Lesson Plan Pilot Project for Physical Science

Mary Ellen Sloane
User Services Librarian for Basic and Applied Science
Maryellen.sloane@mtsu.edu

Denise FitzGerald Quintel
Discovery Services Librarian
denise.quintel@mtsu.edu

Christy Groves
Chair, User Services
christy.groves@mtsu.edu

Walker Library
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Abstract

Many academic librarians are revising their instructional practice to integrate ACRL's Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The authors collaborated with science faculty to develop and pilot lesson plans with learning goals derived from the Framework. We implemented the lesson plans in both lower-division and upper-division science courses. This article describes the development process and includes the full lesson plans. This case study offers suggestions for science librarians in cultivating instructional design skills and integrating information literacy into the curriculum in order to positively impact student success in science disciplines.

Introduction

Since its adoption by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Board in early 2016, the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (ALA 2015) has been widely discussed among librarians and library advocates. As librarians continue to incorporate the new guidelines into library instruction programs, we are learning how the flexibility and interconnectedness of the Framework offers us engaging opportunities to connect more fully with teaching faculty and students across the academic disciplines.

Such collaboration is the primary focus of a partnership between librarians and science teaching faculty at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU). The impetus behind this partnership was MTSU's recent implementation of its Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), "MT Engage," which seeks to enhance MTSU students' academic engagement The QEP, developed through a two-year campus wide planning process, aligns with the university's academic master plan, Reach for Distinction (MTSU 2015). In the process of creating the QEP, MTSU utilized the Association of American Colleges and Universities' rubric for Evaluating Integrative Thinking and Reflection (AACU 2014) to establish its student learning outcomes to be the abilities to engage in integrative thinking and reflection and make connections across multiple disciplines and educational experiences. MT Engage is not a specific course or set of courses; rather, it is a style of educating students, and it spans the breadth of undergraduate disciplines. Faculty participating in the MT Engage program develop assignments and projects that encourage not only completion, but also reflection and evaluation. Class assignments include high-impact engagement pedagogies such as capstone projects, service learning, collaborative assignments, undergraduate research, and experiential learning. The authors capitalized on the campus' QEP program initiative and developed a proposal for a pilot project with two STEM faculty. We developed lesson plans designed to engage students in information literacy and assess their learning. We aimed to increase students' effective use of scholarly scientific resources in their research.

MTSU is a mid-sized comprehensive university with approximately 20,000 undergraduate and 3,000 graduate students. The results of MTSU's survey results from the National Survey of Student Engagement revealed that MTSU seniors' experiences with information literacy skills were lower in every measure than institutions in the comparison group. We sought to encourage STEM faculty to incorporate research assignments into their curriculum and partner with us to guide students' development of more robust information literacy skills.

This paper aims to describe the project and our partnership with STEM faculty. We will detail the information literacy assignments developed and how the new ACRL Framework was the catalyst for not only a teaching faculty/librarian collaboration, but also a valuable opportunity to heighten awareness of the Library's wealth of science resources. We will describe our learning outcomes, and in the spirit of MT Engage and the Framework, we will reflect upon our lessons learned and future directions.

Literature Review

Our literature review includes an overview of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy, identifies successful faculty and librarian partnerships, and explores the added role of librarians as instructional designers. In its introduction to the Framework, the Association of College and Research Libraries describes information literacy as a means "to emphasize dynamism, flexibility, individual growth, and community learning," which, in turn, extends learning not only through an academic career, but also to additional social learning goals (ALA 2015). With the recent overhaul of information literacy standards, the Framework's flexibility, interdisciplinary makeup, and metaliteracy focus make it adaptable for traditional and non-traditional courses alike, resulting in an equally practical tool for librarians to use in instruction. In moving away from strict standards, the Framework can better guide librarians in determining the vital pieces students need as they move through their personal, educational experiences and can help librarians more easily connect students to library instructional practices ( et al. 2014).

