Teaching Demonstration Reflection

One of the four principles of constructivist learning posited by Susan Cooperstein and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger in “Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning” is that meaningful learning develops through “authentic” tasks. Further, their position is that structure is required or there is no guarantee of skill or concept learning, let alone transferability. This principle has impacted my thinking on constructivist theory more than any other that has been discussed this semester, not because it is the most important, but because it is the newest insight for me on constructivism. The prospect of teaching a skill or a concept in just five minutes seemed to me to preclude active engagement, and offered insufficient time for full assessment of student learning. But, there was time for a presentation of information that could provide a structure for future learning as well as immediate application, thus an authentic task.

In the preparation period leading up to our on-campus session and my demonstration presentation, I was considering what I might teach in five minutes that would give structure and be of value to librarians. It was in that frame of mind that I sat at the reference desk, along with the Assistant Department Head of Adult Services (my supervisor) one day, and a patron came to her and asked a question about an ancestor and vital records data. My Boss, the experienced librarian at the desk, turned to me and asked me for assistance because, as she told me afterward, she freezes whenever a patron asks about genealogy. This experience, and the direct suggestion from this supervisor, encouraged me to find a way to make this subject easier for a librarian to handle and to make that the focus of my teaching demonstration. It is my observation that the question is difficult, because responders usually try to research without finding a starting point. The structure is not there to establish a foundation on which to build. This scenario is similar to what Cooperstein and Kocevar-Weidinger address in their fourth principle about authentic tasks. Just searching isn’t really very effective, but applying some structure to the search makes all the difference. My intent was to teach an authentic task, not just database searching for the sake of searching.

With the general topic selected, I looked for a way to address the specific problem, responding to someone that wants to start a genealogical search for ancestors. In spite of my somewhat limited familiarity with the FamilySearch website, my awareness of its specific tools and instructions on this very issue, of getting started, came to mind. At this stage I also concluded that I would have to develop a handout with the learning objectives clearly outlined and with clear instructions for website access and navigation in order to provide the structure for future usage that would be so important, since my short teaching presentation would not permit assessment. (An assumption I have since deemed inaccurate.)

The lesson idea also fit another goal that I had in mind: wanting to present something that many students in the class had never used before. I wanted to introduce it and give a short experience with it so that they would see its simplicity and feel more confident in using it in a library setting. My preparation included becoming more familiar with the FamilySearch.org website myself, since I had not actually ever used the site or its tools and had only observed its use.

My first attempt at the instructional design of my lesson included writing three learning objectives that focused on an introduction to the concept of researching family history. From our live sessions I had been impressed with the process of developing learning objectives that state specific skills or knowledge that the learner should master and connecting that with a motivating reason for learning it by use of the words “in order to”. I wrote three objectives and then set about preparing instructional activities for each one. After timing the presentation of the selected concepts and using the search capabilities of the website, etc., it was obvious that it couldn’t be done in the allotted five minutes. Once again following the guidance offered in our live sessions and the material was cut in half, but it was still too long. I eventually minimized the objectives and redesigned the instruction to accomplish three new learning objectives, which were focused only upon the first of the original three objectives. This led to my not even trying to demonstrate the search functions of this very powerful search database. This was mentioned in feedback from some of the learners, who expressed disappointment in not seeing the search functionality. A Delta comment from Esther observed, “I’m not sure maybe you ran out of time and didn’t get to searching or maybe you didn’t intend to do that” and another from Alison lamented, “We hardly got to use the actual DB.” Unfortunately, while I had designed my instruction this way, I failed to mention it to the group directly enough for them to comprehend and I did not adequately set their expectations. Since my approach (not searching in a database) was unique, the learners were not prepared for it.

My intent was to solve the question of where to begin for the new genealogy searcher and give some guidance on how to respond to such a patron. I anticipated that there would be many new searchers as a result of a television series scheduled to begin broadcasting on the same weekend as my presentation. The program is about celebrities who were discovering their roots. Anticipating that program, it seemed needful to help librarians prepare to show someone how to get started on their genealogy.

Choosing this as the basic goal of my instruction, my new learning objectives focused on the things needed to answer the patron’s question, “How do I get started?” Since it is practically impossible to assess learning in a five minute session, I decided to rely on the handout to help the learners practice later with the website and access the PDF tool that was demonstrated. I recognized the need to convey the idea that the online document is best used after printing it and letting the genealogy researcher fill it in manually. To accomplish this I decided to print out a copy of the form and have it available as a visual aid. If I had it to do over again, I would include a copy of the PDF with the handout packet, so that each learner could see it in their hands and understand more clearly what it would look like and how to show it to patrons.

