all disciplines and are often forced to comply with standards that have made information literacy a “skill” to be acquired in a couple of 50-minute class periods. We have thousands of students to serve who are not gung-ho (wtf?) info.-obsessed freaks like we are. Wait….I take that back. T’was hasty of me. Pretty much everyone is an information obsessed freak. Who do I think I am?

But at the same time, there is always the bigger picture: that research is embedded in a messy, chaotic, and often very satisfying process of exploration and discovery; but you have to be willing to abandon some of your own predispositions in order to open up inquiry and engage new ideas.

2.) “I]n our first attempt to meet these [exploratory] objectives we sent the students to search engines and multidisciplinary databases, and asked them to browse titles. abstracts, and other metadata. This approach failed. [....] In short, most of our students could not use these tools to do an exploratory search. They did not have enough knowledge about their topics. or about scholarly processes, to find a rich browsing experience in their results lists.” (89) Whoa again! As I read this passage, I thought more and more about how I teach information literacy to undergraduates–most of which are first-year college students. Part of the problem is that students are often coming in for general orientations that have no real grounding in anything immediate or relevant in their lives, such as a project or research paper. Of course, it’s important for us to provide those orienting services though, and not to gripe too much (gripe? I never would say gripe in everyday conversation.) On the other hand, I see what Deitring is saying, and I’ve noticed these problems in the classes I’ve taught as well. The question then becomes: what tools do we employ to advocate exploration? What tools do we have that do enable this kind of “serendipitous” discovery? We can’t simply tell students to peruse, get lost, and run wild in the world of information. Telling them to familiarze with multiple viewpoints isn’t enough. Telling them to browse isn’t enough, either, especially if our ideas about browsing and the ways in which we browse have changed (whole other topic, eh?>Differing mental models and such). Since many students probably don’t know how to browse in databases, why would we make that a first entry point for them? Wouldn’t we start with something else that they already use to discover information in their everyday lives? Are these rhetorical questions sickening or enraging at all?

3.) “While ease of use was the first reason we decided to use Wikipedia as an information literacy tool, an additional benefit emerged very quickly. 3.1) One of he goals of the FYC programme is to introduce students to the processes and practice of academic writing. The goal of academic writing, in short, is knowledge creation” (91). I think it’s important that we don’t take for granted Wikipedia’s ease of use. Plus, students know it, they use it daily, and they’re not going to stop using it anytime soon just because of the near dogmatic notion that it’s undisbutably inaccurate. (Hell, I’m not going to stop using it either). Maybe here is where a larger conversation about mental models could ensue. The web 2.0 model that students are bringing into the library and that has changed the ways in which we think and construct knowledge should be present in information literacy sessions. Better yet, we show students how to use Wikipedia as a tool for exploration in order to do good research.  They are confused, I think, when teachers and librarians tell them not to cite Wikipedia in their research papers because anyone can edit entries. I refuse to fear students into becoming Wikipedia-hating minions who can all recite why it’s so evil when used in academia. (At the same time I am trying to convey that academia is a different space that requires an often painful process of indoctrination and enculturation.)

What also captivated me about Deitering’s above statement, though, was that Wikipedia reveals the scholarly communication process whereas pre-wiki encyclopedias do not. (Sidenote: How cool would it be to publish yearly editions of Wikipedia in print? It would be a massive book….) Deitering points out the importance of creating an assignment that requires students to “eavesdrop” on the scholarly communication process by also looking at earlier versions of Wikipedia entries to see how different perspectives entered into the conversation. (I guess what this is actually referred to is called “versioning”. Who knew?) If we (make the time to) create thoughtful assignments that help students identify the processes that go into research and the production of knowledge, the Wikipedia exploration activity is one example of a relevant, fresh, and creative tool for discovery.

4.) Many faculty members and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are skeptical about Wikipedia’s value as a source of any kind, and choose to ban it entirely instead of helping students use it appropriately (my emphasis 92). When I was a composition teacher and not yet a librarian, I would just tell students not to cite Wikipedia in their papers as a legitimate source. (Of course we had the same-old conversation about how anyone could edit it, any old schmo with an internet connection, yada yada). Unfortunately, I had not given a whole lot of thought to the issue and ended up re-creating the wheel. Actually,  I think I had heard the unholy name spoken so often in regard to poor research practice that I, like a demigogue, was pandering day in and day out to my colleagues’ and students’ fears and anxieties: that Wikipedia would be the chief proponent in the erosion of ethical and (cough: moral) writing and researching principles and practices. (Which, now, and needless to say, is total bullshit. Oops. I swore.) I can tell now, after giving this idea issue some thought, that banning Wikipedia as a legitimate source probably encourages rather than discourages its use in student writing. Part of my problem, I think, was that I did not see how Wikipedia really functioned–as a starting point–rather than a substantial or be-all research tool.

Perhaps we are missing an integral aspect of information literacy instruction, and perhaps Wikipedia can be a great way to start teaching research as a process rather than as a technique. I know I’m making some big leaps here, but I’ll fill in the gaps a little bit later.  I know that when I’m teaching first-year information literacy classes, there seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle–the part where students have first explored issues and topics that interest them. I wonder if we’re really doing what we can to encourage discovery and wonderment prior to equipping them with the tools to do Boolean and truncated searching. I know that we can not reach everyone like we want to, but maybe part of an information literacy session (if not the whole thing) should focus on guided exploration activities using Wikipedia to get the ball rolling. All students have something that really excites them, whether that’s rugby, cat dieases, chainmail (not the mail you’re supposed to forward or endure bad luck for 10 years), or latino mural art.

I tend to be overzealous….

5.) “The biggest challenge, of course, is making the assignment meaningful and useful for as many students as possible” (92). Indeed! My own (obvious?) unbridled positivism, once it meets face to face with the students it’s supposed to inspire, will need to be reshaped and redirected in the classroom depending upon the needs of the class…and if that class is falling asleep or staring blankly in my direction. Maybe a better way to do an activity using Wikipedia (since students already use it constantly on their own) would be to do it with the librarian. Part of what makes such an assignment really inspiring is that the librarian inserts him or herself into the research process as a go-between, helping students make connections between the tools of everyday use and those found in the library. It’s probably overly ambitious, but partnering with core teaching faculty (an english department) to get teachers and librarians on board with a sustained discovery session would be a great way for librarians (especially) to drive and shape the information literacy programs. Anne-Marie: my hat is off to you for seeing how Wikipedia can become a powerful tool to inspire wonderment and introduce students to scholarship and research.

Works Cited:

Anne-Marie Deitering. “Using Wikipedia to eavesdrop on the scholarly conversation.” Information Literacy Meets Library 2.0. Godwin, Peter and Jo Parker. Facet Publicshing: London, 2008.