This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 10 November 2014, At: 14:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Library & Information Servicesin Distance LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlis20

A Model for Designing Library Instructionfor Distance LearningAngela Doucet Rand aa University of South Alabama Baldwin County Campus Library ,University of South Alabama , Fairhope , Alabama , USAPublished online: 12 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Angela Doucet Rand (2013) A Model for Designing Library Instruction forDistance Learning, Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7:1-2, 84-92, DOI:10.1080/1533290X.2012.705570

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705570

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

Journal of Library & Information Servicesin Distance Learning, 7:84–92, 2013Copyright © A. D. RandISSN: 1533-290X print / 1533-2918 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1533290X.2012.705570

A Model for Designing Library Instructionfor Distance Learning

ANGELA DOUCET RANDUniversity of South Alabama Baldwin County Campus Library, University of South Alabama,

Fairhope, Alabama, USA

Providing library instruction in distance learning environmentspresents a unique set of challenges for instructional librarians. In-novations in computer-mediated communication and advancesin cognitive science research provide the opportunity for designinglibrary instruction that meets a variety of student information seek-ing needs. Using a systematic and dynamic model when designinglibrary instruction can increase student search proficiency.

KEYWORDS instructional design, library instruction, instruc-tional models

INTRODUCTION TO A SYSTEMATIC LIBRARYINSTRUCTION MODEL

Distance students often interact with instructional and research librariansthrough computer-mediated communication (CMC). The body of researchenumerating and exploring variables that exhibit a potential influence oncomputer-mediated communication is growing. The increasing incidence ofonline learning has prompted a plethora of studies on how to design in-struction that learners will engage with and that will prompt higher orderlearning. Research supports an expanded role for librarians in this situa-tion. Engagement and learning strategies that promote productive inquiry inlearners, minimizes distractions, attends to affective skills, and promotes thecontinual development of information search skills are some aspects of goodonline instruction.

The library instruction model (LIM) proposed in this paper is basedon systems and cognitive learning theories and principles typically used by

Address correspondence to Angela Doucet Rand, University of South Alabama BaldwinCounty Campus Library, 10 N. Summit St., Fairhope, AL 36532, USA. E-mail: angela.rand@gmail.com

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Model for Designing Library Instruction 85

instructional designers when designing instruction for a variety of academicdomains. Additionally, when delivering information services to students indistance learning environments, a model thatincorporates a process approachwill best serve students and instructors (Kuhlthau 2004). Inherent in all ofthese theoretical propositions is astute attention to the affective perception,or attitudinal engagement, of the student.

Engaging the attention of distance learning students can be challenging.Providing them with appropriate levels of library and information instructiononline can be daunting. Students approach research activities cloaked withtwo distinct conditions that impact their success: They lack experience inconducting research and they are frustrated in their attempts to produce workthat aligns with the parameters of assignments. These are skills and attitudeissues respectively, and the failure to address both can impede progresstoward competency in research. The distance learning student’s feelings ofisolation exacerbates both conditions. Instructional and reference librarianscan incorporate the LIM into classroom and reference services to providestudents with resources they need at the point of inquiry.

Librarians can learn to recognize motivational aspects that affect stu-dents’ progress in information seeking activities. A design framework is sug-gested for distance learning students and the design of relevant instructionthat maps appropriately to the various stages of information seeking is pro-posed. The LIM design framework suggests a way of designing the presen-tation of instructional interventions to use when students become uncertainof how to proceed in a research project.

Often library instruction is considered from a perspective of availableresources and ways in which to point students toward accessing thoseresources. The LIM design framework considers the student’s needs firstthen points them toward appropriate resources and at the same time ac-knowledges and validates the impact of affective responses operating in thestudent.