For the actual presentation I wanted an opening that would grab attention and instantly create interest in the subject. My opening question was intended to provoke thought, but also to put the next five minutes into a context where the learners could envision the need to listen to what I was about to say, because they were going to need to know the information about to be presented. The question followed my opening statements that there had been an event two nights before that had the potential to impact every librarian in America, meaning the television program. My final statement of the introduction was to say that tomorrow morning you may be the librarian that is asked, “How do I get started on my genealogy?” The question was then asked, “How are you going to respond?”

Based on the feedback, I think this opening had the desired effect. Almost every feedback sheet mentioned something about the opening introduction in the Plus section. Two of Melanie’s comments are good examples, “Really great attention-grabbing intro with current reference”, and “This context really made the need for this information immediate to us.” During the presentation several learners indicated that they were aware of the TV show and a few others instantly made the connection to the genealogy site I was about to discuss. I was pleased that I was off to a good start, but I may have overplayed it a bit and spent too much time on it. I should have seen that the hook was set, and moved on to the instruction.

My presentation was not dependent on use of the computer since I could have simply shown the PDF and given the website URL and explained how simple it is to find the “How to Get Started” links and perhaps provided some images of the site in the handout packet. My objective, however, was best achieved with some active learning rather than taking just a passive approach. I wanted to at least introduce learners to the website and have them get some hands on experience. That was achieved easily. Since my instruction did not involve significant database searching, I was able to stand in front of the class and not sit behind the computer screen. I believe this enabled me to engage the learners more directly, which led to more active instruction and participation. This is the best scenario for my teaching style. By spending less time engaged in computer work and more time on understanding how one of the website’s tools is accessed and used, the learning objectives were more effectively achieved.

I encountered some minor glitches due to my unfamiliarity with the technology available in the presentation room. The challenges were not significant, but I wasn’t prepared to deal with a MAC machine instead of a PC and the display threw me off for a moment. The class was helpful in helping me see that there really wasn’t a problem and I moved on pretty easily, but lost some time as a result and the presentation became slightly disjointed once or twice. As a result, I lost track of the time, and was surprised that my time was up when the timekeeper notified me. Since I had prepared exactly five minutes and had only lost about 20 to 30 seconds, I was able to recover and complete a more impromptu summary of the instruction. By timing this instruction out ahead of time, I was able to stay pretty close to the allotted time, even after fighting through some technology challenges which I did not understand.

In my summary closing, I came right back to the learning objectives and confirmed that we had covered the four steps and identified a tool that the learners could use to answer the patron question. This also tied in the closing statement with the opening theme.

Another Delta issue, which hadn’t even occurred to me, was mentioned in several of the learners’ feedback forms. Several of them expressed concern that the sponsor of the website is a religious organization. Apparently some of the learners found this to be potentially offending and caused them wonder about using such a site. It would have been a good point for discussion and appropriate for me to have cleared that up in class, but it probably could not have been done in the five minutes, and as I said, it hadn’t even occurred to me that it might be an issue. Next time I make such a presentation, I will prepare to address this issue head on, thus relieving learners of their concerns and free them from thinking about it, which may have impacted the attention of some during this presentation.

The strengths of my presentation lay in my ability to command presence in a classroom, and in my provocative introduction which invited profound attention to what was about to happen. Some of the feedback identified this as a strong aspect of my instruction and more specifically mentioned my engagement of the class. Carolyn commented, “Good presence”, and Simone said, “You command attention – good use of your body, your voice, and the presentation space”. Dominick also mentioned my “projection” and “energy”. While these are characteristics which I recognize as strengths in my presentation style, I have also learned over the years to control them and try not to move so much and hold my hands still and not wave them around quite so much. It has been a difficult thing to control, but I have made some progress.

The biggest weakness in my presentation was not being fully cognizant of the technology challenges I faced by using a MAC instead of a PC. When the screen on the monitor didn’t seem to show everything I wanted to describe, I was frustrated trying to find a way to change that. As someone pointed out to me finally, the projection screen was different from what I was looking at, and I was able to move on. Opening website links is also apparently different on a MAC than on a PC, and this caused some more consternation on my part. Some of the Delta comments in the feedback sheets suggested I practice with the technology before hand, which is a good suggestion that I will follow in the future.

