Incentivization and collaboration: playing with the flipped model in embedded information literacy sessions - Kristopher Meen
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes228 views
The document describes an academic librarian's attempts to implement a flipped classroom model for information literacy sessions. In their initial sessions with undergraduate science students, the librarian asked students to complete pre-work before the session which seemed successful. However, later attempts with business students were less successful when instructors did not communicate the pre-work expectations. Additional attempts saw mixed results, with attendance generally better than pre-work completion. The librarian's most successful session used digital badges and an online pre-work module as incentives, suggesting incentives may be key to getting students to engage with pre-work in a flipped model.
Incentivization and collaboration: playing with the flipped model in embedded information literacy sessions - Kristopher Meen
- 1. INTRODUCTION Nov 6, 2015: New in post, in a business / sciences subject role, my line manager asks me to ‘shake the tree’ and come up with some flipped-model workshops in upcoming (spring semester) embedded information literacy sessions. My basic idea: Hardly revolutionary! Get students to watch video clips, whether in-house or vendor-produced, before a face-to-face, hands-on session, and do a short activity as a bridge. The big question: Will they do their homework and watch the clips / do the activity? If not, how can I incentivize (or more broadly, motivate) them to do so? Attempt (Semester Week 1): UG Science What: Asked class (via instructor) to watch four videos, then do a search using the catalogue, Google, and a database about ‘astrobiology’. Result: Pretty good! A discussion about what they found! Several students spoke up about their experience. Reflection: I’m amazing! Students are amazing! Their instructors are amazing and fastidious communicators! Attempt (still Week 1): PG Business What: As above, with search prompt related to CSR and branding; two different modules, two different instructors. Result a: Disaster! Instructor failed to notify students of their homework Result b: Very good. Instructor communicated the homework, students responded well to initial workshop questions. Reflection: Would I be better off communicating with students myself? Would they take me seriously, do the homework, attend the face-to-face session? Attempt (Weeks 1-2: UG Science, class divided into four sections) What: Clips plus elaborate search exercise. Result a: Disaster! Comms divided between self and instructors (via Blackboard), wires got crossed – few showed to the face-to-face, none did the homework. Result b-d: Tepid. Excellent attendance; not many did the homework. Reflection: Week 1 went so well. But is it because they didn’t yet have anything else to do? Attempt (Weeks 3-4): UG Business, four sections What: Similar, but I was excited about this one as it was attached to a specific assignment that I was going to be able to play a part in the grade. Surely that would be an incentive to take things seriously! Result: Disappointment! I very rigorously asked the students whether they did the homework; nearly none had. Reflection: Were the results in week 1 as good as I thought they were? In retrospect, I had only asked a few students. Attempt (Week 5): PG, Business What: Clips + exercise. Result: Similarly dim! Reflection: Thought PG would be better, but you know what happens when we ‘assume’! Attempt (Week 9): UG Engineering What: Instructor interested in a session including LARK, an online information skills module we’ve had as an asset for some time now, coupled with a face-to-face session. Liaising with the Centre for Teaching and Learning at NUI Galway, I got it hosted in the module Blackboard, then designed a short MCQ to test students’ knowledge. Also created a Digital Badge, awarded for achieving a certain grade on the MCQ and participation in the face-to-face session. Result: Excellent! High rates of participation in both online and face-to-face components. Reflection: Great, so what was incentivizing? The Badge? The MCQ? The sense that we could keep track of what they were doing within Blackboard? CONCLUSION / QUESTIONS MOVING FORWARD Week 1 went well, but with fewer competing commitments, students needed less incentivization. This doesn’t point to a sustainable way forward. Instructor support is essential (‘yes, it’s mandatory’), but not a guarantee of success Small course grade allotments not as incentivizing as I’d though (more investigation required) How incentivizing are Digital Badges? MCQs? (will students do a low-stakes MCQ cause they’re fun?) Tree image credit: Rachel Smith / Clickr, 2012 Pinecone image credit: Clipart Panda, 2014 Incentivisation and Collaboration: Playing with the flipped model in embedded information literacy sessions Kris Meen, Academic Skills Librarian, James Hardiman Library