Recent literature describes several instances of successful faculty and librarian partnerships in a range of disciplines (Bendriss et al. 2015; Garcia 2014; Garcia and Labatte 2015; Knapp and Brower 2014; McInnis Bowers et al. 2009). Specific examples include teaching faculty and librarians working together in the areas of nursing (Cobus-Kuo and Waller 2016) and speech-language pathology (Miller et al. 2010). In both areas, researchers learned that establishing mutual goals and the willingness to understand and respect the strengths and expertise of one another led to a more productive and successful collaboration. The ability to create quality learning products and better learning outcomes provided a more sustainable application of skills for nursing and speech-language pathology students.

In their work with chemistry faculty and librarians, Salisbury and Mattice (2016) developed a course to help engage undergraduate students with research at an earlier stage of their education. During their collaboration with science faculty, Salisbury and Mattice observed that library instruction sessions and faculty-student discussions benefitted students by allowing them to become more involved with faculty research and more comfortable with library resources.

Brooks and Bigelow (2015) found that close collaboration between librarian and teaching faculty was an integral part of student success in their physical therapy course that they both planned and taught together. Early observations found that students who attended the collaboratively designed and taught class became better researchers and more confident practitioners.

In her work with nanoscience faculty, Pritchard (2010) identified attitude, professional expertise, and visibility as critical pieces to faculty-librarian relationships. From her experience designing a course project, she insists that librarians "must actively pursue opportunities to become involved" and encourages science librarians to become "the most expedient option" for faculty to successfully and effectively reach their teaching goals.

Successful faculty and librarian relationships result in librarians who can develop lesson plans that demonstrate concepts from the Framework, but without losing sight of the teaching faculties' goals. One of the greatest benefits of a strong faculty-librarian partnership is a higher chance of implementing information literacy knowledge practices and dispositions through the duration of a single course. Long-term integration increases the opportunities for student success, compared to a limited instruction session, framed only within the context of the library (Bendriss et al. 2015).

Several articles explore collaboration between librarians and instructional designers, mostly through embedded librarianship or team development approaches (Mudd et al. 2015; Shell et al. 2013). Turner (2016) identifies key competencies that librarians should adopt, if they wish to include instructional design components into their pedagogy. However, little scholarship actually describes the successes, failures, and processes of librarians who include instructional design principles into their work.

Lesson Plans

Our overall goal of this partnership was to collaborate with teaching faculty to improve the information literacy skills of students in STEM courses. Our librarian for basic and applied sciences has been extremely active in outreach to STEM faculty and continues to cultivate valuable relationships. For this project, we collaborated with two faculty -- one in Biology and one in Geology.

Biology

The Honors General Biology 1110 course is for MTSU freshmen in the MTSU Honors program. After obtaining his agreement to collaborate with us, we met with the Biology faculty member teaching this course in the early summer of 2016 to ensure sufficient time for incorporation of the information literacy assignment into his course syllabus. We developed the assignment to provide freshman science majors with an orientation to library-subscribed and open-access disciplinary resources, the skills to independently develop their knowledge in the field, and the confidence to communicate verbally and in writing. The assignment challenged students to research and synthesize information from various sources -- from news to scholarly content. The assignment instructed students to utilize technology tools to curate a page of RSS feeds, identify and explain key findings on the topic documented through tables and figures, and create a brief newscast for a general audience. The tasks of this assignment sought to develop knowledge practices and dispositions from several of the ACRL Framework frames.

The learning goals of this assignment were for students to:

1. Locate and set up applicable RSS feeds:
   1. Define different types of subject expertise. (Authority is Contextual)
   2. Determine the initial scope of the task required to meet their information needs. (Searching as Strategic Exploration)
2. Develop tables and figures:
   1. Give credit to the original ideas through proper citation. (Information has Value)
   2. Understand the increasingly social nature of the information ecosystem where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time. (Authority is Contextual)
3. Develop a newscast:
   1. Organize information in meaningful ways. (Research as Inquiry)
4. Compose a reflective essay:
   1. Develop an understanding that their choices impact the purposes for which the information product will be used in the message it conveys. (Information Creation as a Process)

We conducted an in-person library instruction session to demonstrate the steps of each task. During the first portion of the session, we assisted students with setting up their RSS feeds. During the second portion of the session, we helped them navigate science resources on their applicable topics for the fact and data gathering task. The students were then encouraged to utilize our library's specialized multimedia lab to create their online newscast.

