biology and the library: creating a model assignment for ... · creating a model assignment for...
TRANSCRIPT
Biology and the Library:
Creating a Model Assignment
for Information Literacy in the
Life Sciences
Susan Wood, Libraries
Joe Napolitano, Biology
Suffolk County Community College
Eastern Campus
The Assignment and Instruction
Mini Literature Review
• Current life sciences topic
• Major written assignment
Information Literacy Lab
• Basic research and assessment
skills needed for assignment
The Collaboration
Susan’s Big Idealistic Fantasy
• College-wide essay contest on
environmental science topics
The Reality
• Partnering with Joe and his BIO152
students (Modern Biology II)
• Single assignment and lab-length
one-shot for promoting information
literacy in the sciences
Information Literacy in the Sciences
Why emphasize IL in biology?
• Increased amount and accessibility of info
• Specific science communication format
• Lexical density (= content : grammar)
• Foster skills needed later
• Life sciences issues affect everyone
• Cultivate scientific literacy
Information
Literacy in the
Sciences
Literature Review Assignment
Course: BIO152 - Modern Biology II
• College-level, major’s course
• Previous assignments:
• Library research, science media comparison
• APA format required
Assignment: 3 part literature review
1. Literature search and evaluation
2. Argument synthesis and support
3. Critical assessment of research
Literature Review Topics
Choosing Topics:
• 13 issues w/popular appeal and recent media
• Broad enough to be individually refined
Refining Topics:
• During IL lab after initial search
• Another important IL skill
Cause
Location
Taxon
Metrics
Ecotype
The Sixth Mass Extinction
Frogs
The Info Lit Lab Activities
• Lab activity 1: scholarly & popular analysis
• Structure of a research article
• Working from a background source
• Database demos
• Lab activity 2: correcting database citations
• Google Scholar
• Database controlled vocab
• Workshop time:
Lab activities 3 & 4: documenting research process;
paraphrasing content
Other Librarian-Delivered
Instruction Libguide
• ‘Informally’ screencasted tutorials
Phone/Email/office visits
• One email question
Reference Desk?
Recipe for Effective Info Lit
Instruction
• Well-designed assignment
• Concrete, immediate application; not
abstract or prophylactic (Blakesley 2003)
• Faculty involvement in the session (Small, et
al. 2004)
• Librarian/library visibility on assignment
instructions, syllabus, and in the course (Lee 2012)
ACRL Info Lit Competency Standards for
Science, Engineering, and Technology
• 2006, ACRL Science & Technology Section
• Standards similar to the Info Lit Competency
Standards for Higher Ed
• Performance indicators and outcomes specific
to scientific inquiry
What is a literature review?hat is a Literature Review?
In order to be considered by the greater scientific community, scientific
research must be reviewed by other scientists and then published in a
scholarly (or ‘peer-reviewed’) journal. This process is very different
from the publication of information in ‘popular’ sources (e.g. books,
news media, websites), which do not require formal peer review. There
are many scientific journals, and they vary in discipline, scope and
circulation. Scientists researching a particular topic may draw on the
existing published research for insight. In turn, their newly published
research is added to the body of knowledge on that topic.
As the published research on a topic increases over time, it is useful to
organize this information into a single publication called a literature
review. The goal of a literature is to gather, organize, explain and
assess the previously published work on a topic. Like research
articles, literature reviews are published in scholarly journals…
For this assignment, you will be performing a formal, but non-
comprehensive, lit review on a specific, current topic in biology. You
will be given class time at the library to conduct your literature search
and specific instruction on searching for and evaluating research
articles.
Science Info Lit
Standards
I.2.a: purpose &
audience,
scholarly/popular
I.3.e: organization of
knowledge into
disciplines
V.1.a: assimilation &
preservation of
knowledge
II.1.a: uses an
appropriate investigative
method
III.1.a: structure of
science research article,
finds main ideas
A Gap in the Standards?
Lascar & Mendelsohn (2011)
“Th[e] ability to distinguish between
science, nonscience, and pseudoscience
is a crucial information literacy issue; yet
for all the excellent goals and objectives
in the…Information Literacy Standards for
Science and Technology, it is the one skill
not addressed” (356).
Assessment for Credit in BIO152
• ‘Knowing vs. understanding’
• Argument development and support
• Paraphrasing
• Mechanics - citation formats
• Minimum length
• Plagiarism
• Time, effort and engagement
Time and Effort
“How I felt at the end of this assignment.”
Assessment What did they cite?
• Peer-reviewed? YES!
• Original research? YES!
• Popular sources were used appropriately
• Currency: very good
• Journal overlap: very little
• Article overlap: very little
Documentation (APA 6th)
280 reference list citations
36 citations were completely correct (12.8%)
Common format problems:
italics, punctuation, capitalization, line
spacing, word spacing, hanging indent,
numbered not alphabetized, centered, j
abbrevs, how to handle multiple authors,
confusion with MLA
Documentation (APA 6th) • If no DOI, what to put? “Retrieved
from…?”