In spite of the weaknesses, I think the presentation went well and that I accomplished the learning objectives, which were simple and easy to grasp. The handout made it possible for the learners to follow the instruction later when they may want to actually answer the patron question that was targeted in my presentation. Unfortunately, I did not establish a method of assessing the actual learning at the time of instruction and I can only guess if the objectives were reached.

Another insight that was once again confirmed for me in this experience is that in a classroom environment using questions to get students thinking about the concepts being presented is an effective way to set the stage for learning. When learners have to think about concepts and try to formulate answers in their own minds, and then try to articulate those answers to their instructor or to their peers, it causes more significant learning and deeper retention of the actual learning that takes place. It places the learners into situations where they have to consider how the instruction impacts them or will later impact them.

This methodology has become a part of my own teaching style. Using questions to set the stage is a simple way to focus learners on what I want them to be thinking about and on what I am going to teach. Using the questions in stages also allows for “scaffolding” to be built that permits the learners to add new knowledge upon existing knowledge as they acquire it. By doing this at their pace of understanding, they are in a better position to receive the new knowledge. I will continue to utilize this teaching method because it has repeatedly been shown to be very effective.

Something that I will try to learn from this experience and improve upon going forward is the need for complete preparation and consideration of assessment tools to match the learning objectives. I recognize their value to an instructor, particularly as I look back on this demonstration and must admit that I don’t know if anyone followed along in the class or if they are able to remember the tool that I demonstrated or even how to find it.

Most of all, I have been put in a situation through writing this reflection paper where I have had to review the process of instructional design and lay it over what I did to prepare and execute this teaching demonstration. Making that review at this point in the semester has been significantly powerful in my actually internalizing the concepts we have discussed about learning theory, learning objectives and assessment. I return to where I began. This course has impressed me with the ease by which we have been led through the structure of what was intended to be learned and in such a way that it has become my own, thus fulfilling the four principles of constructivist learning. The teaching demonstration is just one part of that process, but it is perhaps the central activity that has brought these many concepts together for me.

Sources cited:

Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning”. Reference Services Review 32:2 (2004) pp. 131-148.

5 minute Training Outline/Handout

Genealogy: How to Get Started Using FamilySearch.org


Learning Objectives:

1. Library staff will be able to show patrons how to retrieve the “How to Get Started” form on the FamilySearch.org website in order to get guidance on starting a family history research project.
2. Library staff will know and understand how to introduce the four steps of getting started in order to lead patrons through the steps.
Locating the “How to Get Started” Form

1. Open FamilySearch.org website by entering the URL into your browser
a. This is a free website accessible on the internet and be linked from library home page
b. Locate the “Get Started” picture on right side of screen
2. Access “Get Started” Form by doing the following:
a. click on the words link “Get Started” in the paragraph just above the picture, or click on the picture containing the words “Get Started”
b. On the next screen, click on the form represented in the picture under the title “Start Your Family History” located on the far right side of the screen, or
c. click on the words “How do I get Started, Guide” in the bullet list just below the picture on the far right side of the screen
3. Scroll down to see the entire form. This is actually a front and back form, shown here in a PDF version, which can be printed
a. The steps are listed on the front side of the form
b. A chart is located on the back of the form, showing four generations
4. This form can be printed out to record four generations of genealogical data
Getting Started Steps

1. Write down what you know.

2. Talk to your family.

3. Search other records.Preserve and share what you have gathered

Self-Directed Reading Post

Article 2: Using rubrics to assess information literacy

In January 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) established a set of standards for information literacy along with performance indicators and outcomes by which to measure attainment of the standards. This article’s thesis is stated in the proposal that there are several advantages of using a grading rubric to assess information literacy; 1. The learning objectives of library instruction are easily adapted to the literacy standards, 2. The rubric fits the library environment and is flexible to meet changes in that environment, 3. It provides clear measures of learning and states them at the outset of learning. The article reports the results of a study of the impact of using grading rubrics to assess a written learning outcome of information competency in a specific course for college freshman. The establishment of the course learning objectives and the grading rubrics was based on the literacy standards of the ACRL. The study results confirm a positive impact on outcomes by using grading rubrics based on literacy standards. Additionally, some aspects of the instruction were shown to be deficient in this study, and by reviewing this evaluative tool in this manner some improvements in the course were implemented later.
Using rubrics also leads to a more objective measure of students’ success in achieving the goals of the literacy standards. Instructors are also able to determine if the learning environment has any impact on the students’ learning. Further, the grading rubric can measure a specific outcome, such as happened in this study. It was desired to know if students valued scholarly sources over web sites, and that outcome was measured and assessed as a result of the rubric being used. It is seen that very specific goals can be achieved by use of rubrics to assess literacy.
The article emphasizes the need to formulate course objectives properly and inform students at the outset of those learning objectives. Another key finding was that it is very important to use authentic methods of evaluation, rather than episodic or self-reported methods. Authentic evaluations give real measures and are not subject to bias, wishful thinking or the students reporting what they might think is a desired evaluation.
The author uses the results of this study to encourage librarians to engage faculty in acceptance of the ACRL’s literacy standards. The results definitely reveal value in using rubrics to measure literacy outcomes in library instruction courses.

