Collaborating with Librarians to Develop Lower Division Political Science Students' Information Literacy Competencies

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 17 October 2014, At: 05:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Collaborating with Librarians toDevelop Lower Division PoliticalScience Students' Information LiteracyCompetenciesChristy R. Stevens a & Patricia J. Campbell ba California State Polytechnic University , Pomonab American Public University System ,Published online: 28 May 2008.

To cite this article: Christy R. Stevens & Patricia J. Campbell (2008) Collaborating with Librariansto Develop Lower Division Political Science Students' Information Literacy Competencies, Journal ofPolitical Science Education, 4:2, 225-252, DOI: 10.1080/15512160801998114

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160801998114

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15512160801998114

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160801998114

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Collaborating with Librarians to Develop LowerDivision Political Science Students’ Information

Literacy Competencies

CHRISTY R. STEVENS

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

PATRICIA J. CAMPBELL

American Public University System

Studies suggest that course-integrated information literacy instruction is an effectiveway to enhance the quality of student research. However, many political scienceprofessors are unfamiliar with the growing information literacy movement in highereducation today, with strategies for integrating information literacy into theircourses and assignments, and with opportunities to collaborate with librariansbeyond requesting a 50-minute library instruction session for their classes. Thispaper addresses these issues, beginning with a discussion of the emergence of infor-mation literacy as an important discourse in higher education today and a descrip-tion of the Association of College and Research Libraries’ ‘‘Information LiteracyCompetency Standards for Higher Education.’’ It then reviews relevant literatureon library instruction and librarian=course faculty collaboration, illustrating thateffective information literacy instruction requires that librarians and course facultywork together beyond ‘‘one-shot’’ library instruction sessions. Collaborativelydeveloped research assignment sequences are posited as an effective way for librar-ians and political science professors to work together to enhance lower divisionstudents’ information literacy competencies. Finally, the paper provides a practicalexample of a collaboratively developed assignment sequence for a lower divisionAmerican Government class that is mapped to the ‘‘Information LiteracyCompetency Standards.’’

Keywords collaboration, information literacy competency standards, infor-mation literacy, instruction, librarians, libraries, political science, research

Introduction

Writing and research assignments that ask lower division students to explorepolitical science debates and to grapple with scholarly resources can be a productiveway of initiating them into the conventions and discourses of the political sciencedisciplinary community. Such assignments can also help students understand coursecontent more fully, to integrate it into their knowledge base, and to construct andinfer new knowledge rather than merely memorizing and regurgitating informationfor an exam (Emig 1977; Newell 1998; Spivey 1990; Young and Sullivan 1984).

Address correspondence to Christy R. Stevens, University Library, California StatePolytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768. E-mail:[email protected]

Journal of Political Science Education, 4:225–252, 2008Copyright # 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1551-2169 print=1551-2177 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15512160801998114

225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

However, research papers submitted at the end of the term often reveal significantproblems in students’ research, writing, and critical thinking competencies. Someof the most typical problems in student papers include the following:

. The Thesis=Central Argument—In some cases, there simply isn’t one; while inothers, it is poorly formulated or irrelevant to the assignment, topic, class, ordiscipline.

. Use of Sources—Sources may be absent altogether; they may not be authoritative,appropriate, or relevant; or they may be inaccurately represented and interpreted.

. Analysis—Claims may not be supported or developed. Source material may not beexplained, integrated, or evaluated.

. Coherence=Readability—The writing may not be clear, smooth, grammatical, orunderstandable.

. Documentation=Plagiarism—Sources may not be cited accurately, paraphrasedappropriately, or quoted when inserted word for word into the student’s own text.

The problems listed above are all related to the concept of information literacy; aterm the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) defines as a set ofabilities requiring individuals to ‘‘recognize when information is needed and havethe ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’’’ (AmericanLibrary Association 1989). ACRL also maintains that information literacy ‘‘formsthe basis for lifelong learning’’ and that ‘‘it is common to all disciplines’’ (Associationof College and Research Libraries 2000, 3). The American Library Association(ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy describes the relationshipbetween information literacy and learning this way: ‘‘Ultimately, information literatepeople are those who have learned how to learn. They know how to learn becausethey know how knowledge is organized, how to find information, and how to useinformation in such a way that others can learn from them’’ (American LibraryAssociation 1989).

Course-integrated information literacy instruction helps students learn how tolearn within a specific disciplinary context, and studies suggest that it is an effectiveway to enhance the quality of student research. However, many political scienceprofessors are unfamiliar with the growing information literacy movement in highereducation today, with strategies for integrating information literacy into their coursesand assignments, and with opportunities to collaborate with librarians beyondrequesting a 50-minute library instruction session for their classes. This paper willaddress these issues, beginning with a discussion of the emergence of informationliteracy as an important discourse in higher education today and a description ofthe Association of College and Research Libraries ‘‘Information Literacy Compe-tency Standards for Higher Education.’’ It will then review relevant literature onlibrary instruction and librarian=course faculty collaboration, illustrating that effec-tive information literacy instruction involves collaboration between course andlibrary faculty that extends beyond ‘‘one-shot’’ library instruction sessions. Colla-boratively developed research assignment sequences are posited as an effectiveway for librarians and political science professors to work together to enhance lowerdivision students’ information literacy competencies. Finally, the paper presents apractical example of a collaboratively developed assignment sequence for a lowerdivision American Government class and maps the separate sections of the sequenceto the ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards.’’

226 C. R. Stevens and P. J. Campbell

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

The Emergence of Information Literacy in Higher Education

In a 1974 report to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science,Information Industry Association President Paul Zurkowski first introduced theconcept of ‘‘information literacy.’’ In those early days of computer use, Zurkowskiwas among the first to articulate the idea that new methods of information organi-zation and storage would require new types of training to teach people how tosift through and to use information effectively (1974, 6).1 The term appearedinfrequently in library literature in the 1970 s (Burchinal 1976; Owens 1976),2 but bythe 1980s, increasingly powerful information technologies led to increased interest inthe importance of teaching students how to use tools for retrieving and manipulatinginformation (Spitzer, Eisenberg, and Lowe 1998, 13). ‘‘The rise of the library instruc-tion movement in the 1980s’’ (Rockman 2002, 186) paved the way for the 1987 estab-lishment of the American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee onInformation Literacy. The committee, which consisted of seven national leadersfrom the education field and six from the field of librarianship, issued their finalreport in January 1989. The report, which defined information literacy and issueda series of recommendations, led to increased interest in the concept and to theproliferation of the term within library literature.

The growing importance of the library instruction movement (1970s–1980s) andthe subsequent information literacy movement (late 1980s to the present) within thefield of librarianship is illustrated clearly in the library science literature. In 1973, forexample, only 28 publications in library literature focused on what was then called‘‘user instruction’’ or ‘‘bibliographic instruction’’ (Rader 2002, 242). In contrast,in 1989, the year that the ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacyissued its final report, 158 articles focusing on library instruction and informationliteracy were published (Rader 2002, 243). These numbers have only continued togrow. During the five-year span from 2000 to 2004, for example, approximately270 information literacy related texts were published every year.3 This dramaticincrease in the production of texts focusing on information literacy within libraryliterature has contributed to the belief in some quarters of the library communitythat ‘‘information literacy stands today as a major focus and purpose of librarian-ship’’ (Marcum 2002, 1).

Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education

Since its adoption in 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries’(ACRL) ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education’’4

has played a major role in generating and sustaining interest in information literacy.The document delineates five Standards (see Table 1); each of which is accompaniedby a series of performance indicators and a corresponding range of outcomes forassessing students’ information literacy competencies. Taken as a whole, theStandards are designed to

1. highlight the information literacy needs of students in higher education,2. generate ideas for the creation of learning activities that help students develop

these competencies,3. assist in the development of assessment instruments that measure the degree to

which information literacy learning outcomes have been achieved.

Collaborating with Librarians 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

The Standards are not meant to function prescriptively, however, nor should they beviewed as a static and definitive list of competencies. Rather, the outcomes areintended to serve as ‘‘guidelines for faculty, librarians, and others in developing localmethods for measuring student learning in the context of an institution’s uniquemission’’ (ACRL 2000, 6).

The prefatory material in the Standards document also maintains that measur-ing student learning is a collaborative endeavor: ‘‘faculty and librarians should alsowork together to develop assessment instruments and strategies in the context ofparticular disciplines, as information literacy manifests itself in the specific under-standing of knowledge creation, scholarly activity, and publication processes foundin those disciplines’’ (ACRL 2000, 6). Although developed and promoted primarilyby librarians, the Standards’ reach extends well beyond the library, both in statedintent and in the breadth of the Standards themselves, which are far too expansive

Table 1. ACRL standards and summary of related competencies

ACRL standards Related competencies

Standard One

The information literate studentdetermines the nature and extent ofthe information needed.

