This lesson is intended as a single session within a major’s research methods course. Rather than using a shorter “scholarly vs. non-scholarly” comparison worksheet, this activity asks students to work in groups to systematically examine a scholarly article in depth, identify and evaluate its various components visually and in writing, and then compare it to a non-scholarly article on the same topic. Groups then report back to the entire class. Discussion is guided so as to touch on the processes by which sources are created, what these methods say about their authority, and to consider contextually appropriate uses for them. Although the activity was developed for students taking two social science majors' research methods courses (SOC 323 and ANTH 305), it could be adapted to any setting that lends itself to in-depth examination of information creation processes, the construction of authority, and the contextual appropriateness of sources.

The assignment prompt and description, Exploring Expertise, is attached. It is a writing prompt for a short assignment. The prompt can be adapted to fit different non-writing performance tasks, however, including discussion or in-class individual/ small group activities. Students are provided a scenario wherein they must research the names of experts quoted in different online news articles (topic: prescription drug abuse). They must show that they have researched the "expert." Learning Outcome - Explore a source of information in order to determine the validity and credibility of their claims on a particular topic  

This matrix was developed as a result of conversations with the writing department faculty, FYS coordinator, and general education committee.  I condensed the language of the Framework as well as the learner/dispositions, and led the workshop with faculty and librarians on how to begin to look at their specific courses as well as across the program on how they might incorporate the FW at each level, for each course, and drill down to the classroom instruction, partnering with the librarian on activities, assessment, and outcomes. More work and a journal publication about this process and method TBD. Please contact me (rhondahuisman@gmail.com) or PM on Twitter if you have questions, discussion, etc.Pilot exercise presented at Marian University Faculty Con (May, 2017)

I wrote "How Information Works:ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Lay Language" for a faculty workshop we held at Ohio University called, "Reimagining the Research Assignment."  Later, the Learner-Centered Teaching team took the "Actions" and/or "Attitudes" from that restatement and wrote "Gateway Scales:" almost-rubrics for each frame.  Our intention here is to greatly simplify the language so faculty can more easily understand our purpose. I have linked to our page, where several versions can be accessed: simple (b/w), color handout, long color version with attitudes and actions from novice to expert.  I have also uploaded PDFs of both documents.

This is a short, engaging activity suitable for learners of all levels. In it, students evaluate web sources that are provided by an instructor using the acronym CRAAP (currency, relevance, accuracy, authority, and purpose). Students work together in groups and explore evaluation processes aloud, with guidance from the CRAAP cards and the instructor. This is an adaptation of various evaluating sources activities available in LIS literature and professional resources. This activity is ideally implemented as a kind of collaborative game moderated by the instructor. It is highly adaptable.Students are grouped into 5 groups - one for each criterion of CRAAP. Each group will receive a CRAAP card or 3x5 index card/ handout/ other with evaluation questions pertaining to Currency, Relevance, Accuracy, Authority, and Purpose – different for each table. These are the "designated skeptics" of their criterion. They set out as skeptics and they are explicitly challenged to be challenging, and the rest of the class is directed to challenge them as well with probing open-ended questions. A source will be shared with the class on the projector. These sources will include scholarly articles, websites (blogs and orgs), and reference entries. It is essential that the instructor select sources that are relevant to their students (either by course, subject, or level) and that would be likely results on a student Internet search for a research topic/ question.Each group will evaluate the source aloud on the single criterion they’ve been assigned. If it “passes,” then the source gets asked the next question. If it “fails,” the source is dismissed. The criterion can be called out in order - that is, according to CRAAP - but they can also be called out randomly to be evaluated. This activity can be repeated with various websites or web sources.

Following a face-to-face library instruction session, students are assigned a short paper in which they select two [web] sources from a list and evaluate them using specific criteria (i.e. currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose). A real-life scenario is presented and real sources are provided from the first pages of Google search results. Learning OutcomesStudents will construct various search phrases for use in online search toolsStudents will use certain evaluation criteria (e.g. CRAAP) to assess the credibility of online sourcesStudents will examine sources for relevance to their research question and search need (specifically, to determine credibility of claims)Materials include: Full lesson - description, sequenced instruction (i.e. outline), and performance taskAssignment Assignment with suggested answer keyRubric CRAAP handout 

In light of the proliferation of fake news and just plain erroneous news, this assignment tries to give students tools and strategies for evaluating the information that comes to them via social media and other outlets. Students identify one news story and thoroughly investigate it, including using CRAAP criteria, searching for other articles on the same topic, and checking factchecking sites.News stories to evalute were updated July 2019.

This LibGuide is the result of our Reference Team's year-long project to create a new curriculum for our Instruction program, based on the Framework. Our project plan and documentation of our workflow is also available by request.MacPhaidin Library’s information skills curriculum is designed to teach students increasingly sophisticated research strategies throughout their Stonehill careers and to produce graduates who are adept at articulating their information needs, finding the resources to meet them, and using that data ethically to create new knowledge.By the time they graduate, students who participate in the full information skills curriculum can:Define their information needIdentify appropriate source types and research tools to meet their information needEvaluate information to determine its validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness and biasSynthesize information from research with existing understanding in order to create new knowledgeIdentify the legal, ethical, economic and social issues related to the use of information and recognize relevant intellectual property lawsUsing the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education, we’ve created a curriculum that identifies specific learning goals for the different stages of students’ studies. The stages focus on a variety of core concepts ranging from the simple – the iterative nature of searching - to the more complex – the impact of context on the value of information. The framework is designed to enhance student's information skills through faculty-librarian collaboration. This curriculum provides a template faculty and librarians can use to collaboratively craft instruction that will improve students’ information skills and, thereby, result in better work. This guide introduces our mission statement, curriculum and learning outcomes, and provides examples of the many ways librarians can assist you as your students develop their skills.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in College and Undergraduate Libraries on November 18, 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/10691316.2017.1246396  Abstract: Threshold concepts theory and learning outcomes represent two different ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Finding a way to translate between the two is necessary for librarians who may wish to use concepts from the Framework for Information Literacy to shape their instruction. The following article outlines a process for transforming concepts from the “Scholarship as Conversation” frame into learning outcomes that the author developed as part of a tutorial project. This process can easily be adapted to a variety of instructional situations.

This lesson plan from Teaching Information Literacy Threshold Concepts, edited by Patricia Bravender, Hazel McClure, and Gayle Schaub and contributed by Debbie Morrow, concentrates on the value of information and the need to acknowledge that value through accurate attribution of sources, focusing not on print sources but on images and their use within the context of a presentation.