Karen Bordthe Library,

andColleg

Dr. GProfessor o

The Journal of

Scaffolding and Reflection in Course-IntegratedLibrary Instruction

by Karen Bordonaro and Gillian Richardson

Available online 6 August 2004

A multistep process ofintegrating library instruction

into an undergraduateeducation class is described and

tested. The methodologyincorporated a pre- and

postsurvey and an examinationof written comments. Findings

include the importance ofscaffolding in supporting the

research process and theimportance of reflection in

shaping that process.

onaro is Associate Director ofInformation Literacy/ArchivesSpecial Collections, Canisiuse, Buffalo, NY, United States

bbordonar@canisius.eduN;illian Richardson is Assistant

f Education, Canisius College,Buffalo, NY, United States.

Academic Librarianship, Volume 30, N

he integration of library instruc-

T tion into a college content coursehas long been a goal of academic

librarians. This article describes the inte-gration of library instruction into anundergraduate education course as aneffort to expose students to conceptsand practices of information literacy.The content of the course, teachingliteracy, became the base into which theprocess of information literacy practiceswas embedded. The two authors, aneducation professor and a referencelibrarian, equally shared the managementof this project, and it was found that thesupport of both yielded large academicgains in terms of student learning andachievement. Intertwining teaching liter-acy and information literacy seemed to bea perfect discipline fit, and the frameworkof scaffolding combined with the impor-tance of reflection appear to have attrib-uted greatly to the project’s success.

BACKGROUND OF THE AUTHORS

Karen is an academic reference librarianwho also teaches English as a secondlanguage (ESL) classes, and Gillian isan education professor who teachesliteracy classes to both undergraduateand graduate education majors. Bothauthors have overlapping library andeducation backgrounds. Karen is finish-ing her doctorate in second languageeducation and has taken a number ofeducational theory classes over the lastseveral years. Gillian is a former schoollibrarian involved with library instruc-tion at the K-12 level prior to herpursuing and completing her doctoratein reading education. The overlappingintersection of both library and educa-tion backgrounds on the part of bothauthors lent a richness to this study that

umber 5, pages 391–401

may not have occurred had the authorspursued this project separately.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Course-integrated instruction has beendefined and framed in various ways overthe last several years in librarianship. Someauthors offer historical or conceptualframeworks of the teaching function oflibraries in order to understand currentlibrary instruction issues.1–3 Other authorsapproach the explanation of libraryinstruction through particular methodolo-gies or instructional designs.4–6 Someexplicate particular writing models as away to explore these issues.7 Othersadvocate a framework of critical thinkingfrom which to explore and promote libraryinstruction.8–10 Still others use futureneeds as a basis to explore current issues.11

Although the models and frameworksdiffer, there is general agreement in theliterature that seeking effective methodsfor integrating library instruction intoacademic courses is a useful goal andthat doing so at the point of need bystudents is a good way to deliver instruc-tion. But although most librarians seem toagree that library instruction is bestdelivered at the time it is needed bystudents, no one model appears to beuniversally accepted. Some librariansmay feel that a fifty-minute lectureoffered during a time when a classnormally meets qualifies as course-relatedinstruction since the goals of the lectureare tied to the desired academic outcomeof the course. Others may feel thatintegration involves more than a one-timemeeting of librarian, professor, and stu-dents. This study follows the latterparadigm in situating library instructionover a series of time and place throughoutthe course of a full semester.

September 2004 391

This study is rooted in a discipline-based approach as well. The discipline inquestion, education, has a historical rela-tionship with librarianship. Recentattempts at connecting education withlibrarianship have resulted in a numberof interesting studies. Among them isNesbitt12 who describes a successfulframework based on Bloom’s Taxonomy,which asked both librarians and educationfaculty to relate learning outcomes toinformation retrieval skills. She found thatboth librarians and education faculty madedifferent but equally worthwhile contribu-tions to the framework. This suggests thatcollaboration between the fields of educa-tion and librarianship can result in learn-ing frameworks useful to both. Otherstudies stress the disciplinary nature ofhow scholarly communication processeswork and the importance of communicat-ing that knowledge to students in partic-ular disciplines.13–16

In other studies that connect educationand librarianship, learning styles that comefrom educational circles are discussed interms of how they may be appropriate-ly used in library instructional settings.Druecke,17 for example, describes anactive learning paradigm that may workin university library classrooms. Ragains18

and Gedeon19 offer potential variations onthis learning paradigm. Keyser 20 describesthe differences between active learning andcooperative learning and proposes howboth may be used effectively in libraries.Portfolio work has also been suggested asan educational tool that may be appropriatefor library instruction.21 These studies areinstructive in that they allow librarians totake models that arise in education andapply them to library instruction.

The final piece of literature that informsthis study is that of faculty–librarianpartnerships. While much credence hasbeen given to the belief that this is a goodthing for librarians to do, very littleempirical work has looked at the analysisof why such efforts may be successful.Useful programmatic information has beenoffered, however, and setting up programsthat incorporate elements from both thefaculty perspective and the librarian per-spective may benefit from an overview ofthese sources.22 Surveys on faculty atti-tudes towards library instruction also offersome evidence that faculty support collab-orative work with librarians.23,24 Finally,literature that explains the nature of facultyculture is also useful to librarians planningon integrating library instruction into aparticular discipline.25–27

392 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

BACKGROUND SETTING

The setting for this study was a privateliberal arts college in the Jesuit Catholictradition, located in the northeasternUnited States. It enrolls approximately5000 undergraduate and graduate stu-dents. Education is a popular major atthe school, with students matriculated inboth undergraduate and graduate educa-tion courses.

