This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 15:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmt20

Screencasts and Standards: Connectingan Introductory Journalism ResearchCourse with Information LiteracyAdam J. Kuban & Laura MacLeod MulliganPublished online: 01 May 2014.

To cite this article: Adam J. Kuban & Laura MacLeod Mulligan (2014) Screencasts and Standards:Connecting an Introductory Journalism Research Course with Information Literacy, CommunicationTeacher, 28:3, 188-195, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2014.911335

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2014.911335

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Screencasts and Standards: Connectingan Introductory Journalism ResearchCourse with Information LiteracyAdam J. Kuban and Laura MacLeod Mulligan

Course: Journalism Research: Information Gathering

Objective(s): Students will utilize critical-thinking skills and creativity to learn aboutresearch databases that are useful for finding information, particularly for journalismand telecommunications needs. Each pair will ultimately produce a screencast, that is, avideo screen capture with audio narration, as a semester activity for this five-weekcourse that (1) offers succinct background information about its assigned database, (2)explains database utility for students and scholars, (3) demonstrates focused searcheswith Boolean operators and special characters, and (4) evaluates sources from thesearch results for accuracy.

Introduction and Rationale

Academic literature suggests that today’s college students are not as informationliterate as educators might expect, despite their generation being frequently describedas “digital natives” or “Millennials” (Becker, 2009). A faculty survey at PimaCommunity College in Tucson, AZ, revealed that students’ actual experience withtechnology did not match up with stereotypes of their generation. Therefore, “theprowess of the ‘digital native’ is a dangerous myth,” and growing up with Google doesnot guarantee students the ability to locate, evaluate, and use information effectivelyin their coursework (Becker, 2009, p. 350). In an article that seeks to inform teachersand librarians about the self-perception of students’ Internet proficiency, Stucker(2005) argued that while students are often able to obtain information (especiallyonline), they “lack sophistication in understanding and evaluating the informationthey retrieve” (p. 9). This lack of critical-thinking skills is evidenced by the prevalence

Adam J. Kuban (Ph.D., University of Utah, 2012) is an assistant professor in the Department of Journalism andLaura MacLeod Mulligan (M.L.S., Indiana University-Bloomington, 2010) is an information services librarian atBall State University in Muncie, IN. This exercise was developed for the five-week course NEWS 120: JournalismResearch: Information Gathering. Adam J. Kuban can be contacted at ajkuban@bsu.edu, and Laura MacLeodMulligan can be contacted at lmulligan@bsu.edu.

Communication TeacherVol. 28, No. 3, July 2014, pp. 188–195

ISSN 1740-4622 (print)/ISSN 1740-4630 (online) © 2014 National Communication Associationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2014.911335

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

of Internet sources in students’ bibliographies, and it has led to frustration amonglibrarians and faculty (Mahaffy, 2006). Kolowich (2011) went further to argue thatstudents do not even realize the abundance of resources available to them via theircampus library. Specifically, students do not know what type of content can be foundin any given database or how to conduct an efficient search in one. They face manypressures, and browsing the university library’s holdings and poring over lengthytexts are not part of their time-crunched schedules.

In light of the abundance of literature regarding the gaps in college students’ ability tolocate, evaluate, and use sources, “information literacy” is a standard that educatorsmust continue to work toward achieving. Since the landmark Information LiteracyCompetency Standards for Higher Education was published in 2000 by the Associationof College and Research Libraries (ACRL), information literacy has been defined as a setof abilities that enables learners to become self-directed in their research investigationsand assume greater control over their learning (ACRL, 2000). It emphasizes the generalprocess of retrieving and evaluating sources as a core component of a higher-educationcurriculum (Grafstein, 2002). In most if not all academic disciplines, Grafstein (2002)contended that students must take a “critical approach” to conducting research andbecome comfortable evaluating information for the following criteria: “authenticity,accuracy, credibility, authority, relevance, concealed bias, logical inconsistency, and soon” (p. 199). To emphasize the critical nature of this process, the ACRL standardsoffered a formal decree that information literacy is considered a key outcome for collegestudents (ACRL, 2000).