For full lesson plan, see Appendix A.

Geology

Our collaboration with the Geology faculty member entailed a more traditional research assignment. For his course, an upper division mineralogy course designed for Geology majors, the faculty member asked students to write a paper as if they were reporting information for a specific geology topic of their choice.

The paper was to include five peer reviewed scholarly resources and be 5-7 pages in length. The faculty member put a great deal of emphasis on the proper citing of research materials, following the Geological Society of America citation Guidelines (GSA 2018). The students were strongly encouraged to utilize the Walker Library Reference Desk as well as the University Writing Center during their development of their papers.

The learning goals of this assignment were for students to:

1. Develop an introduction of ½ to 1 page, describing the topic, its importance, and background material.
   1. Assess the fit between an information product's creation process and a particular information need. (Information Creation as a Process)
   2. Deal with complex research by breaking complex questions into simple ones, limiting the scope of investigations. (Research as Inquiry)
2. Develop the discussion portion of the paper, 4-5 pages.
   1. Understand the increasingly social nature of information ecosystems where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time. (Authority is Constructed and Contextual)
   2. Recognize that information may be perceived differently based on the format in which it is packaged. (Authority is Constructed and Contextual)
   3. Synthesize ideas gathered from multiple sources. (Research as Inquiry)
   4. Organize information in meaningful ways. (Research as Inquiry)
3. Develop tables and figures supporting topic covered in the research paper.
   1. Give credit to the original ideas of others through proper attribution and citation. (Information has Value)
4. Develop a works cited page.
   1. Use different types of searching language (controlled vocabulary, keywords, natural language appropriately. (Searching as Strategic Exploration)
5. Deliver a well-written, organized, meaningful paper that clearly outlines the topic or problem statement and correctly cites five sources in the text of the paper and works cited section.
   1. Cite the contributing work of others in their own information production. (Scholarship as Conversation)
   2. Re-write previously published material and organize it in a manner that is meaningful to the topic. (Information Creation as a Process)

For full lesson plan, see Appendix B.

Development Process

Initially, we planned to do a pilot with the two science faculty with the support of an instructional development grant. The stated objectives of the grant were to translate the theoretical concepts in the Framework into executable lesson plans, support students' success, develop instructional design skills, improve collaboration with faculty, assess student learning, and improve library instruction. We specifically wanted to begin to understand how the Framework could support curricular learning outcomes in science disciplines. The eventual outcomes were broader and more far-reaching.

While implementing the Framework, we were developing our instructional design skills (Bravender et al. 2015). We found that the Framework could very easily extend to a variety of instructional contexts, and it works well with diverse assignment tasks and library search tools. We wanted to develop faculty collaborations that involved more than one instruction session with students in the course of the semester, in order to have a better chance of positively impacting student learning of information literacy.

Specific tasks can encompass knowledge practices and dispositions in more than one frame, which is a challenge for developing learning outcomes. For example, the Biology students' use of tables and figures draws from the frames Information has Value and Authority is Constructed and Contextual.

Successful faculty-librarian relationships can help librarians develop lesson plans that integrate Framework concepts without losing sight of the teaching faculty member's goals. Although librarians often only have one class period to provide instruction, student learning improves through frequent and consistent interaction with librarians (Bendriss et al. 2015; Pritchard 2010; Spievak and Hayes-Bohanan 2013). The librarian has to make sure that students can successfully complete all tasks expected of them at the conclusion of the library instruction session. The librarian must be clear on the learning outcomes expected of students and the rubric they will use to assess students' performance.

It was fortuitous that MT Engage is dedicated to integrative and reflective learning. Pedagogical enhancement is a campus-wide focus at MTSU. Many faculty are seeking creative approaches to get students engaged, as the University stresses student success and retention. We were able to use the MT Engage rubric and the Framework to provide a common frame of reference with partner faculty, and we designed library instruction using principles that have been demonstrated to be effective (Ambrose et al. 2010). We sought to assess and demonstrate the impact of library instruction and library research on student success. Overall, the project raised the profile of librarians as full partners in education, and the project received an instructional development grant from the Academic Affairs office.