. Refining a topic

. Constructing a thesis

. Exploring variety of types andformats of information

. Planning the searchStandard Two

The information literate student accessesneeded information effectively andefficiently.

. Selecting investigative methods andinformation retrieval systems

. Constructing search queries

. Accessing information

. Recording and organizing citationinformation

Standard Three

The information literate student evaluatesinformation and its sources criticallyand incorporates selected informationinto his or her knowledge base andvalue system.

. Summarizing

. Comparing and contrasting

. Analyzing for reliability, authority,bias, etc.

Standard Four

The information literate student,individually or as a member ofa group, uses information effectivelyto accomplish a specific purpose.

. Organizing information

. Clearly communicating information

. Integrating information

. Supporting claimsStandard Five

The information literate studentunderstands many of the economic,legal, and social issues surrounding theuse of information and accesses anduses information ethically and legally.

. Abiding by copyright laws

. Citing sources

. Avoiding plagiarism


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

in scope for librarians to implement on their own. This breadth has been a source ofcriticism from some quarters of the library community. For example, Owusu-Ansahfaults the Standards for both going ‘‘beyond the boundaries of what could beexpected of librarians’’ and outlining ‘‘detailed roles exclusive to subject faculty’’(2003, 226). Others have viewed the inclusiveness of the Standards favorably, argu-ing that the Standards provide librarians and faculty with the opportunity ‘‘to thinkoutside their traditional roles and relationships to one another, blurring boundaries,extending relationships, transcending and transforming traditional purviews in aneffort to enhance student learning’’ (Stevens 2007, 255).

Beyond the Library: Information Literacy in the Academy

While library literature ‘‘reverberates with a near-missionary zeal with the cause ofinformation literacy’’ (Foster 1993, 344), the concept has not been embraced withsame level of enthusiasm by other campus constituencies. For example, a recentcross-disciplinary study of 54 subject-specific, nonlibrary journals that publishpedagogical articles found only 25 articles published between 2000–2005 that focuson information literacy or library instruction (Stevens 2007, 261). Although suchstudies suggest that information literacy remains predominantly a preoccupationof librarians, there is also evidence indicating that this trend is shifting within boththe higher education community in general and the discipline of political sciencespecifically. For example, both regional and discipline accreditation associationshave incorporated information literacy into their standards (G. Thompson 2002)and as a result, some university systems have developed task forces to address theissue. The California State University (CSU) system was a vanguard in this area,creating the Information Competence Work Group in 1995, which was charged withdeveloping an information competence program for the CSU system. At some insti-tutions, libraries and writing centers have developed formal partnerships, workingtogether to integrate information literacy more fully into writing across the curricu-lum (WAC) programs (D’Angelo and Maid 2004; Elmborg and Hooks 2006). Vari-ous colleges, university systems, and foundations, including the Mellon Foundation,have also funded grants to support the integration of information literacy into thecurriculum.5 Seizing upon this emerging emphasis on information literacy, as wellas the culture of assessment that has emerged in higher education, Educational Test-ing Service (ETS) developed the iSkills assessment (formerly called Information andCommunication Technologies (ICT) Literacy Assessment), specifically designed totest college students’ abilities to ‘‘find, use, manage, evaluate and convey informationefficiently and effectively’’ (‘‘iSkills Assessment’’ 2007). Score data is designed tohelp administrators and faculty.

. Assess individual student proficiency

. Plan curricula to address ICT literacy gaps

. Inform resource-allocation decisions

. Provide evidence for accreditation (‘‘iSkills Assessment’’ 2007).

Because information literacy continues to have a growing impact on the universitysystems, institutions, departments, and programs in which political science facultyteach, it is increasingly appearing in political science teaching and learning forums.Information literacy is frequently the subject of presentations at conferences, forexample, including the annual and regional American Political Science Association


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

(APSA) conferences, the more recently established APSA Annual Teaching andLearning conference, as well as international political science symposiums (Evansand Williams 2006; Marfleet and Dille 2003; Schmidt and Fountain 2005; Stevensand Campbell 2006a, 2006b; Thornton 2005). Marfleet and Dille’s 2003 APSA confer-ence paper was later published in 2005, and it is particularly worth noting because it isthe first published information literacy article directed toward a political scienceaudience. The study tested the hypothesis that undergraduate political science methodscourses are ‘‘particularly fertile ground for the targeted enhancement of ACRLtargeted competencies’’ (Marfleet and Dille 2005, 175). Results indicated that infor-mation-literacy-oriented courses can improve student performance on standardizedinformation literacy competency tests, though that improvement is not linked to themethods course. They also found that ‘‘information literacy skills accumulate asstudents progress through their collegiate studies’’ (2005, 187).

Though directed toward a library audience rather than a political science one,Stevens and Campbell’s (2007) case study is one of only a few articles within libraryliterature that explicitly analyzes the effects of information literacy instruction withina political science context. While Marfleet and Dille focused on the research methodsclass, Stevens and Campbell worked with three different political science courses:Introduction to American Government, a lower level course; Comparative Politics,a midlevel course; and African Politics, an upper level course. Results from (1)pre- and posttests and (2) a series of assignments analyzed via grading rubrics mappedto ACRL Standards indicated that information literacy instruction is needed acrossacademic levels, that information literacy competencies improve with academicexperience, and that instruction can improve students’ performance of informationliteracy competencies across academic levels (Stevens and Campbell 2007, 134–140).

Finally, Robinson and Schlegl’s (2004) study, also aimed at a library audience,tested the efficacy of in-class library instruction in relation to the quality of politicalscience students’ term paper bibliographies and grades. They found that instructioncombined with academic penalties tied to the use of a minimum of scholarly sourcesimproved student bibliographies.

Collaborating with Librarians beyond the ‘‘One-Shot’’

In the aforementioned information literacy case study directed toward a politicalscience audience, Marfleet and Dille (2005) echo the oft-repeated assertion in libraryliterature that the most effective way to enhance students’ information literacycompetencies is to 1) integrate information literacy into the curriculum and 2) collab-orate with librarians in the development and delivery of information literacy instruc-tion. Indeed, over the past 10 years, the idea that effective information literacyprograms involve both faculty=librarian collaboration and integration into theacademic curriculum has become axiomatic for most academic instruction librarians(Carter 2002; Julien and Given 2003; Rockman 2002).6 During this time, numerousarticles advocating for an ‘‘integrated model of faculty-librarian working relation-ships’’ (Julien and Given 2003) have appeared7 and several books have also beenpublished foregrounding collaboration=integration and practical strategies forachieving them (Jacobson and Mackey 2007; Miller and Pellen 2005; Rockman2004; Raspa and Ward 2000).

However, the collaborative instructional relationships Marfleet and Dille brieflydescribe and library literature frequently promotes tend to differ significantly from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

traditional models of both library instruction and course faculty=librarian collabor-ation that currently remain the norm at colleges and universities across the nation.Typically, faculty who are interested in teaching their students how to use the libraryask librarians to come to their classes once during the semester to introduce studentsto important library resources. In these instructional sessions, often referred to as‘‘one-shots’’ by librarians, librarians have about 50 minutes to offer an overviewof the library’s collections and services and to demonstrate the use of the librarycatalog and=or selected databases. Such sessions tend to involve little actual ‘‘collab-oration’’ between course and library faculty. They also often introduce library toolsin a general way, emphasizing, for example, generic information retrieval rather thaninquiry-based research that is embedded in a meaningful context. This ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to library instruction (Kohl and Wilson 1986, 207) saves a greatdeal of preparation time for both the course faculty, of whom nothing is expected,and the librarian, who is expected to provide the same information, or an updatedversion of it, for every section of every class. The drawbacks of this approach aresignificant, however. Students may find it difficult, for example, to connect thegeneral library information presented by the librarian with the actual work they haveto do for their specific assignments.8 Also, there is simply not enough time in a50-minute class session for students to learn everything they might need to knowabout the library or to significantly develop even one or two information literacycompetencies. Such problems can be compounded when librarians, knowing thatthey only have ‘‘one-shot’’ to teach students library and information literacy skills,try to cover too much. Too much information can result in ‘‘information overload,’’a state in which new information can no longer be taken in, decision makingbecomes increasingly difficult, and prior information becomes harder to recall(Eppler and Mengis 2004, 326).