In today’s research landscape, in which most of the tools for locating informationare online and computer based, it is generally understood (and confirmed by theACRL standards) that information literacy and computer literacy have considerableoverlap (ACRL, 2000). But information literacy extends beyond simple proficiencywith the technology itself. Instead, it “initiates, sustains, and extends lifelong learningthrough abilities which may use technologies but are ultimately independent of them”(p. 3). In practice, as new media becomes part and parcel of the academic scene andeveryday life, educators are finding ways to produce positive learning outcomes whilealso utilizing digital media (Watson & Pecchioni, 2011). Stucker (2005) warnedagainst adding technology to an assignment just for the sake of it. He encouragedteachers and librarians to use new media in more engaging ways. In particular,educators strive for a student-centered approach in which students create their ownmultimedia designs and actively create their own knowledge (Watson & Pecchioni,2011). In some cases, the technology aspect is so interwoven that the in-classroomexperience involves teaching students the necessary technical vocabulary and skills toengage actively with the content of the assignment.

The literature also points toward the importance of team-based activities.Innovative and effective classroom experiences are often designed as group projectsbecause, as Sjoberg and Ahlfeldt (2010) noted, students who work in groupslearn about group dynamics, decision making, and conflict management, amongother things. In the activity the authors designed, each pair explored one database,

Communication Teacher 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

helping them simultaneously build their information literacy, creative thinking, andinterpersonal skills. The group dynamics also offered students the opportunity todelegate roles based on their interests and talents and gave them more “eyes” withwhich to notice the intricacies of the databases they were assigned. In her blog aboutpeer evaluation, Morrison (2012) offered basic protocols that instructors can adoptfor assessing individual contributions to group work. However, time limitationprevented the authors of this manuscript from including this element in theircalculation of student grades.

In response to the aforementioned literature, the authors designed a semesteractivity that resulted from the converged theoretical underpinnings of Kolowich(2011), who contended that students may not realize the abundance of informationavailable to them or how to access it within databases; Watson and Pecchioni (2011),who posited that students want to be active participants in their own learning; andSjoberg and Ahlfeldt (2010), who proffered that students should work together tobolster knowledge shared and learned.

As an additional benefit, this activity simultaneously satisfied a campus libraryneed for multimedia database instruction. Ball State University Libraries, like manyacademic libraries, have been working toward providing increased online access totheir collections and services. As Tewell (2010) argued, use of video tutorials inlibraries is increasing due to the enhanced user experience this format provides. Bycreating database tutorials for use on the University Libraries’ Web site, the studentsin this journalism research course assisted in the growing collection of online learningresources for use by students and scholars.

The Activity

Early in the term, the instructor should consult his/her university library liaison inorder to determine which databases to screencast. This comprises the communityservice aspect of this activity. Then, the instructor outlines this capstone assignmentin class via the numbered list below and determines pairs or groups, which dependson (a) the number of databases to screencast and (b) the number of students in theclass roster. The authors have done this activity with students in pairs and trios. Oncestudents know with whom they will work and which databases their class willscreencast, they create a list of their top three databases that interest them. Theinstructor should try to accommodate the pairs/trios to ensure that students workwith a database that at least piques their curiosity. The students delegate their ownworkload through the process, but, in the end, they answer the following questionsabout their chosen database as they research it and prepare for their screencast:

1. How long has this database existed?2. Does your chosen database include full-text articles or only article abstracts?3. What is the duration of the content available at this database? (e.g., Does it offer

content from the 1800s to the present, or is it more selective? Can one findcontent only since, say, the 1990s?)

190 A. J. Kuban and L. M. Mulligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

4. Is this database better suited for a general search, or is it directed toward aparticular academic discipline? If it is more particular, then which area(s)comprise(s) its focus?

5. What features/attributes make this database unique?6. Why (or for what purpose) would somebody find this database useful?

Each pair compose a one-to-two-page written report based on what it finds from itsdatabase exploration. Then students create a 5–10-minute screencast that would teachanother viewer how to use their chosen database and evaluate source materialscontained within it effectively.

Each pair’s screencast will include:

1. Succinct (i.e., roughly 30 seconds of) background information about the database;2. An explanation as to how this database is unique from others;3. A demonstration of how to search for relevant content, including how to focus a

search via Boolean operators such as and/or/not and special characters (e.g., theasterisk [*], the tilde [~], question mark [?], or pound sign [#]);

4. A demonstration of how to export information from the database, including howto save, email, or print content, as well as how to share it via social networkingsites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google+; and

5. An evaluation of at least one source that originated from their focused search,emphasizing how they knew it was accurate and credible. Considerations foraccuracy and credibility include (as applicable): (a) identifying author credentialsor author association with sponsors, (b) checking for content consistency withother sources, (c) confirming peer review (via a serials directory such asUlrichsweb), (d) determining the publication date, (e) noting the presence ofbalance versus overt bias, and (f) assessing the organization’s mission statement.

