PERSPECTIVES ON..

.· Using POGIL Techniques in an

Information Literacy Curriculumby Erik Mitchell and Derrik HiattAvailable online 22 September 2010

This article presents a case study of theauthors' experience using the POGILmethod

in an information literacy (IL) course. Wedescribe our approach to using POGIL and

discuss both the instructor and studentobservations about the experience. The

article concludeswith recommendations forfuture uses of POGIL in IL.

Erik Mitchell is Assistant Director for Technology Services,Z. Smith Reynolds Library, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC27106, USA<mitcheet@wfu.edu>;Derrik Hiatt is Electronic Resources Librarian,Z. Smith Reynolds Library, Wake Forest University, WinstonSalem, NC 27106, USA<hiattcd@wfu.edu>.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 36, Number 6, pages 539–5

P rocess-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL) is a teach-ing method based on constructivist principles that enablesstudents to learn through group interaction and problem

solving. POGIL-based instruction normally uses structured exercises.These exercises present student groups with a problem and guidethem through the steps necessary to solve that problem. Studentsthen apply their understanding of the process to new problems. POGILhas typically been used in the physical sciences, where newknowledge often builds upon earlier findings.

Wake Forest University, a mid-sized private university, offers anelective, 1-credit-hour course in information literacy (LIB 100). Thiscourse is typically offered in 10–12 sections per semester, each sectionbeing taught by different librarians. While there is a general LIB 100curriculum, with broad topics to be taught, instructors approach thatcurriculum with their own individual teaching style and methods.Given the technical nature of some aspects of information literacyinstruction, the authors, who together taught a LIB 100 course during2009, felt that the POGIL method might well be adapted to fit a libraryinstruction course. This approach allowed students to have hands-onexperience inside the classroom and work together to discoverstrengths and weaknesses of various approaches to the problemspresented.

This article presents a case study of the authors' experience usingthe POGIL method in an information literacy (IL) course. One typicalfocus of IL courses is on research question definition and research/literature review methods. POGIL appeared to be a good fit for theseareas given their technical and detail-oriented nature. In this articlewe describe our approach to using POGIL to teach this content anddiscuss both the instructor and student observations about the course.The primary goal of this article is to serve as a template from whichother information literacy course content can be designed.

REVIEW OF LITERATUREInformation Literacy (IL) curricula tend to be based on one or more ILmodels. These models often focus on information-seeking processes,1

the role of technology in defining IL,2 the role of social elements in IL,3

and the relationship between IL skills and information ethics andissues.4,5 Each of these models adopts a slightly different focus fordiscussing relevant skills, conceptual competencies, and social andlegal issues. One common theme in these models is the need toconnect IL with other (non-library) disciplines.

The trend in adopting IL as an interdisciplinary foundation forencouraging student learning across multiple curricula has beenreported by Rollins et al.6 Common interdisciplinary themes includethe impact of resource evaluation, information technology (IT) skills,and information-seeking processes. One of the primary challenges inIL, however, is framing these tasks and concepts in a way that isaccessible and appropriate for students. This difficulty is based in part

42 November 2010 539

on the gap between IT and IL skills.7,8 Despite this gap, students arereportedly confident about their abilities to conduct library research.For example, 80% of students surveyed in the recent Smith, et al.,study identified themselves as “highly literate” with regards tointernet research.9 In this study, students who had a high self-efficacyrating with regards to technology were also more confident abouttheir IL level overall. Given these attitudes, it can be difficult to createan IL curriculum that is engaging for students.

One method which has been suggested as being effective indelivering IL skills and content is the POGIL method. POGIL usesstructured worksheets to take students through “understand/identify,”“analyze,” and “create” stages of learning. These stages are parallel toBloom's Taxonomy,10 which defines learning using seven broad levels(Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating andCreating). The goal of both POGIL and other Bloom's Taxonomy basedapproaches is to guide students through these learning stages. POGILapplies Bloom's Taxonomy by combining content learningwith processskills.