The particular course in which thisstudy took place was an undergraduatecourse entitled bTeaching Literacy inElementary Schools.Q It is designed as anintroductory course for elementary educa-tion majors. Its purpose is to explorepractical methods of literacy instructionby examining research-based approachesfor improving the reading and writingabilities of elementary students. Thecourse concentrates on the reading skillselementary students need to acquire forreading effectively. The objectives of thecourse were stated in the syllabus asfollows:

(1) learn the components of the readingact;

(2) learn various techniques, strategies,philosophies, and approaches used inreading instruction;

(3) understand how to facilitate children’semergent literacy;

(4) become familiar with books andprofessional journals concerned withthe subject of reading;

(5) recognize the interrelationships ofreading, the language arts, andliterature;

(6) become aware of materials used forreading instruction;

(7) learn phonics content, terminology,and generalizations; and

(8) create and implement lessons inreading.

The class alternated between on-cam-pus discussions of content and school-based practice in working with emergentreaders. The information literacy projectbecame part of both settings. Informationliteracy was embedded into the coursethrough the use of a hot topics paperrequired of all students. The purpose ofthis assignment was to guide the studentin an examination of current issues andquestions in literacy education from

multiple perspectives based on academicpolemics, published qualitative and quan-titative research, and public mediadebate.

‘‘Information literacy wasembedded into the course

through the use of a hot topicspaper required of all students.’’

Students were to prepare a report thatdemonstrated critical analysis of thequestion or issue selected for study.The professor gave the students a verydetailed list of the types of resources sheexpected the students to make use of.These sources included scholarly books,both print and online academic journalarticles, online discussion forums, sour-ces from the popular media, and literacyhistories or reflections on teaching fromcolleagues or other students or profes-sionals in the field. As a way ofassessing the students’ performance onthe hot topics paper assignment, both theeducation professor and the librarianwere responsible for grading studentwork. The education professor made thispoint clear to the students at the begin-ning of the semester. The educationprofessor devised a rubric that assignedpoint values to the level of successdemonstrated for both the students’ dis-covery, use, and evaluation of informa-tion sources, and also for the finalcontent outcome of the papers. In thisway, the professor underscored theimportance of the information literacyaspect of the hot topics papers to thestudents in the class.

METHOD

Both qualitative and quantitative measureswere used in this study. The quantitativemeasures included a pre- and postinstruc-tion survey. The qualitative measuresincluded document analysis of writtenprompts from the survey, comments fromresearch journals, and annotated bibliog-raphies. Because random sampling was notdone, and no control group was employed,all quantitative measures reported here aredescriptive. No results may be general-izable to other populations; however, thedescriptions provided serve to enrich thedescription of this particular context. Someresults may therefore be transferable toother similar learning contexts.

PROCEDURE

Presurvey

A presurvey was given to all studentsin the class before any library instructiontook place. Its purpose was not only togauge the comfort level that students feltin using library resources, but it also wasused to discover if the students felt theneed for library instruction or if they feltself-sufficient in their searching abilitiesand ability to evaluate resources.Twenty-seven students were enrolled inthe class, and all twenty-seven studentstook the presurvey. The form that thepresurvey took was an initial ratinginstrument followed by a series ofopen-ended questions. The rating instru-ment asked students to indicate theiragreement or disagreement with thefollowing statements on a scale of oneto five, with one indicating strong dis-agreement and five indicating strongagreement:

! I am comfortable in the library.

! I am confident in my researchingabilities.

! I am knowledgeable about locatinginformation in print sources (i.e.,scholarly books, printed journals).

! I am knowledgeable about locatinginformation in online journals.

! I am knowledgeable about locatinginformation on the World Wide Web.

! I understand how to evaluate informa-tion sources.

! I would like my coursework to includeguidance in research strategies.

The open-ended questions on thepresurveys asked the students to writedown answers to the following:

! Jot down three characteristics of thelibrary.

! How would you rate your researchabilities and why would you rateyourself this way?

! What do you do when you havetrouble locating information for aresearch assignment?

! When a professor gives a researchassignment, would you find instruc-tion on research strategies helpful? Ifso, in what areas?

Jigsaw Activity

Following the presurvey, one classperiod was devoted to formal libraryinstruction. This was accomplishedthrough the use of a jigsaw activity, whichinvolved dividing students into two differ-ent group configurations in order to firstlearn, and then teach each other aboutvarious library resources. Appendix Adescribes this activity in more detail andoffers the lesson plan that was given tostudents during the library instructionclass.

The expert groups each answered adifferent series of questions. The bookgroup answered questions such as bWhatis the URL for the library catalog?Q bWhatis the difference between a word searchand a subject search?Q bWhat are thedifferent ways you might ask a librarianfor help?Q Similarly, the journals groupanswered questions such as bIf youalready knew the exact title of a journal,where would you look to see if our librarysubscribed to it?Q bWhat is the differencein coverage between ERIC and Ebsco-Host’s Academic Search Premier?Q bWhatis the difference between a scholarlyjournal and a popular magazine?Q andbIf an article is not available online in fulltext format, how might you get a copy ofit?Q The third group, the Web sites group,answered such questions as bWhat is thedifference between doing a searchthrough a library database such as ERICand doing a general Web search throughGoogle?Q bWhat does peer-reviewedmean?Q and bWhat are some criteria youmight consider when attempting to deter-mine if the Web results you got areworthwhile or not?Q All of the questionsfor each section sought to expose studentsto finding the resources, using themeffectively, and thinking critically aboutthe results of their searching. For a full listof questions used in the jigsaw activity,please see Appendix A.

Classwrite

At the end of the jigsaw activity, abclasswriteQ activity took place. Thisactivity asked students to write down abrief summary of what they had learnedin the class that day. It was worth tenpoints, to be graded by the librarian. Thegrading was based on the thoughtfulnessof the reply. For example, if the studentwrote that they learned nothing new, theperson would also need to say why not.This was the first graded activity of theproject.