We found that implementing the Framework is a good means for developing partnerships with faculty and supporting curricular outcomes. Like any skill, the real-world application of the Framework takes practice to do well, and the authors encourage other librarians to undertake similar projects without fear of failure. We found that faculty were receptive to collaborating with librarians to improve student learning outcomes. Closely considering the dispositions and knowledge practices of each frame and developing lesson plans helped us to improve instructional delivery.

Lessons Learned

Some things did not go according to plan, however. Looking back, we could have done a better job of developing the learning outcomes. For example, the Geology professor wanted students to critically evaluate the contributions made by others to the scholarship of the discipline, and develop their own professional voice. This broad outcome includes knowledge practices from the 'Information has Value' frame and the 'Scholarship as Conversation' frame. In hindsight, our learning outcomes place more emphasis on students' demonstrating that they found a specific number of articles in a narrow research area, and less on the metaliteracy abilities the Framework aims to foster.

In a few instances, it was difficult to harmonize the curricular (subject-specific) learning outcomes and information literacy learning outcomes, leading to some confusion for students. The Biology professor emphasized that students should understand the authority and bias of sources when researching a controversial science topic. Some Biology students had follow-up questions in their second library instruction session about how to synthesize and report on sources that presented different points of view. In hindsight, we should have modeled ways to understand and discuss conflicting views.

Although the Framework is meant to be modified and extended, this initial implementation did not go far enough in adjusting to the curricular needs. In the Biology course, some students expressed confusion. For instance, the Biology students were required to document their understanding of the social nature of information (via correctly cited tables and figures) while also showcasing their knowledge acquired during the research process (via newscast videos they created). Unfortunately, they were unsure how best to demonstrate their comprehension of the topic assigned while also demonstrating their grasp of the knowledge practices and dispositions expected throughout the research process.

Another challenge was assessing student learning. This was a learning experience in instructional design. We developed rubrics to score student work on the information literacy outcomes, while the instructional faculty scored student work based on the curricular learning outcomes. We received the assignments from the instructional faculty and scored them using our rubrics. Our assessment revealed that most students did well in meeting our expectations for information literacy. Both assignments had learning outcomes in all frames, but they also both had a special focus on Authority Is Constructed and Contextual, and Scholarship as Conversation. Most students scored between 3.7-3.8 on a 4-point scale. Students in both classes struggled with knowledge practices connected with the Information Has Value frame. Students did not correctly cite tables and figures and did not correctly format the works cited or in-text citations. We found that it is not possible to aggregate our assessment across courses because the learning outcomes in the courses did not align. The participating students were not comparable; they had different prior knowledge, different library instruction, and were asked to demonstrate learning in different formats. The rubrics are included with the lesson plans in the appendices.

The focus of our efforts was to begin a collaboration with science faculty and practice integrating information literacy outcomes in curricular design. A future study might focus more narrowly on a larger cohort or multiple sections of a single course in order to develop a valid measurement of student learning. Information literacy skills take many different forms, as has been demonstrated by the diverse assignments we were able to develop and implement. However, we did gain some valuable feedback from several students' perspectives. In accordance with the MTSU MT Engage QEP, the Biology students were required to provide a one-page reflective essay detailing what they had learned, how they felt the assignment benefited them, and what skills they would take forward for future collegiate level work. The students' self-reflections were very positive. According to the essays submitted, all of the students declared that there was a value in their assignment. Some of their comments showcased their positive library experiences. Many of the students expressed appreciation for being exposed to the credible resources offered by Walker Library. Several students also indicated that they had very positive interactions with library personnel. We received several comments of appreciation, as did our Digital Media Studio personnel, for their assistance in utilizing the video editing software offered in Walker Library.