BACKGROUND ON STUDENT COGNITIVE FUNCTIONSAND MOTIVATION

Vygotsky proposes that dialogue leading to learning is processed throughtwo kinds of interconnected communications (as cited in Wells 2007). One’sinner thoughts comprised of meditative thinking such as reflection, proposi-tioning, and conceptual questioning are one kind of communication. Theseare the unseen active processing activities often referred to anecdotallyas cogitation. A second kind of thinking is in externalizing these ideas,propositions, and conceptual beliefs and negotiating meanings throughdebate, discussion, and synthesis in purposeful public dialogues. In theclassroom these externalized parts are represented in coursework by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

86 A. D. Rand

presentation of written documents, and they constitute what is consideredto be evidence of learning. Together these two kinds of communicationconstitute an episode of learning. Dewey refers to this process asintrospective learning within a common cognitive enterprise (as cited inHawkins 2002). Active processing of personal knowledge representationsand concomitant social discourse usher higher order thinking skills. Scar-damalia and Bereita (1999)propose thinking as an active process character-ized and operationalized through inquiry, debate, and explanations. Sociallymediated dialogue assumes a pronounced role in operationalizing higher or-der thinking skills. The LIM incorporates student to instructor communicationas a major aspect of online library instruction.

Communication theory has important implications for designing libraryinstruction. The basic components of sender, receiver, message, and mediumengage collaterally with the biological, cognitive, and social-psychologicalperspectives of instructional design. Communication theory complementsinstructional design’s philosophical, scholarly, and practical concerns whendesigning, developing, and providing instruction. There are two basic philo-sophical perspectives of communication. Rational-empiricism contends thatknowledge acquisition is a logical process based on data consumption andreasoning. This reflects the transmission and behavioral perspectives of com-munication. The constructivist philosophy places emphasis on the humanaspect of knowledge building. This philosophy sees communication as a so-cial process influenced by environment and culture. The LIM relies upon theconstructivist philosophy and views discourse as an important componentof library instruction.

The communication channel proposes a mediated aspect of communi-cation (Richey, Klein, and Tracey 2011). A channel is mediated through visualimages, sound, and text, and the learners’ concomitant ability to use infor-mation presented in such messages is a concern when designing instruction.Attention characteristics and cognitive load impact learning. When designinginstruction, designers manipulate mediated aspects of the communicationchannel to optimally meet learning needs. Good practice of this skill resultsin library instruction that is usable and effective. Additionally the capacityto develop individualized instruction can be leveraged through attention tocultural differences and the use of customized content that is suitable fordeployment in global learning environments. Computer-mediated communi-cation presents an opportunity to design “a la carte” instructional modulesthat are reusable and easy to update.

MULTIMEDIA DESIGN

Computer-mediated communication is broadly seen to be any human com-munication that takes place during the process of engaging with other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Model for Designing Library Instruction 87

humans (Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic 2008) and email and online discus-sions are a type of CMC. Videos, texts, blog posts, and images comprisemultimedia content that are routinely sent through computer networked sys-tems in order to communicate with other humans. This type of communica-tion has increasing implications for how teaching and learning are conducted.Clark and Mayer (2008) have written an entire book on e-learning that pro-vides scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of using multiple forms ofCMC when designing instruction. These multiple forms of communicationenable elaborate and effective ways of communicating beyond the tradi-tional in-class instruction. The LIM makes good use of the nine principles ofmultimedia instruction found in Clark and Mayer (2008).

Inventions and innovations in computer technology have improved ac-cessibility to programs and products that facilitate human communicationprocesses and that can be enlisted into teaching and learning scenarios.Today instructors, learners, and content interactions are mediated throughcomputer technologies such as personal computers, cellular phones, andmobile computing devices. Innovations in technology have borne new waysof communicating that can be visual, vocal, or textual.