Grading

Grading for the hot topics followedtwo separate paths: the librarian graded 50points worth of process, and the professorgraded 50 points worth of content. Arubric was provided to students thatshowed where the breakdown of pointswould occur and highlighted importantelements to be considered for a goodgrade. So, for example, the librarian hadinput on the classwrite (ten points), theresearch plan (ten points), and threejournal entries (thirty points). The profes-sor graded the other fifty points on whatmaterial the papers contained and howwell it was presented. As part of thepresentation, special emphasis was placedon the accompanying bibliography,which was required to contain a sentenceon why each source was chosen. Theletter grade on the hot topics paperbecame worth a percentage of the overallclass grade.

‘‘Grading for the hot topicsfollowed two separate paths:the librarian graded 50 points

worth of process, and theprofessor graded 50 points

worth of content.’’

Research Plan

After the presurvey, jigsaw, and class-write activities, the students were requiredto fill out a formal research plan to send tothe librarian. The research plan was achart that asked students to fill in thefollowing columns:

! What is your focus question?

! What keywords can you identify fromyour focus question?

! What are some ways you couldcombine those keywords?

! What are some possible sources ofinformation where you could startlooking?

The purpose of the research plan was togive students the ability to take a formu-lated focus question, turn it into a searchstatement, and use it in some differentdatabases. This activity was also graded,and the possible ten points were awarded

September 2004 393

on the basis of how well the studentarticulated a search statement and on howmany possible sources of information theywanted to consider at the start of theirsearching.

Research Journal Entries

After receiving feedback from thelibrarian on their research plans, thestudents began searching for informationon their topics. As part of the process,they were asked to submit three separateresearch journal entries at specifiedtimes to both the professor and thelibrarian. The librarian graded eachresearch journal entry again on the basisof ten points, with the points awardeddepending upon the thoughtfulness ofthe reply. Thoughtfulness was definedfor the students as being able to explainwhy they searched the sources they did,how they searched the sources, whetheror not the searching was successful. Ifthe searching was not successful, thestudents were asked to explain why itwas not. If they reached a dead end,they were asked to think about what to

Numerical results of the pre- andleast agreement and five indicati

394 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

do next and why. They were asked torecord thoughts, hunches, notes, andreflections about the whole process offinding and using information. Finally,they were asked to reflect upon whatthey learned.

Research journal entries were submittedelectronically, usually as email messages,but occasionally as file attachments. Eachresponse was given written feedback and agrade by the librarian. Final grades on thejournals were based on how much effortthe student had put into searching and onhow well the student had reflected on theexperience.

Postsurvey

The last part of the graded project wasthe postsurvey. At the end of the course,after the hot topics papers had beencollected and graded, the students wereasked to fill out a final survey to see iftheir attitudes had changed towardseither using the library or feeling com-fortable while doing so. The Likert scalethat was used to assess comfort, con-fidence, and knowledge on the presurvey

Figure 1postsurvey. Based on a scale of one

ng the most agreement

was used again on the postsurvey.Students again indicated their agreementor disagreement on the same series ofquestions, with the one exception of thelast question asked on the presurvey. Thepostsurvey did not ask the students torate the statement bI would like mycoursework at Canisius to include guid-ance in research strategiesQ so no pairedresponse could be matched on the pre-and postsurvey for that one item.

The prompted questions on the post-survey differed from those on the presur-vey. The open-ended questions on thepostsurvey asked the students to respondto the following questions in writing:

! Have your views about the librarychanged or not changed? Explain yourresponse.

! Did the library instruction affect yourresearch abilities? If so, in what ways?

! What was the most helpful about thelibrary instruction?

! What would you change, add, or

to five, with one indicating the

eliminate regarding the instruction onresearch strategies?

The same twenty-seven students in theclass who answered the presurvey alsoanswered the postsurvey.

Annotated Bibliography

The final piece of the project was thesubmission of an annotated bibliography atthe end of the students’ hot topics papers.The students were asked to justify theinclusion of their sources with a one or twosentence description. Although the librar-ian did not grade the annotated bibliog-raphy, the professor did include it in heroverall grade for the paper at the end of thesemester. Its purpose was to make thestudents think about why they includedcertain sources and did not include others.

‘‘The students were asked tojustify the inclusion of theirsources with a one or two

sentence description.’’

Gra

As such, it flowed out of informationpreviously presented in their research journals.

FINDINGS

Quantitative Measures

Students registered an increase incomfort, confidence, and knowledgefrom the presurvey to the postsurvey.Frequency distributions showed anincrease across all categories. While theresearch design does not allow state-ments of statistical significance, theresearch design does not allow state-ments of statistical significance, theincreases do seem to suggest that studentfelt more able to handle college-levelresearch work at the end of the coursecompared to its beginning. Figure 1shows the mean, median, and modechange for each of the surveyed state-ments in numerical form. It may beworth noting that the increases in allcategories came from the lowest set ofnumbers in the raw data. In other words,the jump from a mean of 3.63 to a meanof 4.04 on the measure asking aboutfeeling comfortable in the library is

Figure 2phical results of the pre- and postsurv

accounted for by the number of studentsmarking a two on the presurvey and thenmarking a four on this same measure inthe postsurvey. Students who had alreadychosen a higher agreement number of thepresurvey remained high on the postsur-vey measures, so that students who choselower numbers on the presurvey account-ed for most of the higher numbers on thepostsurvey. This may mean that thosestudents who began the class alreadyfeeling comfortable in the library gainedless from the instruction than did thosestudents who came in feeling uncomfort-able to start with.