The authors asked students to use Screencast-O-Matic to capture their tutorialsbecause it is a free (up to 15 minutes of recorded content), Web-based screen capturetool that does not require installation, and functions on either a Windows or Mac-operated computer. It allows videos to be saved as (.mp4) files, and this video-fileformat may be uploaded to YouTube to generate links and HTML code for sharingpurposes. One of the authors provided an in-class demonstration of this screencastprogram before students used it to generate their tutorials. This demonstrationincluded basic instruction regarding voiceover technique and matching what is seen(i.e., the visual cues) with what is heard (i.e., the audible content).

The course instructor also introduced students to the subject guide available via theBall State University Libraries’ Web site, which houses past students’ tutorials asexamples to emulate. Figure 1 reveals a snapshot of this guide. The screencasts areavailable publicly to the university community as well as the wider world, andbehind-the-scenes analytics support offered by Springshare (the company that powersthe subject guide site) allows administrators to track traffic to the “Video Tutorials”tab, as well as the specific dates the tab has been viewed and whether it was viewed ona desktop or mobile device.

Communication Teacher 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

However, as it is a one-credit, research-oriented course, the demonstration did notdwell on post-production. Students were advised to practice their delivery in advanceand rerecord their screencast in the event of a major gaffe. According to Tewell(2010), “screencasting in particular has an easy learning curve, allowing the creator toedit, narrate, and publish any task performed on a computer as a video. The endresult is a learning resource that is designed to instruct, inform, or engage libraryusers” (p. 54). Figure 2 depicts a snapshot of one pair’s tutorial of the databaseBiography in Context via the video file generated by Screencast-O-Matic.

Students have also produced screencasts for Academic Search Premier, BusinessSource Premier, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CQ Researcher, Data.gov,JSTOR, LexisNexis Academic, Library of Congress Chronicling America, MagPortal,ReferenceUSA, SportDiscus, and WestlawNext.

Debriefing

This is a five-week, one-credit research course, so the authors assigned each pair itsdatabase by the conclusion of the second week. Students thus had ample time for

Figure 1 Snapshot of the University Libraries’ Subject Guide That Stores Students’Screencast Tutorials of Myriad Databases.

192 A. J. Kuban and L. M. Mulligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

database research, investigating the aforementioned questions to guide theirexplorations. The authors discovered that most had not created a screencast beforethis 100-level course, so they conducted an in-class demonstration of the technologyto acquaint them with the process.

The highest-quality video/audio screencasts then became a component of theUniversity Libraries’ Web-based resources for all students and scholars. In its formerform, the subject guide was a purely textual compilation of resources, includingdatabase information for students’ and scholars’ research needs. However, theinclusion of these screencasts has made this subject guide a more dynamic,multiplatform instructional tool that makes finding information easier and morevisually appealing.

The authors believe that the implementation of this activity could work in otherjournalism and media-related courses beyond the research course that served ascontext for this application. For instance, students in multimedia courses couldpractice their voiceover delivery and technique by generating tutorials that explainhow to use video editing software such as Final Cut Pro and/or Adobe Premiere.

This activity could apply to other academic areas too, as all disciplines requirescholars to locate, manage, and evaluate source material. In this case, the educator(s)might pursue databases relevant to content suitable for the respective field. Forexample, students who must take an introductory speech communication coursecould, as a unit activity, generate screencasts for appropriate databases in order todemonstrate sound information literacy skills. As another example, a businessprofessor might try it with focus on databases such as Business Source Premier,EconPapers, and/or Standard & Poor’s Net Advantage. Others might be valuable simplydue to their general applicability. These databases are LexisNexis Academic, Biographyin Context, andWeb of Science. The screencast program—Screencast-O-Matic—merely

Figure 2 Snapshot of a Database Tutorial Created via Screencast-O-Matic.

Communication Teacher 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

serves as a tool to generate the information tutorial. Others such as Screenr or Jing canproduce similar results.