In the POGILmethod, students collaborate in small groupsworkingon structured exercises, with each student taking on a specific grouprole—Manager, Recorder, Technician, Reflector, or Presenter.11 Byusing classroom time on these group exercises, POGIL allows theteacher to become a facilitator for learning and to provide directedattention to students and groups on an as-needed basis.12 Minderhout& Loertscher13 assert that this facilitator role helps students to learnprocess skills, such as teamwork and communication, along withdiscipline-based content. Guided inquiry worksheets are used tostructure the learning experience and include three primary sections:Model/Data/Information definition, Critical thinking, and Applica-tion. These correspond to the three phases of guided-inquiry learning:exploration, concept invention or formation, and application.14 Whileworksheets may re-combine or cycle through these three phases, theintent is to scaffold the student learning experience enough to allowthem to be self-directed.15

By centering the learning in student-led groups, POGIL builds onthe foundation of constructivism (student-created knowledge) andsocial constructivism (knowledge created in social context).16 Thesekey concepts are incorporated into POGIL through group work andstudent-centered problem-based learning. POGIL is also argued tocatalyze learning by encouraging student leadership and accountabil-ity.17,18 Farrell, et. al. cite a number of constructivist-focused views ofeffective teaching environments including (a)“they are activelyengaged and thinking in class,” (b)“they construct knowledge anddraw conclusions themselves by analyzing data and discussing ideas,”and (c)“they learn to work together to understand concepts and solveproblems.”19

POGIL can be assessed in a number of ways including studentresponse surveys,20 student performance in the course as compared toother methods,21 and student retention of material into subsequentcourses.22 Cole and Bauer23 suggest additional assessment techniquesincluding student and peer-based assessment, interviews, journals,activity assessments, and a Strength, Improvement and Insighttechnique.

POGIL has been shown to be an effective learning method,particularly in chemistry. A study comparing POGIL-based classes totraditional lecture classes in organic chemistry at 7 universities foundsignificantly better performance on exams. The study also found“significantly higher growth in process skills” (critical thinking,teamwork, and self-assessment) among the students in POGIL-basedclasses.24 Students have also reported a preference for the POGILmethod over traditional lecture, and report that they learn better inPOGIL-based classes.25,26 Daubenmire and Bunce have found, how-ever, that variations in POGIL implementation can result in differentoutcomes; student performance improves when guided by morequestions to extend their group discussions, and “students who must

540 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

provide reasoning for their responses appear to develop more lastingconceptual understanding.”27

An initial search of literature for IL courses using POGIL techniquesdid not return any previously documented examples. Given thepositive experience with POGIL in technical environments theinstructors decided to use it for the information/research skillsportion of an IL course. The instructors examined the framework ofstructured worksheets and created three worksheets which tookstudents through the process of defining a research question, definingtheir information need, and finding and evaluating resources. In eachworksheet the following stages were used as a base framework:

1. Explore—provide students with data, models, or other instruc-tional elements which employ “identify” or “understand” knowl-edge. Ask students to explore base models and concepts.

2. Identify, concept formation—using progressive questioning andadditional concept identification, define terms and models forstudents. The key objective in this phase is to provide students aframework within which they can fit their current knowledge.

3. Analyze/create/explore—provide studentswith problem-based oropen-ended tasks which require them to apply their knowledge innew ways.

Given the reported success of these elements and the direct fitwith IL on the research and resource evaluation process, POGIL-styleworksheets were used for these sections of the course. The remainderof this article presents the method as a case study and reflects on thesuccess of the process using both instructor and student providedthoughts.

CASE STUDYIn designing the POGIL portion of the course, the authors built onexperiences using other interactive instruction techniques. Some ofthose methods involved electronic survey devices (e.g. clickers,short surveys), in-class worksheets or exercises for discrete topics,and student-driven independent research projects. For this study,the instructors focused on creating a series of worksheets thatstudents would use to learn research problem definition, resourcediscovery, resource evaluation, and research process managementskills. The worksheets were progressive, each one building onprevious content, and were designed to be used following the POGILgroup structure.