In terms of the content matter of thepre- and postsurvey statements, theincreases in self-described knowledgeof using print sources, and knowledgeof using Web sources are of particularinterest. The students marked theirknowledge of using print sources asthe lowest of any category and itshowed the highest increase afterinstruction. Similarly, the category thatstudents marked highest as being mostknowledgeable about, that of using Websources, also showed an increase after

ey

September 2004 395

instruction. That the students felt moreknowledgeable after the instructionusing both print and Web sources maybe an indication that they found theinstruction effective or helpful to them.

Another view of the survey numberscan also be seen in the graphical represen-tation of the numerical results of the pre-and postsurvey in Figure 2. The percentageincrease in each category is graphicallydepicted in a histogram. A visual exami-nation of the data again shows increasesacross all categories. While not dramatic,the increases are steady, and this is perhapsanother representation of student percep-tion of the effectiveness of instruction.Because the numeric results cannot beconstrued as more than descriptive data,let us turn now to the written commentsprovided by students as evidence ofincreasing comfort, confidence, andknowledge in using the library and itsresources.

Qualitative Measures

Qualitative measures come from thewritten comments on the pre- and post-surveys and from the research journalentries. Certain themes appear to predom-inate throughout the written comments onboth the collected survey and the studentresearch journals asking for their reflec-tions about this experience. These themesinclude an interesting mix of both initialapprehension and self-confidence aboutresearching skills, as well as admission ofknowledge gaps.

PRESURVEY COMMENTS

Presurvey comments reveal themes ofapprehension, self-confidence, and admis-sion of possible knowledge gaps. Anumber of responses also contain salientvocabulary terms that tend to appearfrequently across all student responses.These themes are summarized below, withsupporting student statements available inAppendix B:

! Students expressed apprehension onthe presurvey with using the library’sresources and a lack of confidenceabout asking for help. But while moststudents admitted that they couldprobably learn more, they also gavethemselves fairly high marks onalready being able to use the libraryand its resources well.

! Some responses on the presurveyseemed to indicate that several stu-

396 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

dents thought of themselves as verygood researchers and only attributed alack of success to either a lack ofinterest or forgetfulness that could usesome refreshing.

! Other students thought that they wereprobably fairly good at doing research,but then admitted there might be thingsthat they did not know.

! Salient vocabulary.

Certain vocabulary also appeared veryoften on the presurvey forms. One ques-tion had asked the students to jot downthe three characteristics that describe thelibrary. When responses were tabulated,the following characteristics were men-tioned most often: helpful staff, quiet, andwell organized. This may indicate thatstudents rate their ability to get answers totheir questions very highly and that theyalso value a quiet work environment thatprovides access to resources that arearranged in a way that is fairly clear tounderstand.

Following those top three character-istics, the next most mentioned responsesto this question on the presurvey wereaccessible, user friendly, large, and goodcomputers. These responses may againindicate the ability to get what they neededin a comfortable, friendly, spacious envi-ronment that provided them with the toolsthey needed to accomplish their work.Staff, physical facility, and tools (whetheronline resources or the means to retrievethem) appear to be important character-istics of a useful library.

POSTSURVEY COMMENTS

Postsurvey written responses providedevidence that the students found thelibrary instruction useful in this class.The themes of comfort and awarenesspredominate in the postsurvey comments.Awareness of new resources, of thephysical layout of the library, and theavailability of help were the strongestthemes. These themes are also summar-ized below, with supporting student com-ments available in Appendix C:

!Some student responses reflected anincreasing comfort level with using thelibrary and its resources.

! Some comments mentioned increasedcomfort in using the physical building.

! In terms of how the instruction in thisclass could have been improved, a number

of students said that more instructionmight have been helpful.

! The strongest and most frequent writ-ten response as to how the studentsfelt that this instruction had helpedthem had to do with availability of anumber of different people to go to forfurther help. In addition to specificmentions of the librarian and profes-sor by name, students also listed eachother as potential sources of help. Thejigsaw technique for student involve-ment was also cited as one of the mosthelpful aspects of instruction.

COMMENTS FROM RESEARCH

JOURNALS

The student writing recorded in theresearch journals allows a glimpse intothe process of student searching. Studentcomments seemed to follow a pattern ofinitial confusion and frustration, followedby resignation or resolve, and ending withsome level of satisfaction at successachieved and reflection upon the wholeprocess. The comments are summarizedbelow, with full student comments avail-able in Appendix D:

! Many comments signaled initial con-fusion and frustration.

! Some comments suggest that themove into stage two towards resigna-tion or resolve appears to involvesome level of critical thinking. If asearching strategy has not worked,students at this stage appear to betrying to understand why it has notand then make a decision to keepgoing on the same topic or to changedirections in their searching.

! The final stage apparent in the thirdset of research journal entries seems tobe satisfaction at what has beenaccomplished, accompanied by areflection on the learning process.Earlier frustration, apprehension, res-ignation, or resolve appear to havesettled into a level of self-satisfactionwith their final searching results andon general reflection about the wholeresearch process.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Two major findings emerged from thisstudy:

1) Scaffolding supports the researchprocess.

2) Reflection shapes the learningprocess.

‘‘Two major findings emergedfrom this study:

1) Scaffolding supports theresearch process.

2) Reflection shapes thelearning process.’’

Scaffolding

The concept of scaffolding has beenpresent in educational literature for sometime. The ERIC Thesaurus defines scaf-folding as:

Temporary support or assistance, provided by

a teacher, peer, parent, or computer, that

permits a learner to perform a complex task

or process that he or she would be unable to

do alone—the technique builds knowledge/

skills until learners can stand on their own,

similar to scaffolding on a building (ERIC

Thesaurus, 2003).

The process in this study is that ofsearching for, finding, evaluating, andusing literature in education to explaincurrent hot topics. The students receivedscaffolding assistance from each other,from the librarian, from the facultymember, from the AskERIC service, fromrelatives and acquaintances, and fromprofessionals working in the field.