Appraisal

One limitation of this activity is that, due to the truncated nature of the one-creditcourse, students did not have the opportunity to apply formative feedback andimprove their tutorials. Thus, screencasts that are lacking in some capacity must beredone by different students in a subsequent five-week section. Since these databasesare complex, the authors have not detected plagiarism, as each screencast variessomewhat from the next. Once re-created, the previous screencasts are deleted fromthe University Libraries’ Web site. Additionally, depending on students’ familiaritywith screencast technology and reporter (i.e., instructor) voice-over deliverytechnique, the overall quality of the tutorials can vary. Explicit standards outlinedin a rubric, however, can circumvent this latter limitation, and the Appendix revealsthe criteria that the authors used to assess students’ work.

The authors have anecdotal evidence that this activity has merit, as students havespecifically commented on the value of this capstone exercise and its implementation:

. “I liked the research database project. It was really beneficial because we will beusing these in the future.”

. “The database part was very helpful. It made me spend time with and learn how touse databases.”

. “I liked the hands-on approach [the instructor] applied to the class; it helped mefeel more involved with the class in general.”

These comments stem from qualitative assessment of the activity that the instructorcollected, as no qualitative comments explicitly mentioned the overall value of thisexercise in students’ end-of-course evaluations. This anonymous, formative feedbackconfirmed that students saw its benefit, connecting the database exploration andsubsequent screencast with their future academic needs. The evidence also suggestedthat this activity satisfies information literacy standards as they are defined by theAssociation for College and Research Libraries, where students learn to locate contentefficiently and critically evaluate it for accuracy, bias, and relevance. The activity alsoput theories articulated by Watson and Pecchioni (2011) and Sjoberg and Ahlfeldt(2010) into praxis, allowing students to become active participants in their ownlearning and creating group dynamics that bolster knowledge acquisition, respect-ively. Indeed, it is an example of the level of self-sufficiency that students can acquire,inside and outside the classroom, when faculty and librarians collaborate to create anactivity-based, course-integrated model for teaching research skills (Grafstein, 2002).

References and Suggested Readings

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards forhigher education. Chicago, IL: Association for College and Research Libraries. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf.

194 A. J. Kuban and L. M. Mulligan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Becker, C. H. Jr. (2009). Student values and research: Are Millennials really changing the future ofreference and research? Journal of Library Administration, 49, 341–364. doi:10.1080/01930820902832454

Bell, C., & Benedicto, J. (1998). The companion course: A pilot project to teach discipline-specificlibrary research skills. Reference Services Review, 26(3/4), 117–124. doi:10.1108/00907329810307812

Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 28, 197–204. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00283-5

Kolowich, S. (2011, August 22). What students don’t know. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/22/erial_study_of_student_research_habits_at_illinois_university_libraries_reveals_alarmingly_poor_information_literacy_and_skills

Mahaffy, M. (2006). Encouraging critical thinking in student library research: An application ofnational standards. College Teaching, 54, 324–327. doi:10.3200/CTCH.54.4.324-327

Morrison, D. (2012, March 30). Making peer evaluations work in online learning [Web log]. Retrievedfrom http://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/making-peer-evaluations-work-in-online-learning

Sjoberg, L. M., & Ahlfeldt, S. L. (2010). Bridging the gap: Integrating information literacy intocommunication courses. Communication Teacher, 24, 131–135. doi:10.1080/17404622.2010.489193

Stucker, H. (2005). Digital “natives” are growing restless. School Library Journal, 51(6), 9–10.Tewell, E. (2010). Video tutorials in academic art libraries: A content analysis and review. Art

Documentation, 29, 53–61.Watson, J. A., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2011). Digital natives and digital media in the college classroom:

Assignment design and impacts on student learning. Educational Media International, 48,307–320. doi:10.1080/09523987.2011.632278

Appendix: Rubric

Length: ____________________ (5:00–10:00 minutes)Clearly

AddressedVague/Unclear/Incomplete

NotAddressed

Background info re: database < 30 secondsExplanation re: when/what purpose to use itDemonstration how to search (incl. how to focus it withBoolean)

Demonstration how to export records (save/print/email/social)

Assess credibility of a source (e.g., evaluate via types)

At this point, the authors have not included any interpersonal or peer assessment in order to evaluate groupdynamics or individual contributions to the group’s screencast. Due to time constraints in the five-week durationof the course, the authors decided to focus on the product rather than the process.

Communication Teacher 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:28

10

Oct

ober

201

4