• Elsevier & Ebsco
• permalinks
• Databases: Medline, Academic Search Complete,
Environment Complete, Science Direct
• Left out journal titles
• Wrong years
• Parentheticals: listed all authors
Challenges with documentation
Confidence: high; skills: low
(Salaway 2008; Schilling & Applegate 2012; Gross & Latham 2009)
Attitudinal measures: is it cheating?
“a lot of times I have thougth [sic] I did it
right but it seems like i was wrong”
(n=100)
4% very confident (can create citations w/o citation
generators)
41% confident (can use citation generators and fix
mistakes)
41% somewhat confident (sometimes need assistance and
unsure how to fix mistakes)
14% not confident (not familiar with citing sources and
frequently need help)
100-level Info Lit Assessment,
Libraries Info Lit Committee, 2013
(n=336)
V.3.a: Student demonstrates an ability to select
and consistently apply a citation style
35.7% approached meeting the standard (citing
with several errors)
29.2% did not meet the standard (5 or more errors
or not citing at all)
SCCC Academic Integrity Committee,
2011 Questionnaire (n=1662)
“How serious do you consider paraphrasing or copying material from
the Internet without citing it?”
19% not cheating
45% trivial cheating
36% serious cheating
“How serious do you consider fabricating or falsifying a bibliography?”
19% not cheating
51% trivial cheating
30% serious cheating
Next Steps • Documentation & paraphrasing: how to help?
• Lab report concept
Standard IV.5.a-c: “Maintains a journal or log of activities related to the
information seeking, evaluating, and communicating process. Reflects on past
successes, failures, and alternative strategies. Applies devised improvements to
subsequent projects.”
• Open access, free, WWW-based resources
• More assessable outcomes
• Broader or more deeply integrated implementation
• Tertiary>>primary source assignment: “Science Seekers”
• Science-media comparison critical thinking question
ACRL Information Literacy Standards for Science and Engineering/Technology. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/infolitscitech
Blakesley L. E. (2003). A collaborative approach to information literacy in the freshman seminar. Academic Exchange, 7(3), 23-27. Retrieved from
http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/
Bowder, T.S. & DiBenedetto, A. (2002). Information literacy in a biology laboratory session: An example of librarian-faculty collaboration. Research Strategies, 18, 143-49. doi:
10.1016/S0734-3310(02)00071-X
Bryan, J.E. & Karshmer, E. (May 2015). Using IL threshold concepts for biology: Bees, butterflies, and beetles. C&RL News, 76(5), 251-55. Retrieved from
http://crln.acrl.org/content/76/5/251.full
Firooznia, F. & Andreadis, D.K. (2006). Information literacy in introductory biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 23-27. Retrieved from Academic Search
Complete.
Fuselier, L. & Nelson, B. (2011). A test of the efficacy of an information literacy lesson in an introductory biology laboratory course with a strong science-writing component.
Science & Technology Libraries, 30(1), 58-75. doi: 10.1070/014262x.2011.547101
Gross, M. & Latham, D. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: Defining, attaining, and self-assessing skills. College and Research Libraries, 70(4), 336-50.
doi: 10.5860/crl.70.4.336
Henderson, F., Nunez-Rodriguea, N., & Casari, W. (2011). Enhancing research skills and information literacy in community college science students. The American Biology
Teacher, 73(5), 270-75. doi: 10.1525/abt.2011.73.5.5
Lee, S. W. (2012). An exploratory study of library anxiety in developmental education students. Community & Junior College Libraries, 18, 67-87. doi:
10/1080/02763915.2012.726806
Jacob, N. & Heisel, A.P. (2008). A faculty-librarian partnership for investigative learning in the introductory biology laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(4), 54-59.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.
Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS: Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Petzold, J., Winterman, B., & Montooth, K. (Fall 2010). Science Seeker: A new model for teaching information literacy to entry-level biology undergraduates. Issues in Science
and Technology Librarianship, 63. doi: 10.5062/F4ZW1HVJ
Salaway, G. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers0808w.pdf
SCCC Academic Integrity Committee Survey. (2011). http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/458/1047984/14-03-
04_AI_Survey_Selected_Results_for_LG_after_LR_mtg.pdf
SCCC Libraries Information Literacy Committee Assessment of 100-level Outcomes. (2013). http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-
1.amazonaws.com/docs/458/885265/Information_Literacy_100_Level_Courses_8.16.13.pdf
Schilling, K. & Applegate, R. (2012). Best methods for evaluating educational impact: A comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. Journal of
the Medical Library Association, 100(4), 258-69. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007
Small, R. V. & Zakaria, N. et al. (2004). Motivational aspects of information literacy skills instruction in community college libraries. College & Research Libraries, 65(2): 96-121.
doi: 10.5860/crl.65.2.96
Spackman, E. (2007). Utilizing focus groups to evaluate an information literacy program in a general biology course. Science & Technology Libraries, 27(3), 3-28. doi:
10.1300/J1244v27n03_02
http://libguides.sunysuffolk.edu/WoodNapolitano