Temporary support orassistance, provided by ateacher, peer, parent, orcomputer, that permits a

learner to perform a complextask or process that he or she

would be unable to do alone—the technique builds

knowledge/skills until learnerscan stand on their own, similar

to scaffolding on a building(ERIC Thesaurus, 2003).

Peer ScaffoldingPeer scaffolding was used when stu-

dents shared information with other

students about their successes and fail-ures. One especially prominent piece ofinformation that was circulated fromstudent to student was the availabilityof the AskERIC system for submittingquestions to researchers at ERIC. Onestudent wrote in her journal that bI wentto AskERIC since a classmate highlyrecommended it.Q Another student notedthat, bI was told about AskERIC which Ihave submitted my question to.. . . Fromwhat I have heard, they find greatinformation for you which will be veryuseful.Q It may be worth noting that theuse of AskERIC was not featured in thejigsaw activity in class, so its use didcome bottom up from the students help-ing each other find out about it, ratherthan top down, with the librarian point-ing it out to them at the start of theproject.

Scaffolding from the Librarian andProfessorScaffolding from the librarian and the

faculty member took place initially in thejigsaw activity, when the expert groupswere given feedback about their initialresponses to the questions. This set inmotion the students teaching each otherabout the different resources in class,which was another set of scaffoldingprovided at the beginning of the project.

Following the in-class jigsaw activity,further scaffolding from the librarian andprofessor took place during the process ofproviding feedback to students on theirjournal entries. Copies of journal entrieswere sent to both the librarian and thefaculty member, and both responded tostudent questions, comments, requests forassistance, and in the provision of furthersuggestions for other avenues to try. Thelibrarian was also able to offer scaffoldingassistance to those students researchingESL topics through her own personallanguage teaching background, in a formof assistance that was separate fromlibrary resource instruction.

Scaffolding between the Librarian andthe ProfessorA further interesting side benefit to the

scaffolding provided to students was thescaffolding that also occurred between thelibrarian and the professor. As a formerschool librarian, the education professorhad the opportunity through this project tolearn about newer resources available toeducation students that could help both herstudents and herself in future researchefforts. The reference librarian in turn

received scaffolding assistance from theprofessor in being introduced to variousother sources of data such as interviewswith people who are considered legitimatesources of research information forresearch papers.

Scaffolding from WorkingProfessionals

Relatives, acquaintances, and profes-sionals working in the field served as afinal scaffolding support for students inthis project. Many students interviewedworking teachers about their views oncurrent educational topics and then in-corporated those views into their papers. Inseveral cases, students had relatives (auntsor cousins) working in the educationalarena they were researching, and thesecontacts proved equally useful in provid-ing practical, authentic information andopinions and suggestions for furtherresearch from inside the field to thestudents.

Reflection

The importance of reflection to thislearning process is the second findingfrom this study. As with scaffolding,reflection is also a well-known constructinside the discipline of education. Itsuse in this study, as with scaffolding,suggests that both are equally usefulconstructs in the field of librarianship aswell.

Requested Reflections

Reflections took place at a number ofdifferent points throughout this process.The librarian and professor asked thestudents to reflect on their use of andattitudes towards the library in both thepre- and postsurvey. Reflections werealso requested in the form of a classwriteat the conclusion of the in-class jigsawactivity. The three research journalentries rested upon the idea of theimportance of reflection during thesearch process. And finally, reflectionwas sought both in the paper itself and inthe annotated bibliography, which askedthe students to tell why they includedparticular sources.

Reflection was therefore set up as animportant parameter at the start of theproject and did not arise on its ownthroughout the course of the project asscaffolding did. But although it may not besaid to have occurred during the naturalcourse of events, since students wereprompted to reflect, it did play out in aninteresting way.

September 2004 397

Reflections on Process and Content

The most important way that reflec-tions played out was in underscoring boththe significance of the process and of thecontent during the duration of this project.Students seemed to be able to bothseparate the process and the content andto simultaneously see them as necessaryto each other.

Reflections on Process

Reflecting upon the process resulted incomments upon particular aspects ofconducting the project such as, bI alsoliked the idea of the journal entriesbecause it allowed me to communicateback and forth to see if I was on the righttrack and needed any assistance.Q Otherprocess comments related to the largerprocess of taking the information theyfound and putting it to a useful purpose:bI feel that I have learned enoughinformation to form a valid argument tostate my position in the future . . . some-thing that never hurts.Q

Reflections on Content

Reflecting upon the content resultedin numerous comments about what theylearned about their own specific hottopic: bVolunteer tutoring for readingprograms work. Research shows thatchildren participating in these programsachieve academic gains and increasetheir self-confidence.Q Or bThe mostsurprising thing I found while doingmy research was that children withautism can actually read (to memorize)before they have a firm (or even un-firm!) grasp on basic English language. Ienjoyed learning about this subject andlook forward to learn more about it inthe future.Q

Reflections on Process and ContentTogether

While comments on both process andcontent appeared many times over, anumber of students were also able tocombine the two in one set of reflections:bThrough my research I have learned alot not only concerning the topic ofvolunteer tutoring, but also how tosuccessfully research a topic and howto choose which material is appropriate.QAnd bI actually enjoyed writing thispaper. I like to write research papersbecause I always learn so much fromthem. Writing this paper taught me notonly about Reading Recovery, but alsoabout how to conduct searches for

398 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

research. Before this I would never havegone to the library and done a search onthe database or on ERIC. I would usuallyjust go online and find some Web siteabout my topic. I think going to thelibrary during class time was a very goodidea and helped many people includingmyself in learning about what our libraryhas to offer.Q

Both the reflections and the scaffold-ing served important purposes in thisproject. Writing reflections allowed thestudents the opportunity to think abouthow they were conducting their researchas well as what they were learning abouttheir topic. Receiving scaffolding assis-tance from other students, the librarianand professor, and other acquaintances,relatives, and working professionals gavethem the assistance they needed along theway to a successful project completion.

