Partnerships between instructional faculty and institutional librarians promote student learning and success. Discussion of applications for various forms of content and communication asset interaction for quality teaching instruction will be provided. Participants will discuss a model to increase excellence in teaching and higher levels of engagement and learning by students.
Integration of library resources, including the librarians themselves, in the instructional design and delivery of class can deepen student learning, further engage students with the library, and set up support networks for further skill and knowledge development.
Communication through announcements, messages, and forum posts increases the connection of the student to the instructor and strengthens the connection to course content, fostering the integration of learning. Developing content and curating resources can be time consuming and may not yield effective practices. Collaboration with librarians at our institutions and purposeful application of assets from our university library increases quality of instruction and excellence in learning.
Awareness of how to increase quality instruction through application and integration of content and resources from libraries at colleges and universities will promote and increase teaching excellence within the class and at the institution (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2017). Faculty and staff collaboration open lines of communication which promote sharing of resources as well as problem solving for instructional issues in the classroom. Development of assets with library content to address learning of content and of success strategies increases engagement with students through communication and also increases student efficacy in concept learning.
Communication and instructional assets promote learning. Some communication assets can include announcements, messages, forum/discussion board weekly introductions and summaries, and live office hours. Similar to communication assets in medium, instructional assets differ in purpose with a focus on delivery and transfer of the content. Some examples may include messages, forum/discussion board weekly introductions and summaries, mini lessons, forum posts, and live office hours/tutoring sessions.
Tools aid in the design and delivery of instruction (Beetham, 2013). Connections to concepts help students tune into the course. The cognitive load is lightened through well designed instructional assets (van Merrienboer & Ayers, 2006).
Challenges to online learning can disconnect students from instructional content. Library anxiety in the form of fear and shame prevent students from confidently seeking assistance from librarians (McPherson, 2015; Mellon, 1986), compound frustration with an online library environment. Learners become disengaged and frustrated. Combined with flat and/or heavily text-based classrooms, the student can find obstacles to research and learning at every corner.
Little to no variation in content or learning assets increase issues (van Merrienboer & Ayers, 2006). Delivery of instruction needs to be multi-modal. Connection between content and multimedia assets can enhance student engagement and learning (Smith, 2013). Differentiated instruction provides students with different avenues to process and construct learning. Multi-modal assets create a more adhesive nature to knowledge and help with recall (Kelly, 2010). One size does not fit all.
For the learning conversation, participants will be asked – How is the library currently utilized by students? What technology and tools utilized or required in classes could be strengthened through collaboration with the library? Do you know who your librarian is? What would be the benefits of partnership or integration or embedding library/librarian resources? How does this innovation look for face to face, blended, and online classes? What do you need from the library and what does the library need from you?
A model from a fully online institution will be shared demonstrating the success of the utilization of library resources to enhance communication. Also included in the session will be the discussion of how regular and varied communication instructional assets to increase learning and engagement will be provided. Additionally, a brief description of how multimedia and multi-modal assets can increase connection to the instructional material and amplify focus on the concepts and skills. Further, applications across disciplines and student levels will be discussed.
The model of collaboration between Instructors and Librarians will be described throughout the conversation. Examples for developing and delivering effective instruction and engage learning will be demonstrated. A set of resources and assets from the Library will be provided for consideration of application.
In efforts to foster future effective and quality instruction, there will be a discussion of collaboration opportunities, and suggestions on how to reach out to Librarians in your teaching program. Additionally, participants will be asked to determine openings and possibilities to further professional learning, awareness of assets, developing a line of communication between Instructors and Librarians, and other productive activities.
References
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2017). Academic library impact on student learning and success: findings from Assessment in Action team projects. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/issues/value/findings_y3.pdf
Beetham, H. (2013). Designing for Active Learning in Technology-Rich Contexts. In H. Beetham and R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F7On-O2VrYUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=multimodal+learning+engaging+students&ots=k5MV8Jh-cG&sig=64sSi-d8mL_-TLpr7_SfxbVFUpE#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kelly, R. (2010). Three strategies for engaging students through multimodal course design. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/three-strategies-for-engaging-students-through-multimodal-course-design/
McPherson, M. A. (2015). Library anxiety among university students: A survey. IFLA Journal, 41(4), 317-325. doi:10.1177/0340035215603993
Mellon, C. A. (1986). Library anxiety: A grounded theory and its development. College & Research Libraries, 47(2), 160-165. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14195/15641
Smith, R. (2013). Improved learning outcomes through a multimodal text. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/9/improved-learning-outcomes-through-a-multimodal-text
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayers, P. (2006). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02504793