The complexity of the human brain in the process of learning is not soeasy to harness into the role of active learning. Regarding online learningClark and Mayer (2008) acknowledge three e-learning architectures coupledto three types of learning: (a) a receptive architecture supports informationacquisition; (b) a direct architecture supports the strengthening of perfor-mance responses; and importantly for this study, (c) guided discovery sup-ports knowledge construction through interactive collaborations. Guided dis-covery for facilitating knowledge construction can be supported through theuse of multimedia. Multimedia artifacts leverage the dual channels for pro-cessing visual and verbal materials which lessens cognitive load for learners(Clark and Mayer 2008). The nine principles of multimedia learning pro-vide a map for designing effective online instructional modules that reducecognitive load.

Regarding online learning Verhoeven and Graesser (2008) ask, “Howcan cognitive overload be minimized during processes of information search,document comprehension, knowledge integration, and written documenta-tion?” (p. 292). Online communications serve the two functions of communitydevelopment and individual cognitive processing function. Individual cog-nitive processing is comprised of several cognitive component processes:Students read the materials to gain comprehension; they engage in an in-ternal rhetorical process when writing about what they comprehend; andfinally, through reflection they take a greater understanding of the materialsaway. Various outcomes are expected from the use of online communi-cations, such as support for various learning styles; the development of alearning community as the course progresses; the exertion of higher or-der thinking skills in the pursuit of problem solving; and the elaboration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

88 A. D. Rand

of cognitive schemas through argumentative, discursive, and reflectivewritings.

A LIBRARY INSTRUCTION MODEL

This model is derived from the philosophies and activities found in Merrill’sFirst Principles of Instruction (Richey, Klein, and Tracey 2011), Reigeluth’sElaboration Theory (Reigeluth 1999), and the author’s own experience withdeveloping instruction for and teaching undergraduate information literacyskills. It is a theoretically driven model based on a cognitive constructivistframework. It is learner-centric and focuses on interactions that contributeto developing a strong knowledge base and eliciting higher order thinkingskills.

LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS AND LIM

To solve the complex issue of providing instruction at various knowledgelevels to students with multiple levels of experience and knowledge, LIMintegrates some aspects of the model structure from Reigeluth’s ElaborationTheory (Tennyson 2005). Elaboration Theory proposes that students shouldbe first presented with a signal representation or product that is an exemplarof what they will be learning. Reigeluth calls these products epitomes. Assuch, in LIM, epitomes are learning episodes and an overview of the instruc-tional objective is presented to show students what they will be learning. Inthis manner learning is focused on achieving a version of the representedepitome. Kuhlthau (2004) describes a behavior pattern often found in stu-dents seeking information: Students experience a range of feelings, thoughts,and actions during the process. They range from feelings of confusion to con-fidence and satisfaction in a recursive pattern that changes according to thestage of information searching. Instructional librarians familiar with thesestages, and cognizant of the student’s level of experience and knowledge,can provide appropriate and timely interventions.

THE AFFECTIVE ASPECT OF LEARNING

Learning engagement is enhanced when instruction is presented with atten-tion to creating an experience that is coherently connected to the overalllearning goal (Parrish 2005). LIM is concerned with developing a learningexperience that is aesthetically charged in the design phase so that learn-ers anticipate content, are impelled to learn, and gain a feeling of satis-faction from completion of the course. These are all motivational concerns

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Model for Designing Library Instruction 89

and a motivational component should be considered for each informationseeking stage (Parrish 2005). Motivation can often be instilled through com-mon discourse and questioning between the student and the instructor.

The LIM subscribes to those guidelines presented by Keller (1987) foraligning instruction with positive emotional outcomes that lead to motiva-tion. Keller’s ARCS model of motivation is concerned with gaining the at-tention of the student, presenting instruction that is relevant to the learningneeds, encouraging feelings of competency, and promoting a level of learn-ing achievement that corresponds with the student’s expectations for satis-faction in learning. Byrnes (2001) further suggests that the role of emotionsis important to learning, a significant theory that supports the importanceof developing instruction that pairs positive emotions and achievable goals.When learners experience positive emotions as a result of having accom-plished goal oriented work they will persist in replicating the experience.