IMPLICATIONS

In looking at both scaffolding and reflec-tion, librarians may well consider theimportance of using both concepts tostrengthen library instruction efforts. Thesuccess of this particular project dependedon a number of people working togethersuccessfully, but the effort was worth theresults, both in terms of student learningand eventual student achievement.

At the end of this project, the professorindicated that the papers written by thesestudents compared favorably to paperswritten by graduate students and that sheherself learned much information aboutthe content of the topics through thesestudent papers.

Although this integrated project was amultistep process, it could surely bereplicated in other library instructionalsettings. As with other studies, adding apiece to the puzzle of how students canbest learn to use and apply our resourcesseems well worth the time and effort ofconducting the study. Looking at studentlearning can help librarians offer betterservices and can ultimately make librar-ians better partners with faculty. Acombination of efforts serves studentswell.

‘‘. . .the professor indicated thatthe papers written by these

students compared favorably topapers written by graduate

students. . .’’

CONCLUSION

This study looked at the integration oflibrary instruction in an undergraduateeducation course. It asked students abouttheir perceptions and use of the library. Ittracked their progress through a series ofstructured activities and asked for studentfeedback on the activities. It was foundthat scaffolding plays an important rolein the learning process as students goabout finding and using resources. It alsofound that reflection plays an importantrole as well in the learning process, andthat students see the importance oflearning both about process and contentduring the course of their research.Finally, it affirms the importance oflibrarians working with faculty to helpstudents learn the most.

APPENDIX AJigsaw Activity

Description of the jigsaw activity:Students had been preassigned to twogroups before arriving for the libraryinstruction class. Each student belongedto both a home group selected by theprofessor in which students were expectedto work together on group projects and alsoto an expert group that was to become thegroup that learned about one libraryresource in depth. Expert groups wereexpected to first learn about their assignedresource in depth at the start of the libraryinstruction class and then to teach otherstudents in their home groups about theirindividual resource. Expert groups werecreated by assigning students to learnabout a particular material format: Oneexpert group was the book group, anotherexpert group was the journal articlesgroup, and the final export group was theWeb sites expert group. Because of the sizeof the class, three expert groups werecreated for each material type. In otherwords, there were three separate bookexpert groups, three separate journalarticles expert groups, and three separateWeb sites expert groups. The initialinstruction occurred with the experts work-ing on a series of questions together (seebelow) in order to learn about one type ofmaterial in depth. After the experts feltconfident about their expertise, the expertgroups were disbanded, and studentsreformed into their preassigned homegroups. The home groups then consistedof a number of different experts whoserved to share the information theylearned about one resource with each other.Both expert and home groups therefore

consisted of the same members of the classbut divided into two different sets ofconfigurations. When the students ar-rived for the class, they took their placesin the expert group to which the profes-sor had preassigned them before the classbegan. Each group was given fifteen mi-nutes to answer a series of questionstogether. The librarian and professormade sure that the students had thecorrect answers in the expert groupbefore groups were reformed into homegroups. At the time of the second divi-sion, one expert from each of the differ-ent format groups reconvened with thehome group. Then each expert taught theother members of the group about theirformat type, how to find it, and how touse it. By the end of class therefore, eachstudent had answers to all the formatquestions from their fellow students.

Jigsaw Activity Lesson Plan:Research Strategies/Sources

Instruction

Directions: The class will be dividedinto five groups. Each group will worktogether on one series of questions. Theseare the expert groups. Once everyone inthe expert group knows the answers, thegroups will be redivided so that allstudents will have the opportunity to getall the answers from their fellow studentexperts. Your professor and I will workwith both the initial expert groups andwith the subsequent regroupings.

Group One: Constructing SearchStatements

1. What is a keyword?

2. What are the keywords in the follo-wing request:

Please find information on the effects of

using basal readers in terms of achievement

for second grade students in a public middle

school.

3. When you put an bandQ between twokeywords, do you get more or fewerresults than if you put an borQbetween keywords?

4. Using the request in question 2above, write out a search statementcombining the keywords withbandQs or borQs:

5. If you get too many results, howmight you limit your search state-ment? (Note: Each database doesthis differently, but they employthe same concepts as far as whatcan be limited.)

Group Two: Resource—Books

1. What is the URL for the librarycatalog?

2. Besides books, what other types ofmaterials can you find here?

3. What is the difference between abwordsQ search and a bsubjectQsearch in our catalog?

4. Are books generally catalogedunder broad subject headings orthe narrowest possible subjectheading? For example, if a bookis listed under bEducation,Q will itthen also generally be listed underbSpecial EducationQ as well?

5. What major Library of Congresssubject headings might you use tofind books on literacy topics?

6. How do you get to the full textcontent of books?

Group Three: Resources—EbscoHostAcademic Search Premier

1. How can you find EbscoHost onthe Library’s Web pages?

2. What is the difference betweenAcademic Search Premier andERIC? Can you search bothsimultaneously?

3. How do you limit your searches topeer-reviewed journal articlesonly? What does bpeer reviewedQmean?

4. What other ways to limit areavailable?

5. If an article is not available full textin the database, how might you geta copy of the complete article?

Group Four: Resources—ERIC

1. Who produces ERIC? Why arethere different versions of itavailable?

2. Where on the Library’s Web pagesare help files located so you canbetter decide which version ofERIC to use?

3. Choose one version of ERIC anddo a subject search on bemergentliteracy.Q If you do this samesearch as a free text search, whatis the difference in results betweenthe two searches? Which wayretrieves more results and why?