Because of these kinds of ‘‘disconnects’’ between teaching strategies and studentlearning, information literacy advocates generally assert that traditional ‘‘one-shot’’library lectures, focusing on tools and an overview of library resources and services,do not adequately meet today’s students’ needs. Although many librarians andcourse faculty arrive at this conclusion as the result of their own professional experi-ences, there are also a number of studies that support this position. For example,Kohl and Wilson (1986) compared the tool-based approach to library instruction,which consists of descriptions and demonstrations of available library research tools,to instruction with a ‘‘cognitive’’ or inquiry-based approach, which is designed tohelp students develop a more ‘‘complex, appropriate, and individualized researchstrategy for themselves’’ (210). In the ‘‘cognitive’’ approach, instruction was shapedby students’ research questions rather than by a predetermined list of tools thelibrarian needed to cover. As a result, the librarian was able to help students discoverthe various components of their research topics and the specific tools that were mostrelevant to them. Kohl and Wilson’s analysis of term paper bibliographies producedby students who had received these two different types of library instruction foundthat the traditional, tool-specific approach was not as useful as the cognitiveapproach in improving student use of information resources in their assignments.

Portmann and Roush’s (2004) study, which sought to measure the influence of aone-hour library instruction session on community college students’ library usageand skills, also calls into question the efficacy of the one-shot. They found thatthe one-shot session had ‘‘no statistically significant positive influence on libraryskills’’ (Portmann and Roush 2004, 463). In another 2004 study, Robinson and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Schlegl analyzed the bibliographies of Canadian political science students to testwhether a library instruction session affected the quality of students’ sources. Theyfound that instruction alone had very little effect on the quality of sources studentsincluded in their bibliographies (Robinson and Schlegl 2004, 280). However, instruc-tion combined with clear assignment guidelines outlining both the required numberof scholarly sources and specific penalties that would be assessed for not adequatelyfulfilling the requirement did ‘‘have positive and significant effects’’ (275). Thesefindings were consistent with their hypothesis that ‘‘students would take libraryinstruction more seriously and would be more likely to apply it in their research ifthey could see a direct correlation between such instruction and their grades’’ (286).

Effectively linking library instruction to a specific course via assignments, classactivities, and grades can be achieved by course and library faculty actively collabor-ating in the development of both the assignments and the instruction. For example,Daugherty and Carter (1997) found that course-integrated library instruction thatwas collaboratively developed by faculty and librarians led to student library skilldevelopment. They concluded that because the library instruction program had been‘‘developed with rather than after course development,’’ they were able to ensurethat students were taught skills that ‘‘facilitate assignment completion’’ and thatassignments were ‘‘developed that exercise skills’’ (Daugherty and Carter 1997,30). Moreover, because the focus of the instruction was immediate course outcomes,student interest was maintained.

Collaborative partnerships have also led other librarian-faculty teams to aban-don the very practice from which the ‘‘one-shot’’ derived its name, extending theinstructional partnership beyond a single session. Brown and Krumholz’s (2002)study of senior-level geomicrobiology students’ information-seeking, evaluating,and usage abilities led them to the conclusion that ‘‘greater strides in informationliteracy development. . .may be achieved by restructuring the timing of the libraryinstruction so that the sessions are shorter, more frequent, and scattered throughoutthe semester’’ (121). Gandhi’s (2004) study appears to support this claim. In collab-oration with an English professor, librarians applied a five-session model of libraryinstruction to three English Composition II classes. Each of the instruction sessionswere shorter than the typical 50-minute one-shot, lasting only 25–30 minutes, andeach focused on fewer topics. Pre- and posttest results indicated that students learnedmuch more in the five-session model than in the traditional one-shot session. Learningwas further reinforced by review sessions. Pre- and posttests and teaching evaluationsurveys provided positive evidence that a library instruction model with five shorterinstruction sessions was more effective than the traditional one-shot in improvingstudents’ information literacy and increasing their comfort with both using electronicdatabases and asking librarians for help.

In short, studies suggest that traditional one-shot sessions that provide a generaloverview of library resources and services tend not to significantly develop students’library skills (accessing information) or the higher order information literacy skills ofanalysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Although there are many ways that library andinformation literacy instruction can be improved to achieve specific learningoutcomes, almost all of them involve faculty and librarians actively working togetheroutside of the one-shot model to ensure that ‘‘assignments are developed that exer-cise skills’’ and ‘‘skills are taught that facilitate assignment completion’’ (Daughertyand Carter 1997, 30). Working collaboratively, librarians and course faculty have thepotential to produce more effective information literacy integrated assignments than


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

either might produce on their own. Their collective areas of expertise can lead to thedevelopment of research assignments that are

1. embedded within a meaningful disciplinary context, challenging students toengage with various questions, discourses, and scholars that are important inthe field;

2. mapped to ACRL Standards, providing students with opportunities to practice avariety of information literacy competencies and facilitating the assessment ofinformation literacy learning outcomes;

3. compatible with the library’s current resources and services.

Some faculty who work with librarians to create effective assignments ask librariansto come to their classes one or more times every semester to teach or to team-teachinformation literacy skills to their students. Other professors elect to teach thesekinds of sessions themselves. However, a productive collaborative relationship canbe maintained by meeting periodically to brainstorm strategies for integrating infor-mation literacy into new classes and assignments and to discuss the library’s ever-changing electronic tools and resources.

Integrating Information Literacy into Political Science Courses via AssignmentSequences

What follows is a description and analysis of an assignment sequence that the faculty=librarian authors collaboratively developed and delivered to a lower division AmericanGovernment course. Pre- and posttests in addition to assignments analyzed via grad-ing rubrics revealed that course-integrated information literacy instruction enhancedstudents’ information literacy competencies (Stevens and Campbell 2007). However,this section is not a case study but rather is intended to serve as (1) an example of acollaboratively developed assignment sequence, (2) a practical guide for integratingeffective information literacy assignments into political science courses, and (3) aspringboard for generating information literacy assignments ideas. A lower divisioncourse is used as an example because it is particularly important to provide studentswith the opportunity, early in their college careers, to begin developing the infor-mation literacy skills that facilitate academic success.

The first assignment in the sequence, the Research Proposal, is analyzed in greaterdetail than subsequent assignments in order to illustrate how an assignment (SeeAppendix 1) and a corresponding grading rubric (See Appendix 2) can be mappedto the ACRL Standards, Performance Indicators, and Outcomes. Mapping assign-ments to the Standards is a useful practice that can reveal whether certain Standardsare being overlooked and=or overemphasized in specific assignments. It can thus helpfaculty to integrate information literacy competencies into assignments more evenlyand=or thoroughly. Outlining the learning outcomes related to each Standard andPerformance Indicator also makes it easier to create grading rubrics—assessmenttools that can enhance instructors’ and learners’ understanding of whether infor-mation literacy learning outcomes were achieved. Grading rubrics that are mappedto the Standards are also useful tools for ensuring that assessment systematicallyfocuses on specific prioritized information literacy learning outcomes.

Although it is worth noting that the librarian co-taught several research sessionswith the political science professor, the focus of this section is primarily on assign-ment design rather than on in-class instruction. The political science professor could


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

have easily taught the research sessions on her own after having worked so closelywith the librarian in the development of the assignments. However, enhancingstudents’ information literacy competencies was not the only goal for the instruction.As Daugherty and Carter (1997) observe, ‘‘Attitude change and relationship devel-opment—seeing the librarian as a consultant—may be as important as immediateskill development’’ (29). Students don’t always know the degree to which librarianscan help them with their research, so one important function of library instruction isteaching students that the subject specialist=reference librarian can serve as a ‘‘ ‘trou-ble-shooter’ in the maze of access tools and an ally in the literature search process’’(Baxter 1986, 41). Specifically, the goals for having these lower division students getto know a librarian were to mitigate their ‘‘library anxiety’’ (Bostick 1993; Mellon1986)9 and to increase the likelihood that in the future, they would ask a librarianfor research help when they needed it.

Assignment Design

In an effort to enhance the information literacy competencies of American Govern-ment students, a process-oriented assignment sequence was developed that wasdesigned to ‘‘teach’’ rather than to simply ‘‘test.’’ Traditional term papers testwhether students were good researchers and writers when they came into the class,since these papers are submitted at the end of the semester with no opportunity toapply feedback. In contrast, the American Government assignment sequence wasdesigned to play an integral role in the learning process, providing many opportu-nities for feedback and revision.

The sequence was also carefully scaffolded, providing support to help learnersthrough processes that most would not have been able to complete successfully ontheir own. The concept of scaffolding is grounded upon Vygotsky’s (1978) socialconstructivist theory of learning, relying particularly on his articulation of ‘‘the zoneof proximal development,’’ the space between what students can do on their own andwhat they can do with help. It is in this space that learning takes place. As learnersgain experience accomplishing a task with help, they ‘‘internalize the collaborativeform of the mental processes’’ and are ‘‘able to engage in them alone or in newcontexts’’ (Clark and Graves 2005, 571).