LIM ANALYSIS PHASE

Analysis of the LIM is conducted in two phases in which the problem anal-ysis phase describes the nature of the problem and the instructional contentphase in which instructional components, subcomponents, and activities areidentified (Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen 2006). During problem analysis,the nature of the instructional problem is delineated. The librarian should tryto discover the information needs of the course. Some data that can provideinformation about the problem are grades, tests, and interviews with instruc-tors and students. A design document should be developed starting with thefirst phase of analysis. The design document serves as a collection point forthe questions asked, organizes sources and supports for using the LIM, anddocuments a proposed solution. The design document becomes a valuableinstructional tool and can be used to track improvements in the instruction.

In the problem analysis phase it is important to establish the stakehold-ers, available resources, instructional setting, and what changes precipitatedthe need for instruction. For instance, a new or revised course offering mayhave prompted a request for specific library instruction. The instructionallibrarian should conduct interviews and obtain documents that will exposecourse design needs. Some attempt should be made to discover and explicitlyidentify the desired information literacy needs.

The librarian should affirm that the LIM is an appropriate model foruse in the course by asking questions about the learning environment.What knowledge, skills, and attitude does the student possess? Is a student-centered approach appropriate and is the librarian comfortable using such asstyle for teaching? Time constraints regarding the design and development oflearning modules and the collection of content should be considered duringanalysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

90 A. D. Rand

IMPLEMENTATION OF LIM

The increase in online learning is changing the way that librarians provideinformation literacy instruction. Brown, Murphy, and Nanny (2003) suggestthat traditional librarian instruction models no longer suffice to provide thekind of instruction that students today require. They cite students’ technolog-ical sophistication as one characteristic that is changing information literacyneeds. An expansion of the body of knowledge regarding cognitive load andmultimedia learning are making an additional impact on how instruction isdesigned for face-to-face and for online learning (Sweller 2005). Instructionalmodels in most academic domains in the U.S. have changed as a result ofresearch progress in these areas. Library instruction models should be devel-oped to coordinate with new modes of providing instruction.

Kuhlthau (2004) proposes that what is relevant to students when theybegin an information inquiry may not be relevant at other points in theprocess and will almost certainly be different as the process is exited. Thiskind of inquiry process is best served through a system that allows for dy-namic instructional assistance and that supports student motivation. Whenstudents and library instructors are at the same point of inquiry, when dis-cussing information needs, there is a greater chance that students will usethe instructional model because it is relevant to their needs.

The LIM considers the student’s need at the moment, the available in-structional resources that will satisfy that need, and the communication flowbetween student and instructor. This communication channel is engaged forascertaining student inquiries, providing instructional input, and for feedbackand motivational support. The librarian’s role becomes one of designer, bibli-ographer, counselor, and presenter of epitomes, in a manner that is sensitiveto phases of information seeking.

The librarian facilitates information instruction by directing students topertinent modules so that each learner attains optimal cognitive understand-ing and elaboration. The instructor points out contextually appropriate scaf-folded instruction available in knowledge bases, tutorials, guidelines, andinstructional components that incorporate faded instruction. Faded instruc-tion includes instructional modules wherein a fully worked out example isprovided and followed by practice examples in which students must com-plete the work. This type of online learning provides optimal opportunityfor learning to occur (Clark and Mayer 2008). In this manner students beginwith high assumptions for their own cognitive engagement which is persistedthrough structures of the LIM.

The instructional librarian should consider the cognitive and affectivestate of the student. For some students there will be a need for motiva-tional modules with many faded instructional modules. Other students willbe self-motivated and therefore need access to direct instructional modules.Students enter specific cognitive phases that include information seeking,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Model for Designing Library Instruction 91

information gathering, and information giving (Krikelas 1983). Concomitantwith these phases are the intersecting roles played by the instructional li-brarian: designer, bibliographer, instructor, and facilitator. Kuhlthau (2004)refers to this intersection as a zone of intervention and points to the impor-tance of the librarian as a mediator for helping students progress throughthe information search process.