4. What is the difference between EJand ED material in ERIC?

5. Some, but not all, of the EDmaterials are available online infull text format. How can you findout which ones are available?

Group Five: Evaluating What You Find

1. How can you tell if the results youfind are good results? What aresome criteria you might consider?

2. What is the difference betweendoing a search through a librarydatabase such as ERIC and doing ageneral search on the Web througha search engine like Google orYahoo?

3. The Library has posted some Websites that offer guidelines for eval-uating information. Can you findwhere they are?

Appendix B

Presurvey Comments

Apprehension:

I can use more knowledge on research

strategies. If I had one area to learn more

in, it would be electronic journals. They seem

to be the one thing that I have trouble

locating and searching through.

I know that there are many sources available

that I do not know about.

My research abilities are very low. I feel this

is because I was never taught or shown the

proper way. Also I did not have to do really

any research papers in high school. Therefore

I am very afraid of research papers.

Self-Confidence:

I would give myself a 7 out of 10 [on

research abilities]. I do not particularly

September 2004 399

400

care for research assignments, if I am

not overwhelmingly interested in the

topic. This has affected my researching

abilities.

I guess an overview would help, just refresh

me in all areas.

Admission of Possible KnowledgeGaps:

I think I am an average researcher. I’ve never

really had problems doing research projects,

however, I know there is a lot more I could

learn.

I can usually get by. I do ask a lot of questions,

though.

Appendix C

Postsurvey Comments

Comfort:

I definitely don’t feel so intimidated about

using the library. I have a good idea about

who to ask and where to go if I have

questions.

Before this project, I was unsure about

the journals and databases available

online.. . . I liked the journal articles

because they presented the most up-to-

date information.

I now feel more comfortable looking up the

information on the computer.

Going through the academic databases was

most helpful. I was clueless before, but now I

am in much better shape.

Comfort with Physical Building:

I really wasn’t aware of all the resources that

the library had to offer. I had the opportunity

to go to all floors of the library.

Suggestions for More Instruction:

I think the research instruction was very

valuable. If anything, there should have

been more—if that was possible. Every

little bit helps, and I know that,

personally, I can always use suggestions

and tips.

I think there needs to be more emphasis on

the use of books and other research methods.

Perhaps give an example on how you might

locate the other materials.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Receiving Assistance:

[Most helpful was] that we could learn about

the different types of resources from

classmate discussion and not lecture.

I wouldn’t change anything. I thought it was

all good. The worksheet was good because

no only do we have our group on it, but we

can fill in all the other groups’ answers. It’s a

good guide for future reference.

[Most helpful was] being able to receive

feedback from the librarian about research.

[Most helpful was] Having a librarian there

and at least knowing one of them that you

could go to and ask questions.

. . . I was surprised by the efforts of Mrs.

Bordonaro to make sure our referencing

experience was going smoothly, and Dr.

Richardson who made sure our educational

topic was on point.

Appendix D

Comments from Research journals

Confusion and Frustration:

In the beginning of my research I found a lot

of trouble finding information on the topic of

benefits of reading in small groups according

to ability.. . . I have also been doing Internet

research as well, but I am finding that some

searches bring me many useless articles.

When I started my research the first thing that

I examined was simply doing an Internet

search using google as a search engine. The

results were overwhelming.

Even after the introduction to finding credited

journals and articles online, I was, at first, still

having trouble navigating through the various

hosts to find appropriate documents (ERIC

especially is causing some confusion). A lot

of information that I have found on my topic

(inclusion and the bpull-outQ program) so far

has been rather general. I am having trouble

finding specific examples of situations, as

well as critical benefits and drawbacks of the

program. Much of the information has been

rather broad statements of general opinions.

I searched on ebsco for volunteer tutoring.

Almost all of the sites in this database came

from the same general article. The article is

called literacy research and practice: what’s

hot, what’s not, and why. I was unable to

retrieve the entire article, but did find some

information. The research is not going as

smoothly as I had hoped because a great deal

of the articles are based on opinion rather

than fact.

Resignation or Resolve:

Before when doing my search I found way

more results and it also narrowed down what

I need and they were more specific. Before I

found not one specific article in a magazine,

they just gave me the magazine and different

volumes. This time around they gave me the

specific title of the article and the magazine

and what volume it was.

Continuing on with my research for the bHotTopicsQ paper, I found that I had to refine my

research methods and the terms I used. When

I first began the paper, I had a misconception

that phonemic awareness was the same terms

as phonics. On the contrary, they are two

distinct terms. Phonemic awareness is the

child’s ability to recognize the fact that

speech is made up of separate sounds. This

is an integral first step to teaching any child

how to read. Phonics, on the other hand, is

letter-sound correspondence, and a method of

teaching literacy. My paper will focus on the

debate over how much emphasis should be

placed on phonics instruction.

I don’t have as much to report as I would like

to. I have decided that I am going to stick

with my original topic and focus question. I

am just going to approach it in a slightly

different way. I think that concentrating on

the Oakland Ebonics Resolution will give me

a base from which I can build up.

Examples of comments from studentswho appear resigned not to find enoughinformation on their original topic andwho now want to change topics includethe following:

After much trouble with my previous topic, I

changed it to basal readers . . . throughout my

research, I have now come across many

different perspectives on basal readers. I hope

this will allow me to produce an interesting

and informational research paper.

Since my previous journal entry I have

decided to change my topic due to a lack of

information directly relating to my topic. I

have found a similar and much more

interesting topic through the research I did

on my previous topic. I have decided to focus

on the different learning styles of children

and how placing them with children of

similar learning styles will affect the way

they learn.

Satisfaction and Reflection:

This research project has shed much light on

how I viewed basal readers. At first I liked

them but now after much research and

consultation I approach them very

cautiously. As an aspiring teacher I found

this research project to be very informative

and worthwhile.