With these ideas about learning in mind, a series of interrelated activities andassignments were created that would help students produce higher quality researchassignments than they would have been able to produce independently. Specifically,the assignments were designed to:

1. break down complex processes into their component parts,2. highlight the relationships among constituent parts,3. provide clear directions regarding the kinds of questions to ask and tasks to per-

form,4. include examples and models,5. build upon the concepts and skills mastered in previous assignments, and6. provide opportunities for feedback and revision.

Research Proposal

The semester-long American Government assignment sequence consists of a seriesof writing and research assignments centered on a constitutional issue that is at stake


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

in debates about a current controversial topic. The first of the series of assignments isa Research Proposal (See Appendix 1) designed to guide students through theprocesses involved in selecting and narrowing a topic, constructing effective searchqueries, and developing research questions and preliminary arguments. Since thegoal of the Research Proposal is for students to learn the processes involved in topicdevelopment, the assignment primarily emphasizes information literacy skills thatfall under Standard One (defining and articulating the information need). However,mapping the various sections of the assignments to ACRL Standards, PerformanceIndicators, and Outcomes reveal that the assignment asks students to perform skillsthat fall under all five of the Standards, illustrating that the Standards do not reflecta linear research process (See Table 2). Rather, the Standards describe competenciesthat are characteristics of efficient and effective researchers—those who can success-fully navigate the nonlinear and recursive research process.

The first section of the Research Proposal, which asks students to state theirgeneral topic, falls under Standard One (determining the nature of the informationneed), Performance Indicator One (defining and articulating the need), and OutcomeA (identifying a research topic) (See Table 3). Because American Governmentcourses are introductory classes that are typically populated primarily by freshmen,this part of the assignment is heavily scaffolded in order to help novice researchersbegin their projects in a productive direction. Students are provided with a list ofcontroversial topics from which to choose, from affirmative action to the right todie. Providing them with options is an attempt to accommodate students’ differentinterests while also preventing them from wasting time researching a topic that will

Table 2. Total number of unique research proposal learning outcomes by standard

StandardsTotal learning

outcomes

Standard 1

The information literate student determines the nature andextent of the information needed

6

Standard 2

The information literate student accesses needed informationeffectively and efficiently.

4

Standard 3

The information literate student evaluates information and itssources critically and incorporates selected information intohis or her knowledge base and value system.

4

Standard 4

The information literate student, individually or as a member ofa group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specificpurpose.

2

Standard 5

The information literate student understands many of theeconomic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use ofinformation and accesses and uses information ethically andlegally.

1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

not work for the class. The list of controversial topics is limited to well-known issuesthat most students would already have heard discussed at home, on the news, or inother classes and about which they would likely already have formed opinions priorto taking the course. The opinions students bring with them to the course, however,tend not to have any explicit relationship to the Constitution. This assignment, then,provides them with the opportunity to start with a topic that interests them and thatthey already know something about, thus mitigating anxiety about political scienceresearch and demonstrating that political science is relevant to issues that they feelare important and meaningful. Students are then in a position to build upon andto expand their prior knowledge by exploring how their controversial topic relatesto the United States Constitution, a document with which most are far less familiar.

Section two of the Research Proposal is designed to teach students how to createeffective web search queries that will help them to discover the constitutional issuesthat are relevant to their topics. In order to help students successfully achieveOutcome C under Standard One, Performance Indicator One (‘‘Explores generalinformation sources to increase familiarity with the topic’’) in the subsequent sectionof the assignment, section two asks students to identify the major concepts in theirtopic, to make a list of related keyterms, and to construct sample search queries.These activities fall under Standard Two (accessing information), Performance Indi-cator Two (effective searching), Outcomes B (identifying keywords and synonyms)and D (constructing search queries) (See Table 4). This section of the assignmentencourages students to think critically about how they search for information andwhy some search strategies might be more effective than others. Inexperiencedresearchers sometimes believe, for example, that a good search amounts to typingone or two words into Google and retrieving 200,000 results. Narrowing theirsearches by adding more specific keyterms often does not occur to them. In othercases, students have difficulty generating alternative possibilities for search termsthat are not producing relevant results. Similarly, students frequently are not awarethat it is a good idea to conduct multiple searches using a variety of search queries,assuming instead that if they do not find what they are looking for using theiroriginal terms, then the information probably does not exist. This section of the

Table 3. Section one of the research proposal and corresponding standard,performance indicator, and outcome

Researchproposal task Standard

Performanceindicator Outcome

State generaltopic

1: The informationliterate studentdetermines thenature and extentof theinformationneeded.

1: The informationliterate studentdefines andarticulates theneed forinformation.

A: Confers withinstructors andparticipates inclass discussions,peer workgroups,and electronicdiscussions toidentify a researchtopic, or otherinformation need.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

assignment provides instructors with the opportunity to disabuse students of some oftheir erroneous ideas about searching, providing feedback on their keyterms andsearch queries that will ultimately help students become more efficient and effectivesearchers.

Early in the semester, most students in lower level American Governmentcourses do not know much about the Constitution nor the kinds of constitutionalissues that might be relevant to their controversial topic, so the third section ofthe Research Proposal assignment requires them to do some preliminary backgroundresearch. This section builds upon section two, asking students to use the searchqueries they had just constructed to discover constitutional issues that are relevant

Table 4. Section two of the research proposal and corresponding standards,performance indicators, and outcomes

Research proposaltask Standard


A. List major keyterms

1: The informationliterate studentdetermines thenature andextent of theinformationneeded.


E: Identifies keyconcepts andterms thatdescribe theinformationneed.

B. List synonyms 2: The informationliterate studentaccesses neededinformationeffectively andefficiently.

2: The informationliterate studentconstructs andimplementseffectively-designed searchstrategies.

B: Identifieskeywords,synonyms andrelated terms forthe informationneeded.

C. List threesearchqueries

2: The informationliterate studentaccesses neededinformationeffectively andefficiently.

2: The informationliterate studentconstructs andimplementseffectivelydesigned searchstrategies.

D: Constructs asearch strategyusingappropriatecommands forthe informationretrieval systemselected (e.g.,Booleanoperators,truncation, andproximity forsearch engines;internalorganizers suchas indexes forbooks).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

to their general topics. Taken as a whole, the different parts of this section all involveStandard One related competencies (identifying an information need), as they aredesigned to help students narrow their research focus by identifying a constitutionalissue that is relevant to their controversial topic. However, the component parts ofthis section fall under Standard Two (accessing information), Standard Three (eval-uating information), Standard Four (using information for a specific purpose), andStandard Five (ethical use) (See Table 5). For example, students are required to paycareful attention to where they access constitutional information, as they are specifi-cally asked to use Google to find reputable news or organizational sources (StandardTwo—accessing information and Standard Three—evaluating information).Students then are asked to explain why they believe the sources they found are repu-table. When provided with in-class instruction about what constitutes reputablenews and organizational sources, most students are able to locate appropriatesources. Many do not evaluate those sources particularly well, however, neglectingboth to explain why they are reputable and to use examples to back up their claims.This is to be expected, as evaluation is a higher order thinking skill10 that manyfreshmen have not developed. Their first attempt at it, however, provides instructorswith opportunities to point out problems and to provide examples of how responsescould be improved. Subsequent assignments emphasize evaluation more heavily,providing students with the opportunity to apply feedback and to work on improv-ing their evaluation skills.

Finally, after doing some research, students move on to parts C and D of sectionthree, which ask them to use the information from the sources they located to definethe constitutional issue, to explain how it relates to their topic, and to describe thecontroversy (i.e., the opposing arguments). These sections, which involve summarizing,paraphrasing, and synthesizing, fall under Standard Three and its emphasis on incor-porating information effectively and appropriately. Inevitably, some students copyand paste information from their sources without quoting or documenting them,providing instructors with the opportunity to also address Standard Five, and itsfocus on the ethical use of information.

The final sections of the Research Proposal ask students to construct a researchquestion and to turn that question into a thesis statement (Standard One, Perform-ance Indicator One, Outcome B—‘‘Develops a thesis statement and formulates ques-tions based on the information need.’’ ) (See Table 6). Students tend to struggle withthis section, as their initial attempts to grapple with constitutional issues that theyare just beginning to understand often result in convoluted language, an argumentthat is far too broad in scope, or a statement that is not arguable. Feedback on thissection can point out specific problems and then ask students to resubmit a revisedthesis. Some students will submit their theses multiple times as they struggle both toincorporate the feedback into their cognitive framework and to apply it in theirrevisions.

The sustained difficulty characterizing many students’ thesis-formation processindicates that lower division students often are not prepared to receive a researchassignment that simply asks them to write a paper and to submit it at the end ofthe term. In order to complete a research paper assignment successfully, they needinstruction in the various steps of the research process. Thesis formation is a criticalpart of that process, and one that is best addressed early in the semester to give stu-dents plenty of time to refine their focus. It is also important to note that students areencouraged to revise and to refine their theses in light of their research findings. In


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Ta

ble

5.

