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.

Frame: Scholarship as Conversation Context: Lesson presented in the context of a one-shot, 50-minute library instruction session, with course libguide containing the multimedia presentations used for the lesson, organized in either boxes or tabs. Appropriate supplementary instructional content can be added to the libguide as needed.Lesson:Librarian overview of the frame of “Scholarship as Conversation” and why it is relevant to the students and their academic work. Focus on regarding scholarship as not a static “truth” frozen in time, but a process whereby researchers are in a continuum of inquiry and within which variation in research results comprises a “scholarly conversation.”Present Youtube video produced by librarian Anna Eisen entitled “Research 101: Scholarship as Conversation” accessible at https://youtu.be/YGia3gNyHDM to introduce the threshold concept.Next, present an NPR episode of the podcast “The Hidden Brain: A Conversation about Life’s Unseen Patterns” hosted by Shankar Vedantam, entitled “Scientific Findings Often Fail To Be Replicated, Researchers Say” aired on NPR on August 28, 2015 (access at: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/28/435416046/research-results-often-fail-to-be-replicated-researchers-say) Vedantam described a project headed by Dr. Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia in which researchers tried to replicate a hundred psychology experiments that were published in three leading journals. The results of the project were disappointing—nearly two thirds of the results of the experiments could not be replicated. Replication of results is a gold standard to measure quality of scientific research. An anecdotal topic referred to in the podcast was the research related to the health effects of coffee on the human body. Coffee and its health benefits (or lack thereof) are frequently discussed in the news media and was adopted as an example to utilize for an active learning component during the library instruction session.Distribute copies of the article “Health Effects of Coffee: Where Do We Stand?” at http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/14/health/coffee-health/index.html by Sandee LaMotte and published on the CNN website on August 14, 2015.  This article presents a chronology of “conventional wisdom,” popular beliefs, and research findings regarding the health effects of coffee intake from the 1500s to the present.Request that students break up into pairs, and review and discuss the article on coffee in light of the information they have just taken in via the the Youtube video and the NPR story.After 10 minutes, prompt and encourage the students to share their thoughts, analyses, conclusions, and insights regarding the content presented.Circle back to course purview and research assignments, and emphasize to students that they are “emerging researchers and emerging scholars” and they are the next participants in the conversation. They may be the contributors of new research knowledge in the future. 

The three rubrics here were designed for an introductory course for English majors, but the ways in which the ACRL Framework is used could be replicated for any discipline and could be extended to program assessment.  Each rubric addresses one ARCL Frame.  The ACRL "dispositions" are treated as desired learning outcomes; the ACRL "knowledge practices" play the role of descriptors.  The rubric is intended to be used not simply on a student-produced project or activity, but on a project and a structured student reflection taken together.

This handout provides a crosswalk between the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education and the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.  Librarians using this handout are prompted to describe their past instruction and service experiences that are related to each frame for the purposes of sparking ideas for programming and learning activities related to the Framework. The handout is designed to ease the transition from using the Standards to embracing the Framework in instruction and programming.  The FIU Information Litearcy Framework combines the Outcomes of the Standards with the Knowledge Practices of the Framework to provide assessable indicators of information literacy competencies in students.

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)

For a performance task/ assignment, students will be expected to find evidence to investigate a pseudoscientific claim or conspiracy theory. They will be submitting a two-page paper to their Chemistry professor in which they make a case that either supports the claim or rejects it. They will be expected to use both library and credible online sources for support. The performance task will follow a full 75-minute library instruction session in which students will learn to:construct various search phrases for use in online and library search tools  use certain evaluation criteria (e.g. CRAAP) to assess the credibility of online sources  examine sources for relevance to their research question and search need (specifically, to determine credibility of claims)Throughout the class, an example claim will be used for searches. Either one of the following is recommended:Feng Shui – or the arrangement of furniture according to Chinese philosophy – can positively or negatively impact your wealth, health, happiness, and prosperity.President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald – or his assassination is the result of a conspiracy of various entities and agents. Materials included:The full sequenced instruction outline for the face-to-face library instruction session. The assignment prompt for the performance task. CRAAP handout. 

Students will be exposed to various entry points of a sustainability topic in various formats.This lesson is to serve as an introduction to different types of sources that can be used to learn about and research topics - including multimedia sources, Internet, and scholarly articles - and the attributes of different kinds of sources. They will take notes as they hear/read the sources using Elements of Thought (based on Paul-Elder's critical thinking model) and reflect in small groups to evaluate the credibility of the sources and what next steps they will take to further research. This is a face-to-face, in-class activity. The duration of the in-class activities for this lesson is approximately 60-75 minutes. Length and difficulty of content should be considered when selecting the examples.It is highly adaptable for content and theme although it was designed, originally, for a faculty member whose first-year composition class is themed around sustainability. Instructor will select various source types to explore a single topic. Possible sustainability-themed examples include: food deserts, clean water in the US, bee colony collapse, etc.Source types should include:One short-form video product (I.e. TED Talk, video essay, documentary clip, recorded speech, or other topical video informational product)One published essay, opinion editorial, or commentaryOne informative (unbiased) article or reference entry.

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