At this time my hot topics research paper is

complete, and personally I am satisfied with

the outcome of my research and personal

reflections in my paper.. . . I found that in

looking for research, the best strategy I had

was to look up information on learning styles

and then branch from there to find any

detailed information on them. This did work

for the most part and I found enough

information to back up my personal opinion

on the topic.. . . I actually enjoyed learning

the information that I learned because it is

definitely something that I will incorporate

into my methods when I become a teacher.

As the project came to a conclusion, I found

myself in better shape than I had primarily

expected. I had so much research, it was

actually quite hard to contain my paper to

just 5–7 pages!. . . I found that this research

paper did in fact teach me a lot about various

researching tools. I feel more confident

looking up how to find journal entries and

articles than I had ever done before. Also, I

learned the importance of evaluating the

sources of some of the material that you

can get online. All in all the project did

benefit my researching skills. It also taught

me the importance of staying on top of

current events in education when you are an

educational professional.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Shirley J. Behrens, bA Conceptual Analy-sis and Historical Overview of InformationLiteracy,Q College & Research Libraries 55(July 1994): 309–320.

2. James Rettig, bThe Convergence of theTwain or Titanic Collision? BI and Refer-ence in the 1990’s Sea of Change,QReference Services Review 23 (Spring1995): 7–20.

3. Edward K. Owusu-Ansah, bThe AcademicLibrary in the Enterprise of Colleges andUniversities: Toward a New Paradigm,Q

Journal of Academic Librarianship 27(July 2001): 282–285.

4. Lucy Holman, bA Comparison of Com-puter-Assisted Instruction and ClassroomBibliographic Instruction,Q Reference andUser Services Quarterly 40 (Fall 2000):53–60.

5. Caroline Rowe, bModern Library Instruc-tion: Levels, Media, Trends, and Prob-lems,Q Research Strategies 12 (Winter1994): 4–17.

6. Alexius Smith Macklin, bTheory into Prac-tice: Applying David Jonassen’s Work inInstructional Design to Instruction Pro-grams in Academic Libraries,Q College &Research Libraries 64 (2003): 494–500.

7. Dennis Isbell, bTeaching Writing andResearch as Inseparable: A Faculty-Librar-ian Teaching Team,Q Reference ServiceReview 23 (4) (1995): 51–62.

8. Sonia Bodi, bCollaborating with Faculty inTeaching Critical Thinking: The Role ofLibrarians,Q Research Strategies 10 (Spring1992): 69–76.

9. Nancy Dennis, bUsing Inquiry Methods toFoster Information Literacy Partnerships,QReference Services Review 29 (2) (2001):122–131.

10. Constance A. Mellon & K.E. Pagles,bBibliographic Instruction and Learningtheory,Q in Bibliographic Instruction:The Second Generation, edited by Con-stance A. Mellon (Little, CO: LibrariesUnlimited, 1987), pp. 134–142.

11. Verlene J. Herrington, bWay beyond BI:A Look to the FutureQ, Journal of Acad-emic Librarianship 24 (September 1998):381–386.

12. Renee Nesbitt , bFaculty-LibrarianPartnerships,Q Education Libraries 21 (1/2) (1997): 5–10.

13. Ann Grafstein, bA Discipline-BasedApproach to Information Literacy,Q Jour-nal of Academic Librarianship 28 (July2002): 197–204.

14. Patricia Senn Breivik, Student Learning inthe Information Age (Phoenix, AZ: OryxPres, 1998).

15. Carol Hammond & Eleanor Mitchell,bLibrary Instruction for the Professions:Information Needs and Libraries,Q Refer-ence Services Review 25 (Summer 1997):79–86.

16. Lolly Templeton & Signia Warner,bIncorporating Information Literacy intoTeacher Education,Q Academic Ex-change Quarterly 6 (Winter 2002):71–76.

17. Jeanetta Drueke, bActive Learning in theUniversity Library Instruction ClassroomQ,Research Strategies 10 (Spring 1992):77–83.

18. Patrick Ragains, bFour Variations onDrueke’s Active Learning Paradigm,QResearch Strategies 13 (Winter 1995):40–50.

19. Randle Gedeon, bEnhancing a Large Lec-ture with Active Learning,Q ResearchStrategies 15 (4) (1997): 301–309.

20.Marcia W. Keyser, bActive Learning andCooperative Learning: Understanding theDifference and Using Both StylesEffectively,Q Research Strategies 17 (1)(2000): 35–44.

21. Loanne L. Snavely, Carol A. Wright,bResearch Portfolio Use in UndergraduateHonors Education: Assessment Tool andModel for Future Work,Q Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 29 (September2003): 298–303

22. Rosemary M. Young & Stephena Har-mony, Working with Faculty to DesignUndergraduate Information Literacy Pro-grams (New York: Neal Schuman Publish-ers, Inc., 1999).

23. Anita Cannon, bFaculty Survey on LibraryResearch Instruction,Q RQ 33 (Summer1994): 524–541

24. Patricia Davitt Maughan, bLibrary Resour-ces and Services: A Cross-DisciplinarySurvey of Faculty and Graduate StudentUse and Satisfaction,Q Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship 25 (September1999): 354–366.

25. Larry Hardesty, bFaculty Culture andBibliographic Instruction: An ExploratoryAnalysis,Q Library Trends 44 (Fall 1995):339–367

26. Constance McCarthy, bThe Faculty Prob-lem,Q Journal of Academic Librarianship11 (July 1985): 142–145

27. Joy Thomas, bFaculty Attitudes and HabitsConcerning Library Instruction: HowMuch Has Changed Since 1982?Q,Research Strategies 12 (Fall 1994):209–223.

September 2004 401