Sec

tio

nth

ree

of

the

rese

arc

hp

rop

osa

la

nd

corr

esp

on

din

gst

an

da

rds,

per

form

an

cein

dic

ato

rs,

an

do

utc

om

es

Res

earc

hp

rop

osa

lta

skS

tan

da

rdP

erfo

rma

nce

ind

ica

tor

Ou

tco

me

A.

Iden

tify

aco

nst

itu

tio

na

lis

sue

rele

va

nt

toto

pic

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

td

eter

min

esth

en

atu

rea

nd

exte

nt

of

the

info

rma

tio

nn

eed

ed.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

td

efin

esa

nd

art

icu

late

sth

en

eed

for

info

rma

tio

n.

D:

Def

ines

or

mo

dif

ies

the

info

rma

tio

nn

eed

toa

chie

ve

am

an

ag

eab

lefo

cus.

B.

Lo

cate

two

art

icle

sfr

om

rep

uta

ble

on

lin

en

ews

sou

rces

or

org

an

iza

tio

ns

tha

tfo

cus

on

bo

thth

eco

ntr

ov

ersi

al

top

ica

nd

the

con

stit

uti

on

al

issu

e.R

ead

art

icle

sa

nd

list

cita

tio

nin

form

ati

on

.E

xp

lain

wh

yso

urc

esa

rere

pu

tab

le.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

td

eter

min

esth

en

atu

rea

nd

exte

nt

of

the

info

rma

tio

nn

eed

ed.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

td

efin

esa

nd

art

icu

late

sth

en

eed

for

info

rma

tio

n.

C:

Ex

plo

res

gen

era

lin

form

ati

on

sou

rces

toin

crea

sefa

mil

iari

tyw

ith

the

top

ic.

2:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tid

enti

fies

av

ari

ety

of

typ

esa

nd

form

ats

of

po

ten

tia

lso

urc

esfo

rin

form

ati

on

.

D:

Iden

tifi

esth

ep

urp

ose

an

da

ud

ien

ceo

fp

ote

nti

al

reso

urc

es(e

.g.,

po

pu

lar

vs.

sch

ola

rly

,cu

rren

tv

s.h

isto

rica

l).

2:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

ta

cces

ses

nee

ded

info

rma

tio

nef

fect

ivel

ya

nd

effi

cien

tly

.

3:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tre

trie

ves

info

rma

tio

no

nli

ne

or

inp

erso

nu

sin

ga

va

riet

yo

fm

eth

od

s.

A:

Use

sv

ari

ou

sse

arc

hsy

stem

sto

retr

iev

ein

form

ati

on

ina

va

riet

yo

ffo

rma

ts.

5:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tex

tra

cts,

reco

rds,

an

dm

an

ag

esth

ein

form

ati

on

an

dit

sso

urc

es.

D:

Rec

ord

sa

llp

erti

nen

tci

tati

on

info

rma

tio

nfo

rfu

ture

refe

ren

ce.

3:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tev

alu

ate

sin

form

ati

on

an

dit

sso

urc

escr

itic

all

ya

nd

inco

rpo

rate

sse

lect

edin

form

ati

on

into

his

or

her

kn

ow

led

ge

ba

sea

nd

va

lue

syst

em.

2:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

ta

rtic

ula

tes

an

da

pp

lies

init

ial

crit

eria

for

eva

lua

tin

gb

oth

the

info

rma

tio

na

nd

its

sou

rces

.

A:

Ex

am

ines

an

dco

mp

are

sin

form

ati

on

fro

mv

ari

ou

sso

urc

esin

ord

erto

eva

lua

tere

lia

bil

ity

,v

ali

dit

y,

acc

ura

cy,

au

tho

rity

,ti

mel

ines

s,a

nd

po

int

of

vie

wo

rb

ias.

(Co

nti

nu

ed)

239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Ta

ble

5.

Co

nti

nu

ed

Res

earc

hp

rop

osa

lta

skS

tan

da

rdP

erfo

rma

nce

ind

ica

tor

Ou

tco

me

C.

Ex

pla

inh

ow

the

con

stit

uti

on

al

issu

ere

late

sto

yo

ur

top

ic(n

oco

py

ing

an

dp

ast

ing

).

3:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tev

alu

ate

sin

form

ati

on

an

dit

sso

urc

escr

itic

all

ya

nd

inco

rpo

rate

sse

lect

edin

form

ati

on

into

his

or

her

kn

ow

led

ge

ba

sea

nd

va

lue

syst

em.

3:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tsy

nth

esiz

esm

ain

idea

sto

con

stru

ctn

ewco

nce

pts

.

A:

Rec

og

niz

esin

terr

ela

tio

nsh

ips

am

on

gco

nce

pts

an

dco

mb

ines

them

into

po

ten

tia

lly

use

ful

pri

ma

ryst

ate

men

tsw

ith

sup

po

rtin

gev

iden

ce.

4:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

t,in

div

idu

all

yo

ra

sa

mem

ber

of

ag

rou

p,

use

sin

form

ati

on

effe

ctiv

ely

toa

cco

mp

lish

asp

ecif

icp

urp

ose

.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

ta

pp

lies

new

an

dp

rio

rin

form

ati

on

toth

ep

lan

nin

ga

nd

crea

tio

no

fa

pa

rtic

ula

rp

rod

uct

or

per

form

an

ce.

C:

Inte

gra

tes

the

new

an

dp

rio

rin

form

ati

on

,in

clu

din

gq

uo

tati

on

sa

nd

pa

rap

hra

sin

gs,

ina

ma

nn

erth

at

sup

po

rts

the

pu

rpo

ses

of

the

pro

du

cto

rp

erfo

rma

nce

.3

.T

he

info

rma

tio

nli

tera

test

ud

ent

com

mu

nic

ate

sth

ep

rod

uct

or

per

form

an

ceef

fect

ivel

yto

oth

ers.

D.

Co

mm

un

ica

tes

clea

rly

an

dw

ith

ast

yle

tha

tsu

pp

ort

sth

ep

urp

ose

so

fth

ein

ten

ded

au

die

nce

.5

:T

he

info

rma

tio

nli

tera

test

ud

ent

un

der

sta

nd

sm

an

yo

fth

eec

on

om

ic,

leg

al,

an

dso

cia

lis

sues

surr

ou

nd

ing

the

use

of

info

rma

tio

na

nd

acc

esse

sa

nd

use

sin

form

ati

on

eth

ica

lly

an

dle

ga

lly

.

2:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tfo

llo

ws

law

s,re

gu

lati

on

s,in

stit

uti

on

al

po

lici

es,

an

det

iqu

ette

rela

ted

toth

ea

cces

sa

nd

use

of

info

rma

tio

nre

sou

rces

.

F:

Dem

on

stra

tes

an

un

der

sta

nd

ing

of

wh

at

con

stit

ute

sp

lag

iari

sma

nd

do

esn

ot

rep

rese

nt

wo

rka

ttri

bu

tab

leto

oth

ers

as

his=

her

ow

n.

240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

D.

Des

crib

eo

pp

osi

ng

arg

um

ents

.3

:T

he

info

rma

tio

nli

tera

test

ud

ent

eva

lua

tes

info

rma

tio

na

nd

its

sou

rces

crit

ica

lly

an

din

corp

ora

tes

sele

cted

info

rma

tio

nin

toh

iso

rh

erk

no

wle

dg

eb

ase

an

dv

alu

esy

stem

.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

tsu

mm

ari

zes

the

ma

inid

eas

tob

eex

tra

cted

fro

mth

ein

form

ati

on

ga

ther

ed.

A:

Rea

ds

the

tex

ta

nd

sele

cts

ma

inid

eas.

B:

Res

tate

ste

xtu

al

con

cep

tsin

his=

her

ow

nw

ord

sa

nd

sele

cts

da

taa

ccu

rate

ly.

4:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

t,in

div

idu

all

yo

ra

sa

mem

ber

of

ag

rou

p,

use

sin

form

ati

on

effe

ctiv

ely

toa

cco

mp

lish

asp

ecif

icp

urp

ose

.

1:

Th

ein

form

ati

on

lite

rate

stu

den

ta

pp

lies

new

an

dp

rio

rin

form

ati

on

toth

ep

lan

nin

ga

nd

crea

tio

no

fa

pa

rtic

ula

rp

rod

uct

or

per

form

an

ce.

C:

Inte

gra

tes

the

new

an

dp

rio

rin

form

ati

on

,in

clu

din

gq

uo

tati

on

sa

nd

pa

rap

hra

sin

gs,

ina

ma

nn

erth

at

sup

po

rts

the

pu

rpo

ses

of

the

pro

du

cto

rp

erfo

rma

nce

.3

.T

he

info

rma

tio

nli

tera

test

ud

ent

com

mu

nic

ate

sth

ep

rod

uct

or

per

form

an

ceef

fect

ivel

yto

oth

ers.