In addition to the research methods portion of the course, we usedtwo class sessions to include instruction on using technology tools(e.g., citation managers and search alerts/notifications) to manageresearch more effectively. There were also classes on informationissues, information technology concepts, and exploration classes onthe impact of popular information environments on our everydaylives. These other units of the class used other instruction methods,including traditional lecture, group presentations, and blog-informedclass discussion. These topics were not seen to be a good fit for POGILmethods given their emphasis on exploratory and non-methodicaldiscussion. In retrospect, however, it would certainly be possible toadopt a POGIL approach for some other parts of the course. Thetechnology tools sessions in particular might feasibly be moreeffectively delivered as a worksheet.

The course included four assignments, two of which focused on ILskills (e.g. definition of a research question, identification andevaluation of resources). The other two assignments focused on ILconceptual competencies and included blog posting/class discussionson information issues and a group-based assignment on web-basedapplications (e.g. flickr, Google docs).

The POGIL-focused classes were conducted in the middle of thesemester, and although they were not consecutive, the worksheets

presented the information sequentially. A total of four class sessionswere used for the exercises. As suggested by the POGIL handbook, theinstructors briefly introduced the methods that the class would beusing for the POGIL sessions. We reviewed the worksheets in general,discussed the roles that each group member would adopt, and askedstudents to form groups.

The instructors attempted to follow the progression of taskcomplexity in the worksheets and find appropriate stopping pointsduring each class but found that the exercises took longer thanexpected and it was unrealistic for students to complete eachworksheet during class. This proved to be a learning experience infacilitation for the instructors as it seemed important to discuss thekey questions for major sections during the class in which they werecovered. While the worksheets were modified slightly based on classexperience, the structure is still likely to break over multiple classes.The worksheets for the course are included as Appendix A, B, and Cand comprise the following topics:

Research Topic Identification and ExplorationIn this worksheet, groups use the same broad topic, “cell phone

safety,” and are guided through an initial exploration of resources tohelp identify possible research avenues. Each student in the group isgiven a specific resource to search for background information (e.g.New York Times, Google, CQ Researcher) and is asked to answerquestions about what they found. Key questions in the initial sectionask the group to compare resources and identify common themes intheir topic. In the second portion of this worksheet the group isasked to diagram their topic as a “topic map.” Students are guidedthrough an identification process with an example map (e.g. “whatare the main topics,” “what are the sub topics,” “which sub-topics arerelated?”) and then are asked to form their own research map afterselecting and reading an in-depth article from their resource. Thefinal key questions ask groups to analyze their findings, to create aresearch or thesis statement, and to reflect on the content of theirstatement.

Topic Outline and Resource IdentificationIn this worksheet, groups are asked to start with the research

question from their previous worksheet and write out an initialoutline for how they would answer their question. They are againtaken through the identify-formulate-create phases by analyzing anexisting outline and then creating one based on their previousresearch. Students review the information timeline concept byidentifying the timeliness and indexed location for a list of differentresource types (e.g. newspapers, books, journals, blogs, newswebsites). Groups are then asked to review the outline they createdin the first exercise and identify which resource types are likely to filltheir information need for each portion of the outline. Following theidentification of resources, students are asked to think about theresources that fit their topic and consider how changing their topicwould change their resource needs. Next, students are introduced to anumber of databases and are tasked with searching a database forinformation on the previously-identified information need. Duringthis process, students are introduced to searching and browsingconcepts and are asked to identify the presence of these features inthe selected database. The students are asked to reflect as a group onthe resources they found and the appropriateness of the database theysearched.

Resource EvaluationFor the final worksheet, students are tasked with evaluating

resources in depth. The resource evaluation was framed within thecontext of a research question that was similar in scope and structureto those created by the students in previous worksheets. In thisworksheet all groups are presented with an identical research

question. Each group was assigned a different article to read andwas asked to assess the resource using fourmetrics—authority, topicalaccuracy, content accuracy/bias, and publisher perspective. Keyquestions in this section asked students to think about what rolethe resource played in answering the research question and askedthem to suggest what other information they would need. These twoquestions were specifically intended to encourage students to thinkabout the research management process and to discuss the process ofmonitoring research need.

