|
Articles Conference Reviews |
Session K29Catching the Wave of Information Literacy in First-Year Composition: Results of a Collaborative Study Conducted by a Writing Program, a Writing Center, and a University Library Though it might surprise some Rhetoric and Composition professionals that information literacy is riding a new wave, it is clear that partnerships between first-year writing programs, writing centers, and academic libraries like the one at California State University Channel Islands are becoming more visible in the field. Nearly every first-year composition program in the country has some responsibility for developing students’ information literacy skills, yet this topic has been conspicuously absent from the CCCC program over the past few years. Presentations from first-year writing teachers and their writing center colleagues are common to every program, yet presentations—and more importantly partnerships between compositionists and librarians—have only recently been topics of interest. The wave is growing, though it is not quite big enough to ride just yet. The first of four speakers from CSU Channel Islands, Debra Hoffman provided attendees with the background on her institution and the impetus for the ongoing collaboration between writing teachers, writing center tutors, and university librarians. Hoffman labeled Channel Islands as a “unique campus” due to its emphasis in all it does on four cultural pillars: interdisciplinary, internationalism, multiculturalism, and civic engagement. Hoffman argued that these pillars make collaboration central to the university’s mission, thus creating the opportunity and institutional support for a campus-wide program in information literacy. Hoffman added that their collaboration was aided by the CSU system’s partnership with ETS to design and deliver its ICT assessment, as the well documented problems with the results of the ICT test led the Chancellor’s Office to offer grants for system schools to better determine information literacy skills and develop ways to improve instruction in them. Next, Stacey Anderson and Christine Popok provided information on the first-year writing program at Channel Islands, focusing on the program’s commitment to incoming and outgoing assessment. Since the program already had a system in place of directed self-placement and a corresponding “scholastic” exit measurement, Anderson and Popok worked with their team to develop a similar entering-exiting assessment of their students’ information literacy skills. The researchers used an annotated bibliography assignment paired with a self-reflection essay to gauge students’ research skills at the beginning of the course, and they used class wikis to allow students to share their research throughout the course and to allow teachers to assess their research at the conclusion of the course. As Anderson commented of this work, “We are trying to bring research more substantially into our courses.” Hoffman and Kathleen Klompien took over at this point to provide more detail on the beginnings of their collaboration. The pair discussed how their collaboration grew from concerns expressed by students in the writing center on how to effectively conduct research for their first-year writing courses. The writing center director, in consultation with tutors in the center, decided that they needed to better define what support they should provide to students requesting research help. The director also decided that she wanted to involve campus librarians in the training of writing center tutors. Hoffman commented that librarians saw this as a wonderful opportunity since, “we as librarians don’t see products,” emphasizing the point that the instruction they provide to students—in library sessions and individual consultations—does not immediately create products to examine in order to validate or revise their instruction. Not only did campus librarians get involved in training writing center tutors, but they also got involved in the administration and assessment of the annotated bibliography assignment in first-year writing. Hoffman added that the assignment “helped librarians better understand the processes of students by examining the products of their research.” The group paused at this point to mention some of the challenges with the annotated bibliography assignment. Klompien noted that the initial assignment did not lead to source variety; therefore, the assignment and reflective component were strengthened and the rubric was revised. These changes led to the group’s finding that some research topics do not lend themselves to traditional library sources. Despite changes to the assessment process and artifacts, Klompien noted the assessment has led to better articulating of values for research among librarians, writing center tutors, and first-year writing teachers. Klompien commented that this collaboration has “changed the closed view of responsibilities in teaching research.” Hoffman extended this argument by closing with the statements that their project is more about “connection than collaboration” and that their group is committed to “teaching information literacy for a lifetime.” All presenters acknowledged the decision to localize assessment in meaningful and valid ways has led to their mutual commitment to examine both students’ processes and products, a commitment they believe is often missing in information literacy instruction on most campuses. This project and this final point makes me think the wave just got a little bigger, and rightfully so. |