D.

Co

mm

un

ica

tes

clea

rly

an

dw

ith

ast

yle

tha

tsu

pp

ort

sth

ep

urp

ose

so

fth

ein

ten

ded

au

die

nce

.

241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

this way, thesis formation is shown to be an ongoing process that is inextricablylinked to the processes of narrowing the research focus, finding and reading material,and developing and supporting arguments.

Comparing Scholarly and Popular Articles

The next assignment in the semester-long sequence is designed to introduce studentsto political science journals and to help them understand the differences betweenscholarly and popular publications. The assignment asks students to find and thento compare and contrast a political science scholarly journal article relevant to theirtopic with an article from a popular publication dealing with the same issue. As theysearch for information, students practice information literacy competencies relatedto Standard Two (accessing information) and all of its Performance Indicators, fromselecting appropriate investigative methods to extracting, recording, and managingthe information found. They also develop skills related to Standard One (determiningthe information need), Performance Indicator Two (Identifying various types andformats of information), and Outcome D (Identifying the purpose and audience ofresources). Finally, as they write a brief paper analyzing the differences betweenthe scholarly and popular publications they found, students gain experience evaluatinginformation (Standard Three, Performance Indicator Two, Outcome A) and usinginformation to communicate the differences between the articles (Standard Four,Performance Indicator One, Outcome C).

Annotated Bibliography

The Annotated Bibliography assignment builds upon the prior assignment, furtherdeveloping students’ understanding of the differences among types of sources. It also

Table 6. Section four and five of the research proposal and corresponding standards,performance indicators, and outcomes

Research proposaltask Standard


Research Question 1: The informationliterate studentdetermines thenature andextent of theinformationneeded.


B: Develops a thesisstatement andformulatesquestions basedon theinformationneed.

Tentative Thesis 1: The informationliterate studentdetermines thenature andextent of theinformationneeded.


B: Develops a thesisstatement andformulatesquestions basedon theinformationneed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

provides students with additional practice evaluating and integrating source material(Standards Three and Four)—information literacy skills that are among the mostdifficult for students to master. Specifically, the ‘‘Annotated Bibliography’’ is anopportunity for students to review the literature on their selected topic and thento receive feedback about the direction of their research and the quality of thesources they are using. Students are asked to find the following five types of sources:

. One book (or chapter from a book)

. Two scholarly journal articles

. One magazine article

. One government document.

Each entry begins with an APSA citation. After each citation, students arerequired to summarize, to assess, and to reflect on the source. They are specificallyasked not to quote from their sources but rather to put any information they gleanfrom them in their own words. The assignment is scaffolded in that it teachesstudents how to write annotations by requiring that they follow a specific format.For example, the summary section of the annotation is to begin with the author’sname and qualifications followed by an appropriate signal verb and a ‘‘that’’ clause(i.e., ‘‘Jill Smith, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, arguesthat. . ..’’ ). Requiring students to include the author’s qualifications encourages themto be mindful of the relationship between the credentials of the author and the auth-ority and reliability of the author’s texts, as well as the relationship between the qualityof their own arguments and the authority of the sources they use to support them.The scripted first sentence is then followed by a brief discussion of some of the mainpoints the author refers to in support of the thesis.

The next section focuses on assessment. After summarizing the source, studentsare asked to evaluate it, explaining why it is a useful source to consult. They areasked to consider questions such as

. Why do you believe the information in the source is reliable?

. What biases and political assumptions underlie the source’s position?

. Is the source advocating a conservative, moderate, or liberal position on the issue?

. What is the goal of this source?

. Is it trying to persuade the reader to adopt a specific political perspective?

Finally, the assessment section is followed by a reflection. Students are askedto consider how the source fits into their research. They are asked to explain, forexample, how they might use the source in a paper, how it helps them shape theirarguments, which arguments in the source they might want to use to support theirown position on the issue, and the degree to which the source has shaped their ownthinking about the topic.

Final Research Project

The Final Research Project for the American Government students is not atraditional research paper, but rather a culminating assignment that is part revision,part extension, part reflection. In other words, it asks students to revise and toexpand upon material they had previously submitted. It also gives students theopportunity to become more sophisticated in their use of sources. The assignmentconsists of three sections: issue, current position on the issue, and reflection on the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

research process. Section one asks students to describe the issue they researched,including a discussion of three or more differing points of view on the issue thatreferences reputable sources supporting each of these perspectives. This section alsoincludes a description of the constitutional issue that is at stake and relevant lawsand Supreme Court decisions that relate to the issue.

The second section focuses on the students’ current position on the issue. Itbegins with a thesis statement, which is followed by a 200–250 word (at least) descrip-tion of their reasons for holding this position. Students are required to refer to at leastthree sources and to cite them appropriately in a bibliography using the APSA style.Finally, students are asked to reflect upon the research process, addressing questionssuch as

. What obstacles did you encounter during the research process? How did youaddress them?

. Which specific sources (i.e., describe a particular scholarly journal article) andaccess tools (i.e., talk about a specific database) did you find the most=least helpfuland why?

. What kinds of activities, assignments, instruction would have helped you in yourresearch process?

. What questions=issues=problems do you still have regarding conducting academicresearch?

These kinds of questions are designed to help students become more cognizant ofwhat they learned over the course of the semester and what they still need to improveupon. Awareness of their information literacy strengths and weaknesses can furtherenhance learning, enabling students to be more intentional and systematic in theirefforts to become more effective and efficient researchers.

Conclusion

In sum, studies suggest that course-integrated information literacy instruction canimprove students’ information literacy competencies. However, integrating infor-mation literacy into courses involves more than simply asking a librarian to delivera one-shot library instruction session. While traditional one-shots are not an effectiveway to enhance student learning of information literacy competencies, collaboratingwith librarians in the development of research assignments can be an effective methodfor teaching lower division students how to engage in political science research.Research assignment sequences that teach students about the various stages andactivities involved in the research process are particularly effective. Mapping theseassignments to ACRL Standards, performance indicators, and outcomes can facili-tate the development of assessment tools that both measure student learning as wellas provide students with targeted feedback that continues the learning process.

Appendix 1

American Government Research Proposal

About the Assignment

This class requires you to choose a current controversial topic from a list ofapproved topics and to identify a constitutional issue that is at stake in discussions


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

about the topic. Throughout the course of the semester, you will research your topicas it relates to this constitutional issue. The Research Proposal is your opportunity toclarify and to refine your research focus as well as to get feedback from me regardingthe direction of your research and the research strategies you are using. Please usethe following template to complete your Research Proposal assignment. Keep eachcategory (I–V) but delete the examples and explanatory text, replacing them withyour own answers. Please be as specific and thorough as possible. To avoid plagiar-izing, remember to put information into your own words.

I. General Topic

Please state your general topic here. Topics approved for further research are:

. Abortion . Evolution vs. IntelligentDesign

. Gun Control

. Affirmative Action . Flag Burning . Prayer in Schools

. Death Penalty . Gay Marriage . Right to Die

II. Keyword Search Terms

Although you probably have your own opinions about the general topic you’veselected, these opinions may be totally unrelated to the United States Constitutionat this point. So for this section, you’ll need to think about the kinds of keywordsthat you would type into an Internet search engine in order to find informationabout constitutional issues that are relevant to your topic. Your final responsefor this section should include sections A–C, which are described in detail below.A. List the major key terms that relate to your topic.

EXAMPLE: For Part A, you’ll need to break down the major concepts inyour topic. So for our medical marijuana example, we might list the followingterms:. medical. marijuana. constitution

B. List synonyms for these major key terms.Now that you’ve identified the major concepts, you need to think about otherterms that people might use when writing about your topic so that you don’tmiss potentially relevant sources when you conduct a search. Using the medi-cal marijuana example, if you only search for ‘‘medical marijuana’’ you willmiss articles that spell marijuana with an ‘‘h’’ instead of a ‘‘j,’’ that use theword ‘‘cannabis’’ rather than ‘‘marijuana,’’ or that talk about the ‘‘medicinal’’use of marijuana without ever using the word ‘‘medical.’’ Successful searchersconduct multiple searches using a variety of related terms. So for Part B, you’llneed to brainstorm synonyms and related terms and concepts that you mightbe able to use in a search. Identify additional keyterms by conducting an Inter-net search, reading a few of the articles that you find, and listing terms thatare repeatedly used or that appear to be important. You might try using athesaurus to generate synonyms as well. Also, keep in mind things like:. alternative spellings (particularly if you want to pick up British spellings as

well as American English spellings, as in ‘‘organization’’ and ‘‘organiza-tion’’ or ‘‘labor’’ and ‘‘labour’’);


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

. plurals and alternative endings (i.e., association and associations, or medi-cal and medicinal);

. acronyms and abbreviations (i.e., acquired immune deficiency syndromeand AIDS, American Medical Association and AMA, etc.).