Article Citation: Knight, Lorrie A.. “Using rubrics to assess information literacy.” Reference Services Review 31.1 (2006): 43-55.

Self-Directed Reading Post

Article 1: How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials
Evaluation of teaching measurement tools, student performance and comparing results to learning objectives identifies strengths and weaknesses that can be addressed and adjusted as needed. The author uses personal experiences as a bibliographic instructor to develop a framework for revising a course’s objectives based on reviewing the results of current evaluative tools.
The author’s experiences show how to use the results of quizzes as one method to identify how well course objectives are defined and whether or not they are being met. There are, of course, other evaluative tools, which can get to the same results. Reflective writing exercises such as this one is another example. Offering a practical experience of executing on a skill being taught in a course is a third example. In each case, student performance is measured. Reviewing the results of those measurements is obviously an excellent way to determine any necessary adjustments in the defined learning objectives of the course. Further, this article surfaced in my mind the additional concept that review of such evaluative tools can identify any needed adjustments in pedagogy and can lead to the best formulations of the evaluative tools themselves. While the author didn’t specifically state this idea, the concept is apparent in the article. Another very helpful insight was the author’s quoting Brookhart’s point that instructors who focus on content rather than learning have difficulty with assessment. This statement highlights for me the need to remain focused on desired outcomes not only when writing objectives, but also when developing the teaching methods and evaluative tools. Maintaining focus on learning outcomes will produce the best results of any instruction opportunity.
Article Citation: Fagan, Jody Condit. “How to know what you want them to know. Rediscovering objectives by reviewing evaluative materials.” Research Strategies 18 (2001): 75-83.
Other works cited: Brookhart, S. M. The art and science of classroom assessment: the missing part of pedagogy. Washington DC (1999). George Washington University.

Self-Directed Reading Post

Article 2: Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries

By placing the psychosocial and cognitive development theories in the context of Carol Kuhltau’s Information Seeking Process (ISP) model and the Information Literacy (IL) Standards model of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Gatten’s objective is to encourage designers of library instruction to draft their learning process interventions to support and enhance students’ information research skills as they develop. Representative of this intention is his statement that “educational theory has value only to the extent that it is known and that it informs practice.” The author does acknowledge certain challenges and limitations in this approach, but encourages a gradual introduction to library resources as needed and as the student is prepared to receive the instruction or resource exposure (as measured along the development theory continuums, not necessarily linear in nature).
Since the development theories do not apply to each individual in exactly the same way or in the same time frames, it becomes difficult to apply a single interaction, or a few interactions, that will meet all of the needs of all of the students all at once. The interactions must come in shorter pieces of time, and offer smaller segments of knowledge, and at multiple times (frequently) to span the development process. This approach allows for interactions to come at the time when students are prepared for them, or in other words, when they are in the proper developmental vector, stage or phase to appreciate and receive the instruction. Gatten provides an interesting mapping diagram comparing the stages or vectors of two development theories to the stages of the ISP and the standards of IL by aligning them on a comparative progression line. The intent of this new model is to allow instruction designers to match programs to audiences in their anticipated developmental phase, their information seeking skill level and while in the perceived stage of the search process. It is an interesting approach, fraught with difficulty since instructors and designers are not psychologists or experts at determining development progress and skill levels. For that matter, who could possibly do that analysis in one interaction? However, with some care and understanding, use of the model has the potential to assist designers and instructors to provide more effective and successful library instruction interventions.

Article Citation: Gatten, Jeffrey N.. “Student psychosocial and cognitive development: theory to practice in academic libraries.” Reference Services Review 32.2 (2004): 157-163.

Self-Directed Reading Post

Article 1: A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).