In addition to positive remarks about the library resources and services, some of the students described the value of learning how to better manage their time. Even those few students who indicated frustration with portions of the assignment concluded their reflections with comments stating the overall value this learning experience brought them. We made an effort to define our roles and responsibilities initially and throughout the project. As the partnership with the faculty members progressed and evolved, we would have benefited from revisiting those roles and responsibilities. As librarians do more work with faculty to integrate the Framework into the curriculum, there will be gray areas in each partner's responsibilities to develop a lesson plan and assignment, impart the curricular learning outcomes, and provide ongoing support to students. The lesson plan should probably include a team teaching plan as well.

In integrating the Framework, we saw an opportunity to change faculty members' expectations of librarians and 'tell our story' to potential new faculty partners. When reaching out to faculty, we could not point to past projects or successes, so we initially described the Framework and shared that we hoped to improve the National Survey of Student Engagement survey results mentioned earlier. Our characterization of this new role as instructional designers and our advocacy for teaching information literacy evolved over time. However, talking about information literacy and the potential for improving student learning with receptive faculty and administrators was helpful in defining and modifying our enhanced partnership with faculty.

By undertaking this project, we were able to put the Framework into practice and learn how to mold the knowledge practices and dispositions into curricular learning outcomes. As many other librarians have found in developing lesson plans, putting instructional design into practice is an essential and challenging skill for librarians. The Framework provided us with opportunities to revitalize our pedagogical methodology, collaborate with others in instructional design, and offer a new suite of instructional services to faculty. When we assessed students' work, we also found that a low success rate of students' citations in the sample suggests that we should revisit our instruction in that area.

After completing this project, we applied for and received another instructional development grant to develop an additional 16 information literacy lesson plans for science courses. In order to better understand what faculty and students expect to gain from library research, the authors also developed and deployed two surveys pertaining to information literacy. The opportunity to have conversations with individual faculty and to attend faculty and chairs' meetings allowed the authors to continue a dialogue with the science community on campus about how the library can meet curricular learning outcomes and improve student success.

Conclusion

The Framework has brought a renewed focus to information literacy pedagogy in academic libraries. ACRL developed the Framework from the need for students to have a sophisticated conceptual and practical understanding of our increasingly complex information ecosystem. Whereas the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ALA 2000) focused more on the skills and tasks that were necessary for becoming information literate, the Framework advances a view of information literacy as a continuum of participation with the vast environment of information and communications (Foasberg 2015).

There is a need for science librarians to develop instructional design skills (Hess 2015). As library resources and discovery systems change, teaching faculty need support in integrating information literacy into the curriculum. Many universities, like MTSU, are working to find effective solutions to improve retention and student success. Information literacy is important for students' future success, particularly in the science disciplines (Naimpally, Ramachandran & Smith 2012).

Suggestions for future studies include surveying students about their experience with information literacy, utilizing a control group, measuring specific learning outcomes across different courses, measuring the performance of the same students in different classes, and measuring students' performance on the same assignment at different institutions.

The Framework is a very useful and extensible guide for librarians seeking to design instruction. Once librarians become comfortable implementing the Framework, it is more likely they will find ways to improve the Framework and extend the stated knowledge practices and dispositions.

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by the Instruction Evaluation and Development Committee of Middle Tennessee State University. The authors wish to thank Dr. Warner Cribb and Dr. Ryan Otter for their participation in this project.

References

AACU. 2014. Integrative and applied learning VALUE rubric. [Internet]. Washington (DC): Association of American Colleges and Universities; [cited 2018 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/integrative-learning

ALA. 2015. Framework for information literacy for higher education. [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; [cited 2018 Feb 20]. Available from: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

ALA. 2000. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; [cited 2018 Feb 20]. Available from: http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33553

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K. & Mayer, RE. 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. 1st ed. Hoboken: Jossey Bass Ltd.

Bendriss, R., Saliba, R. & Birch, S. 2015. Faculty and librarians' partnership: Designing a new framework to develop information fluent future doctors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(6):821-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.003

Bravender, P., McClure, H.A. & Schaub, G. 2015. Teaching Information Literacy Threshold Concepts: Lesson Plans for Librarians. Chicago, Illinois: Association of College and Research Libraries, A division of the American Library Association.