EXAMPLE: After reading some articles and consulting a thesaurus, we mightgenerate the following list of synonyms and related terms for part B in ourmedical marijuana example:

. Medical . Marijuana . ‘‘Federal Law’’

. Medicinal . Cannabis . ‘‘Federal Government’’

. Medicine . Cannabinoids . ‘‘State Law’’

. Health . Constitution . ‘‘State Ballot Measures’’

. Treatment . ‘‘ConstitutionalLaw’’

. ‘‘Proposition 215’’

. ‘‘American MedicalAssociation’’

. Constitutional . ‘‘Compassionate UseAct’’

. AMA . ‘‘CommerceClause’’

. ‘‘Supreme Court’’

. ‘‘Raich v. Gonzales’’

C. List at least 3 different search queriesA search query is a series of words that you type into a search box. Combinea number of relevant terms from your list of synonyms above in each query.Put phrases in quotes.EXAMPLE: One of your three search queries for part C might look likethis: ‘‘medical marijuana’’ ‘‘commerce clause’’ constitutional.

III. The Constitutional Issue

Using Google and the search queries you developed above, do some preliminaryonline research investigating a constitutional issue that is relevant to yourgeneral topic.A. Identify a constitutional issue that is relevant to your topic.B. Locate two articles from reputable online news sources or organizations that

focus on your topic and the constitutional issue you’ve identified. Read thearticles. For each article, list the author, article title, the name of the orga-nization=news source, and the URL. Also, explain why you believe eachsource is reputable, backing up your responses with evidence.

C. For this next section, use information from the sources you’ve located butrestate the information in your own words (no copying and pasting!). Definethe constitutional issue and explain how it relates to your topic.

D. Describe the controversy (i.e., the opposing arguments).IV. Research Question

Now that you’ve done some preliminary background research on your topic,you should have a general idea about the kinds of issues and questions peopledebate about. For this section, develop a research question that addresses bothyour controversial topic and the relevant constitutional issue you’ve identified.Keep in mind that you should not be able to answer your question with a ‘‘yes’’or a ‘‘no.’’ Rather, your question should point to an arguable issue about whichreasonable people disagree (including Supreme Court justices!).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

EXAMPLE:Does the federal government have the authority under the U.S. Constitution tooverride a state law permitting the medical use of marijuana?

V. Tentative Thesis

Now transform your research question into a thesis statement. A thesis state-ment is simply an argument expressing your current position on the issue. Yourposition may very well change as you conduct your research and learn moreabout both your issue and the Constitution. Not only is changing your positionlater in the semester ‘‘ok,’’ it is also a fairly typical part of the research process.But for now, briefly state (as in one sentence) what you imagine your argumentwould be were you to write a paper on this issue. Your thesis should answer thequestion you created above.ExampleThe commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government thepower to regulate marijuana and to override state laws permitting the use andpossession of marijuana.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Appendix 2

American Government Research Proposal Rubric

Notes

1. According to Zurkowski, ‘‘People trained in the application of information resourcesto their work can be called information literates. They have learned techniques and skills forutilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in moldinginformation-solutions to their problems’’ (1974, 6).

2. For example, in a paper presented at a Texas A&M library symposium, Burchinal(1976) suggested that ‘‘to be information literate requires a new set of skills. These includehow to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficientlyand effectively’’ (11). In a Library Journal article, Owens (1976) linked information literacyand democracy: ‘‘Beyond information literacy for greater work effectiveness and efficiency,information literacy is needed to guarantee the survival of democratic institutions. All menare created equal but voters with information resources are in a position to make more intel-ligent decisions than citizens who are information illiterates’’ (27).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

3. These numbers were gleaned from a series of publications. See Johnson and Jent2005, Johnson and Jent 2004, Johnson 2003, Johnson and Rader 2002, and Johnson 2001.

4. The ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education’’ are avail-able online (http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html).

5. For example, in the Fall of 2002, member libraries of the CTW Consortium, Connec-ticut College, Trinity College, and Wesleyan University, were awarded a grant from theAndrew W. Mellon Foundation to support collaborative programs in information literacy(http://camel2.conncoll.edu/is/infolit=). In 2000, Carleton College received a three-yearinformation literacy Mellon grant (http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/about/infolit/mellon//). The Five Colleges of Ohio also won an information literacy Mellon grant(http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/ohio5/grant/development/index.html). Some collegesand universities have funded their own information literacy grant programs. Virginia Tech, forexample, developed an Information Literacy Collaboration Grant project, funded by theUniversity Libraries and the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences (http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=24).

6. For example, Carter (2002) states, ‘‘It is probably safe to say that most librariansagree that library research instruction is ‘most effective when integrated into courses, linkedto an assignment, and designed cooperatively by librarian and course instructor’’’ (36); Julienand Given (2003) claim that ‘‘faculty-librarian collaboration is one of the most prevalent solu-tions offered in the Library Information System (LIS) literature, to the problem of facultymembers’ disengagement from the Information Literacy (IL) imperative’’ (70); and Rockman(2002) observes that ‘‘at the beginning of the twenty-first century’’ library literature evinced an‘‘increased focus on faculty partnerships’’ bringing a ‘‘renewed emphasis’’ to the topic (187).

7. See, for example, D’Angelo and Maid (2004), who make the oft-repeated claim,‘‘faculty across the campus must understand they all have a shared responsibility in injectingIL into their curriculum. However, they can only do so meaningfully in close collaborationwith the experts in the library.’’ See also Mackey and Jacobson (2005). They begin their articleon IL collaborations with the assertion, ‘‘Collaboration among faculty and librarians is essen-tial for Information Literacy (IL) initiatives to be successful.’’

8. ‘‘Situative’’ theorists, those who believe that learning and knowing is situated inspecific environmental and social contexts, argue that how and why a person learns a parti-cular set of knowledge or skills, including the situation in which the learning takes placeand the learner’s intentions, are fundamental aspects of what is learned. In other words,knowledge is created and made meaningful in specific contexts, to which it is inextricablylinked. See, for example, Cobb and Bowers (1999) and Greeno (1997). Situated theoristsrecognize that knowledge does not always transfer between different contexts and emphasizethe importance of authentic classroom activities. See, for example, Brown, Collins, andDuguid (1989) and Ball (1997).

9. In a two-year study of college students’ feelings about library use, Mellon (1986)found that students described their initial reactions to the library in terms of fear. Specificallythey were afraid that their own skills were inadequate compared to that of their peers. As aresult, they avoided asking questions for fear of revealing their inadequacy to others. Bostick(1993) later developed a Library Anxiety Scale designed to measure five dimensions of libraryanxiety: 1) barriers with staff, 2) affective barriers, 3) comfort with the library, 4) knowledge ofthe library, and 5) mechanical barriers.

10. Bloom (1956) described a hierarchy of intellectual behavior (Bloom’s Taxonomy),which popularized the concept of higher order thinking skills.

References

American Library Association. 1989. ‘‘Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. FinalReport.’’ http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.htm. (April20, 2007).

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2000. ‘‘Information Literacy Compe-tency Standards for Higher Education.’’ American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html. (March 7, 2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Ball, Deborah L. 1997. ‘‘What do Students Know? Facing Challenges of Distance, Context,and Desire in Trying to Hear Children.’’ In International Handbook of Teachers andTeaching, eds. Bruce J. Biddle, Thomas L. Good, and Ivor F. Goodson. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Baxter, Pam M. 1986. ‘‘The Benefits of In-class Bibliographic Instruction.’’ Teaching ofPsychology 13: 40–41.

Bloom, Benjamin Samuel. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: D. McKay.Bostick, Sharon L. 1993. ‘‘The Development and Validation of the Library Anxiety Scale.’’ In

Research in Reference Effectiveness, eds. Marjorie E. Murfin and Jo Bell Whitlach.Chicago: ALA, Reference and Adult Services Division.

Brown, John S., Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. 1989. ‘‘Situated Cognition and the Cultureof Learning.’’ Educational Researcher 18: 32–42.

Brown, Cecelia and Lee R. Krumholz. 2002. ‘‘Integrating Information Literacy into theScience Curriculum.’’ College & Research Libraries 63: 111–123.

Burchinal, Lee G. 1976. ‘‘The Communications Revolution: America’s Third CenturyChallenge.’’ In The Future of Organizing Knowledge, papers presented at the TexasA&M University Library’s Centennial Academic Assembly. College Station, TX: TexasA&M University.

Carter, Elizabeth W. 2002 ‘‘‘Doing the Best You Can with What You Have:’ Lessons Learnedfrom Outcomes Assessment.’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28: 36–41.