OBSERVATIONS

Following the four sessions, the instructors discussed with studentssome background information about POGIL and the structure of thefour classes. As was seen in other case studies, students showedoverall positive attitudes towards POGIL during in-class reflection.Students observed that working in group environments was mademore enjoyable because class assessment was based on individualwork, thus taking pressure off of the group interaction. Second,students indicated that the active nature of learning these conceptsand skills was preferable to other methods.

It was interesting to note, however, that students were ready tomove on to other class interaction styles. When asked if they wouldlike a course that was entirely based on this method they wereskeptical, indicating that a mix of techniques would be preferable.This discussion thread signaled to the instructors that while POGILwas an excellent fit for the technical portions of the class (e.g.constructing a research question, finding and evaluating literature), itwas not necessarily the best approach for discussion or issue-centered topics (e.g. information ethics, history of the web). Perhapsgiven the small number of students in the course (9), we found iteasier to have students engage in class discussions as a whole. Thiswould not scale up in a larger setting and perhaps in thatenvironment a POGIL-based group technique might prove to bemore effective.

One challenge we found was that by limiting our POGIL-basedinteraction to four class sessions, we failed to create the groupdynamics that are documented as being key to an effective POGIL-based classroom. For example, student absences made it difficult forgroups to have cohesiveness over the short time period and studentsdid not think of the groups as persisting between classes. As a result,students did not cement into an inter-dependent group as they mightif the entire course had focused on this structure. The instructors didobserve that while students seemed initially hesitant about forminggroups, they very quickly settled into working through the work-sheets; following the first class which involved the worksheets, classtime was almost completely spent working through the exercises andclass discussion. Students appeared to already be equipped with theskills required to work in groups and learn through interactiveworksheets.

One key technique used throughout the exercises was to havestudents in each group complete variations of the same task usingsimilar resources. For example in the “resource identification”exercise, each student in the group was given a different databaseto work with. This naturally set up groups to have a commonframework but different experiences to discuss. This enabled thegroup as a whole to investigate an IL concept in more detail and to seethe outcomes of different approaches. This granular understandingand discussion appeared to bemuchmore detailed than lecture-basedcontent could have produced.

While the course did not gather any quantitative data regardingstudent learning, overall performance in the course was good.Students as a whole performed well on assignments related to thePOGIL-based content, indicating that at the very least they had acommon conception of assignment expectations and had a detailedframework from which they could approach their assignments.

November 2010 541

Students also revealed that they had used the exercise worksheetswhile later conducting their individual research. Of note, students inthe course tended away from print resources and overall seemed tohave a fuzzy picture of the elements of a scholarly resource. Futureversions of the exercises will need to address this shortcoming.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPSThe POGIL approach includes a wide range of pedagogical andassessment techniques. This course attempted to implement only avery limited set of these techniques, including progressiveworksheetsand student-driven group work as opposed to lecture. Ongoingassessment such as homework based on the worksheets, weeklyquizzes, and other ongoing assessments would help a comparativeassessment of POGIL approaches in relation to other techniques.

The limited use of POGIL in this course did reduce its impact, but itis expected that future applications of the worksheets and POGILmethodology in IL courses could mitigate this effect. Some keyconcerns that should be addressed in future courses are the lack ofgroup cohesiveness and revision of worksheets to address limitationsof previous implementation. Further, POGIL techniques could beextended to other relevant content areas.

Overall the POGIL experience in this course was a positive one. Itallowed the instructors to employ a mix of pedagogical techniquesand provided students with documented frameworks which theycould use outside of the class. Students appeared to be happy with theuse of group work in class but individual grading for assignments, andthey were much more interactive in the POGIL portions of the coursethan in other sections.

APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online atdoi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.010.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Implementing a Process Approach to Informa-tion Skills: A Study Identifying Indicators of Success in LibraryMedia Programs,” School Library Media Quarterly 22 (Fall 1993):11–18http://archive.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/slmr_resources/select_kuhlthau1.html.

2. Jeremy J. Shapiro and Shelley K. Hughes, “Information literacy as aliberal art,” Educom Review 31, no. 2 (March 1996): 31.

3. Kimmo Tuominen, Reijo Savolainen, and Sanna Talja, “Informationliteracy as a sociotechnical practice,” Library Quarterly 75 (July2005): 329–345.

4. Association of College and Research Libraries, “InformationLiteracy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” (Chicago,IL, January 18, 2000) http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standards.pdf.

5. Jesus Lau, “Guidelines on Information Literacy for LifelongLearning,” 2006 http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/guidelines-on-information-literacy-for-lifelong-learning.

6. Debra Cox Rollins et-al., “Are We There Yet? The Difficult Road toRe-Create Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 9(October 2009): 453–473.

542 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

7. Shannon D. Smith, Gail Salaway, and Judith Borreson Caruso, TheECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,2009 (Educause Center for Applied Research, 2009), http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0906/rs/ERS0906w.pdf.

8. Ian Rowlands, et al., “The Google generation: the informationbehaviour of the researcher of the future,” Aslib Proceedings 60(2008): 290–310.

9. Smith, Salaway, and Caruso, The ECAR Study of UndergraduateStudents and Information Technology, 2009.

10. D.R. Krathwohl, “A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview,”Theory into Practice 41 (2002): 212–218.

11. David Hanson, “POGIL | POGIL Instructor's Guide,” 2006, http://pogil.org/resources/implementation/instructors-guide.

12. John J. Farrell, Richard S. Moog and James N. Spencer, “A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Course,” Journal of Chemical Education76 (April 1, 1999): 570–574.

13. VickyMinderhout and Jennifer Loertscher, “Facilitation: The role ofthe Instructor,” Process Oriented guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL),ACS Symposium Series 994 (Washington, DC: American ChemicalSociety, 2008), 72–86.

14. Hanson, “POGIL | POGIL Instructor's Guide.”15. Farrell, Moog, and Spencer, “A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry

Course.”16. Thomas Eberlein, et al., “Pedagogies of Engagement in Science: A

Comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL,” Biochemistry and MolecularBiology Education 36 (2008): 262–273.

17. Ibid.18. Hanson, “POGIL | POGIL Instructor's Guide.”19. Farrell, Moog, and Spencer, “A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry

Course,” 570.20. Andrei Straumanis and Emily A. Simons, “A Multi-Institutional

Assessment of the Use of POGIL in Organic Chemistry,” ProcessOriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), ACS Symposium Series994 (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2008),226–239.

21. Farrell, Moog, and Spencer, “A Guided-Inquiry General ChemistryCourse.”

22. Suzanne M. Ruder and Sally S. Hunnicutt, “POGIL in ChemistryCourses at a Large Urban University: A Case Study,” ProcessOriented guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), ACS Symposium Series994 (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 2008),133–147, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch012.

23. Renee S. Cole and Christopher F. Bauer, “Assessing POGILImplementations,” Process Oriented guided Inquiry Learning(POGIL), ACS Symposium Series 994 (Washington, DC: AmericanChemical Society, 2008), 213–225.

24. Straumanis and Simons, “A Multi-Institutional Assessment of theUse of POGIL in Organic Chemistry.”

25. Ruder and Hunnicutt, “POGIL in Chemistry Courses at a LargeUrban University: A Case Study.”

26. Straumanis and Simons, “A Multi-Institutional Assessment of theUse of POGIL in Organic Chemistry.”

27. Patrick L. Daubenmire and Diane M. Bunce, “What do studentsexperience during POGIL instruction?,” Process Oriented guidedInquiry Learning (POGIL), ACS Symposium Series 994 (Washington,DC: American Chemical Society, 2008), 98.