Brooks, S.V. & Bigelow S. 2015. Preparing students for research: Faculty/librarian collaboration in a pre-doctoral physical therapy research course. Health Information & Libraries Journal 32(4):332-8. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12123

Cobus-Kuo, L. & Waller J. 2016. Teaching information literacy and evidence-based practice in an undergraduate speech-language pathology program: A student reflection. Contemporary< Issues in Communication Science & Disorders 43:35-49. Available from: https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/ASHA/Publications/cicsd/2016S-Teaching-Information-Literacy.pdf

Foasberg, N.M. 2015. From standards to frameworks for IL: How the ACRL framework addresses critiques of the standards. portal: Libraries and the Academy 15(4):699. Available from: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/595062/pdf

Garcia, L. 2014. Applying the framework for information literacy to the developmental education classroom. Community & Junior College Libraries 20(1):39-47. DOI: 10.1080/02763915.2014.1013399

Garcia, L. & Labatte J. 2015. Threshold concepts as metaphors for the creative process: Adapting the framework for information literacy to studio art classes. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 34(2):235-48. DOI: 10.1086/683383

GSA. 2018. GSA Reference guidelines and examples. [Internet]. Boulder (CO): Geological Society of America; [cited 2018 July 28]. Available from: https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/pubs/GSA_RefGuide_Examples.pdf

Hess, A.N. 2015. Equipping academic librarians to integrate the framework into instructional practices: A theoretical application. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(6):771-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.017

Knapp, M. & Brower, S. 2014. The ACRL framework for information literacy in higher education: Implications for health sciences librarianship. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 33(4):460-8. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2014.957098

Lundstrom, K., Fagerheim, B.A. & Benson, E. 2014. Librarians and instructors developing student learning outcomes. Reference Services Review 42(3):484-98. DOI: 10.1108/RSR-04-2014-0007

McInnis Bowers, C.V., Chew, B., Bowers, M.R., Ford, C.E., Smith, C. & Herrington, C. 2009. Interdisciplinary synergy: A partnership between business and library faculty and its effects on students' information literacy. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 14(2):110-27. DOI: 10.1080/08963560802362179

MTSU. 2015. The reach to distinction: Middle Tennessee State University Academic Master Plan, 2015-2025. [Internet]. Murfreesboro (TN): Middle Tennessee State University; [cited 2018 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.mtsu.edu/AMP/docs/MTSUAcademicMasterPlan.pdf

Miller, L.C., Jones, B.B., Graves, R.S. & Sievert, M.C. 2010. Merging silos: Collaborating for information literacy. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 41(6):267-72. DOI: 10.3928/00220124-20100401-03

Mudd, A., Summey, T., & Upson, M. 2015. It takes a village to design a course: Embedding a librarian in course design. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 9(1-2):69-88. DOI: 10.1080/1533290X.2014.946349

Naimpally, A.V., Ramachandran, H. & Smith, C. 2012. Lifelong Learning for Engineers and Scientists in the Information Age. London; Waltham, MA : Elsevier, c2012; 1st ed.

Pritchard, P.A. 2010. The embedded science librarian: Partner in curriculum design and delivery. Journal of Library Administration 50(4):373-96. DOI: 10.1080/01930821003667054

Salisbury, L. & Mattice, G. 2016. Early exposure to the scientific research process through collaboration with chemistry faculty and the science librarian. Science & Technology Libraries 35(2):119-35. DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1162118

Shell, L., Crawford, S. & Harris, P. 2013. Aided and embedded: The team approach to instructional design. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 7(1-2):143-55. 10.1080/1533290X.2012.705627

Spievak, E.R. and Hayes-Bohanan, P. 2013. Just enough of a good thing: Indications of long-term efficacy in one-shot library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6):488-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.013

Turner, J. 2016. Instructional design: Skills to benefit the library profession. portal: Libraries and the Academy 16(3):477-89. DOI: 10.1353/pla.2016.0041

Appendix

Appendix A

Library Instruction lesson plan: Honors General Biology (PDF)

Appendix B

Library Instruction lesson plan: Term paper for upper-division Geology students (PDF)

Previous

Contents

Next

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.