Clark, Kathleen F. and Michael F. Graves. 2005. ‘‘Scaffolding Students’ Comprehension ofText.’’ The Reading Teacher 58: 570–580.

Cobb, Paul and Janet Bowers. 1999. ‘‘Cognitive and Situated Learning Perspectives in Theoryand Practice.’’ Educational Researcher 28: 4–15.

D’Angelo, Barbara J. and Barry M. Maid. 2004. ‘‘Moving Beyond Definitions: ImplementingInformation Literacy across the Curriculum.’’ Journal of Academic Librarianship 30:212–217.

Daugherty, Timothy K. and Elizabeth W. Carter. 1997. ‘‘Assessment of Outcome-FocusedLibrary Instruction in Psychology.’’ Journal of Instructional Psychology 24: 29–33.

Elmborg, James K. and Sheril Hook., eds. 2006. Centers for Learning: Libraries and WritingCenters in Collaboration. Chicago, IL: ACRL: Publications in Librarianship.

Emig, Janet. 1977. ‘‘Writing as a Mode of Learning.’’ College Composition and Communication28: 122–128.

Eppler, Martin and Jeanne Mengis. 2004. ‘‘The Concept of Information Overload: A Reviewof Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and RelatedDisciplines.’’ Information Society 20: 325–344.

Evans, Jocelyn and Michelle Williams. 2006. ‘‘Factors in Information Literacy Education.’’Presented at the American Political Science Association’s Teaching and Learning Confer-ence, Washington, D.C., February 18.

Foster, Stephen. 1993. ‘‘Information Literacy: Some Misgivings.’’ American Libraries,April: 344–346.

Gandhi, Smiti. 2004. ‘‘Faculty-Librarian Collaboration to Assess the Effectiveness of a Five-Session Library Instruction Model.’’ Community & Junior College Libraries 12: 15–48.

Greeno, James G. 1997. ‘‘On Claims that Answer the Wrong Questions.’’ EducationalResearcher 26: 5–17.

‘‘Information Competence in the CSU.’’ 1995. A Report Submitted to Commission on LearningResources and Instructional Technology Work Group on Information Competence,CLRIT Task 6.1., Susan C. Curzon, Chair. <http://www.calstate.edu/LS/Archive/info_comp_report.shtml#Why%20Is>. (April 16, 2007).

‘‘iSkills Assessment (The former ICT Literacy Assessment).’’ 2007. ETS. <http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=fde9af5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=cd7314ee98459010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD>. (April 20, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Jacobson, Trudi E. and Thomas P. Mackey, eds. 2007. Information Literacy Collaborationsthat Work. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Johnson, Anna Marie. 2001. ‘‘Library Instruction and Information Literacy.’’ ReferenceServices Review 29: 338–361.

Johnson, Anna Marie. 2003. ‘‘Library Instruction and Information Literacy 2002.’’ ReferenceServices Review 31: 385–418.

Johnson, Anna Marie and Hannelore B. Rader. 2002. ‘‘Library Instruction and InformationLiteracy-2001.’’ Reference Services Review 30: 359–389.

Johnson, Anna Marie and Sarah Jent. 2004. ‘‘Library Instruction and Information Literacy—2003.’’ Reference Services Review 32: 413–442.

Johnson, Anna Marie and Sarah Jent. 2005. ‘‘Library Instruction and Information Literacy—2004.’’ Reference Services Review 33: 487–530.

Julien, Heidi and Lisa Given. 2003. ‘‘Faculty-Librarian Relationships in the InformationLiteracy Context: A Content Analysis of Librarians’ Expressed Attitudes and Experi-ences.’’ Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 27: 65–87.

Kohl, David F. and Lizabeth A. Wilson. 1986. ‘‘Effectiveness of Course-Integrated Biblio-graphic Instruction in Improving Coursework.’’ RQ 26: 206–211.

Mackey, Thomas P. and Trudi E. Jacobson. 2005. ‘‘Information Literacy: A CollaborativeEndeavor.’’ College Teaching 53: 140–144.

Marcum, James W. 2002. ‘‘Rethinking Information Literacy.’’ The Library Quarterly 72: 1–26.Marfleet, Gregory and Brian Dille. 2003. ‘‘Information Literacy and the Undergraduate

Research Methods Curriculum.’’ Presented at the 99th Annual Meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August 30. ED 479 704.

Marfleet, Gregory and Brian Dille. 2005. ‘‘Information Literacy and the UndergraduateResearch Methods Curriculum.’’ Journal of Political Science Education 1: 175–190.

Mellon, Constance A. 1986. ‘‘Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and its Development.’’College and Research Libraries 47: 160–165.

Miller, William and Rita M. Pellen. 2005. Libraries within Their Institutions: Creative Colla-borations. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press.

Newell, George E. 1998. ‘‘‘How much are we the Wiser’ Continuity and Change in Writingand Learning in the Content Areas.’’ In The Reading–Writing Connection: Ninety-SeventhYearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, eds. Nancy Nelson andRobert C. Calfee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Owens, Major R. 1976. ‘‘The State Government and Libraries.’’ Library Journal 101: 19–28.Owusu-Ansah, Edward K. 2003. ‘‘Information Literacy and the Academic Library: A Critical

Look at a Concept and the Controversies Surrounding It.’’ Journal of Academic Librar-ianship 29: 219–230.

Portmann, Chris A. and Adrienne Julius Roush. 2004. ‘‘Assessing the Effects of LibraryInstruction.’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 30: 461–465.

Rader, Hannelore B. 2002. ‘‘Information Literacy 1973–2002: A Selected Literature Review.’’Library Trends 51: 242–259.

Raspa, Dick and Dane Ward. 2000. The Collaborative Imperative: Librarians and FacultyWorking Together in the Information Universe. Chicago, IL: Association of College andResearch Libraries.

Robinson, Andrew M. and Karen Schlegl. 2004. ‘‘Student Bibliographies Improve WhenProfessors Provide Enforceable Guidelines for Citations.’’ Portal: Libraries and theAcademy 4: 275–290.

Rockman, Ilene. 2002. ‘‘Strengthening Connections between Information Literacy, GeneralEducation, and Assessment Efforts.’’ Library Trends 51: 185–198.

Rockman, Ilene. 2004. Integrating Information Literacy into the Higher Education Curriculum:Practical Models for Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, Diane and Kathleen Fountain. 2005. ‘‘Applying Information Literacy Standards toPolitical Science Research Projects.’’ Presented at the American Political Science Associa-tion’s Teaching and Learning Conference, Washington, D.C., February 19–21.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Spitzer, Kathleen, Michael B. Eisenberg, and Carrie A. Lowe. 1998. Information Literacy:Essential Skills for the Information Age. Syracuse, New York: ERIC Clearinghouse onInformation and Technology, Syracuse University. ED 427 780. <http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/55/e6.pdf>. (April 16,2007).

Spivey, Nancy Nelson. 1990. ‘‘Transforming Texts: Constructive Processes in Reading andWriting.’’ Written Communication 7: 256–287.

Stevens, Christy. 2007. ‘‘Beyond Preaching to the Choir: Information Literacy, FacultyOutreach, and Disciplinary Journals.’’ Journal of Academic Librarianship 33: 254–267.

Stevens, Christy and Patricia Campbell. 2006a. ‘‘The Politics of Information Literacy:Integrating Information Literacy Instruction into the Political Science Curriculum.’’Presented at the American Political Science Association’s Teaching and Learning Confer-ence, Washington, D.C., February 18.

Stevens, Christy and Patricia Campbell. 2006b. ‘‘Information Literacy: Engaging Undergrad-uate Political Science Students in Research.’’ Presented at the Midwest Political ScienceAssociation, Chicago, IL, April, 21.

Stevens, Christy and Patricia Campbell. 2007. ‘‘The Politics of Information Literacy: Integrat-ing Information Literacy Instruction into the Political Science Curriculum.’’ InInformation Literacy Collaborations that Work, eds. Trudi E. Jacobson and Thomas P.Mackey. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Thompson, Gary B. 2002. ‘‘Information Literacy Accreditation Mandates: What They Meanfor Faculty and Librarians.’’ Library Trends 51: 218–241.

Thornton, Stephen. 2005. ‘‘Information Literacy and Politics.’’ Presented at the Annual Polit-ical Science Association Conference, Leeds University, April 6.

Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Young, Richard and Patricia Sullivan. 1984. ‘‘Why Write? A Reconsideration.’’ In Essays onClassical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, eds. Robert J. Conners, Lisa S. Ede, andAndrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Zurkowski, Paul G. 1974. The Information Service Environment: Relationships and Priorities.Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:24

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Collaborating with Librarians to Develop Lower Division Political Science Students' Information Literacy Competencies