Librarians acquire high levels of expertise in conducting informationsearches. Time constraints play a part in the difficulty of making theseskills explicit to students. Approaching library instruction through a pro-cess model such as LIM maps skills instruction to immediate student needsso that time constraints are averted. Effective instruction in library searchskills relies on the intuitive teaching practices of expert librarians. The un-structured problem environment in which library search skills are taughtcalls for the “reflective practitioner who understands the dynamic process oflearning from information and incorporates that awareness into all aspectsof intervening with users” (Kuhlthau 2004, 202–203). Three components areemployed in Kuhlthau’s information search process model: realization thatsearching is a faceted prospect, the communication process upon which theteacher/student interaction depends, and instructional sensitivity capable ofmapping interventions in a timely manner to instructional needs. An addi-tional component in the LIM is recognition of appropriate CMC or multimediaapplications to meet instructional needs. These four instructional compo-nents are the proposed interventions that instructional librarians can deploy.

CONCLUSION

Effective instructional models are systematic, dynamic, purposeful, and use-ful. The usefulness of a model should be ascertained through periodic sum-mative assessment. In the LIM learners produce many artifacts that can beused for both summative and formative assessment. Summative assessmentprovides an opportunity to improve the model and the instructional affec-tivity of the instruction. Formative assessments show instructors how wellstudents are learning. They serve as touchstones for goal setting. Assessmentin LIM is systematic and perpetual with learning outcomes assessed on arti-fact characteristics and the consequential adjustment of sequence and designthat lead to improvement of the model.

REFERENCES

Byrnes, J. P. 2001. Minds, brains, and learning: Understanding the psychological andeducational relevance of neuroscientific research. New York: Guilford Press.

Brown, C., T. J. Murphy, and M. Nanny. 2003. Turning techno-savvy into info-savvy:Authentically integrating information literacy into the college curriculum. TheJournal of Academic Librarianship 29(6): 386–398. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2003.08.005.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

92 A. D. Rand

Clark, R. C., and R. E. Mayer. 2008. E-learning and the science of instruction: Provenguidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco:Pfeiffer.

Davidson-Shivers, G. V., and K. L. Rasmussen. 2006. Web-based learning: Design, im-plementation, and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/PrenticeHall.

Hawkins, D. 2002. Informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. NewYork: Algora Publishing.

Keller, J. M. 1987. Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design.Journal of Instructional Development 10(3): 2–10. doi:10.1007/BF02905780.

Krikelas, J. 1983. Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Li-brary Quarterly 19: 5–20. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ298483.

Kuhlthau, C. C. 2004. Seeking meaning: A process approach to Library and informa-tion services. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Parrish, P. E. 2005. Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educa-tional Technology 45(2): 16–25. Retrieved from http://aect.site-ym.com/?ed_technology_r_d.

Richey, R. C., J. D. Klein, and M. W. Tracey. 2011. The instructional design knowledgebase: Theory, research and practice. New York: Routledge.

Reigeluth, C. M. 1999. The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequencedecisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models:A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 425–453). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. 1999. Schools as knowledge building organizations.In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: Thedevelopmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274–289). New York: Guilford.

Sweller, J. 2005. Implications for cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. InR. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Tennyson, R. D. 2005. Learning theories and instructional design: A historical per-spective of the linking model. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, &D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovation in instructional technology: Essays in honor ofM. David Merrill (pp. 219–235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thurlow, C., L. Lengel, and A. Tomic. 2008. Computer mediated communication:Social interaction and the Internet. Los Angeles: Sage.

Verhoeven, L., and A. Graesser. 2008. Cognitive and linguistic factors in in-teractive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes 45(4/5): 289–297.doi:10.1080/01638530802145353.

Wells, G. 2007. Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge.Human Development 50(5): 244–274. doi:10.1159/000106414.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 14:

46 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014