Embedding, Collaborating, Designing: Educational Technology in Academic Libraries
Introduction
Contrasting with popular portrayals of librarians as passive custodians and retrievers of information, 21st century librarians are active teachers of information literacy skills. This is especially true in academic libraries in higher education settings, where librarians evolved from being seen as a research assistant to students and faculty, to close, collaborative partnerships facilitated by technology. In many cases, librarians are embedded in courses, becoming almost co-instructors with the professor.
In my role as an academic librarian, I am primarily interested in teaching adult learners in higher education information literacy skills, giving students confidence in approaching library staff, teaching students how to research topics in collaboration with a wider community of learners, and teaching students how to identify disinformation (a very timely topic). I want to explore the ways in which the Master of Educational Technology program has influenced not only my attitudes towards librarianship, but also towards learning and instruction.
Lesson One: Reflections on Design & Development
Instructional design is a cornerstone of educational technology, and many of the courses in this program focus on the design of units of instruction, in line with theoretical perspectives on learning. Instructional designers use the five-step ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) model (Davis, 2013). Instructional design is not a goal in and of itself, but rather a process of identifying a learning problem, why instruction is appropriate to that problem, and identifying who your learners are and what they need in the instruction you hope to provide. An instructional design document builds goals for learning, establishes course objectives that students will meet by the end of the course, identifies the materials (i.e., books, worksheets, assignments, tests and other assessments) and technologies to be used in instruction, and develops a plan for presenting materials and assessing student learning outcomes and whether students were satisfied with the course. In EDTECH 503, I created an instructional design plan for a course directed at adult learners (in this case, older Japanese American learners interested in the research methods of geneaology), with specific analyses of learner characteristics and learner motivations. The course reviewed contexts within which learning and performance of the course took place. The course proposed in the instructional design plan also included documentation, such as a survey solicitation flier, learner needs survey, and data collected in tabular form, and an instructional prototype that included course handouts and presentation slides.
In both the theoretical explanations provided in my coursework, and through my own practical experience with higher education learners, I now understand that learning for adults focuses more on their ability to perform tasks over subject-based learning, and that adult learners are highly motivated (Ross-Gordon, 2011). In many of the instructional tools I created in this program, I focused on creating task-oriented (and even gamified) learning tools that emphasize the active completion of tasks in a library setting.
The first step in instructional design is the creation of a needs assessment which identifies specific demographics and what specific measurable objectives will define successful learning. Next is designing a general outline of learning activities and how these activities are to be assessed. A needs assessment focuses on who the learners are (that is, their demographic characteristics, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, and what motivates learners). In EDTECH 512, I completed a 5-part design document. In the first part of the document, titled Front End Analysis, I identified a learning problem, wrote a preliminary needs assessment and defined learning objectives. In EDTECH 512, I designed a full 5 module course to teach learners the fundamentals of APA citation (7th edition), along with accompanying documentation, and a design document that detailed the learner needs and learner motivations for the course, course objectives, instructional plans, assessment planning, content planning, social interaction planning, a course prototype, and planning for formative and summative evaluation.
Lesson Two: The Art & Science of Teaching
I plan to focus my instruction on both traditional college learners (those who recently graduated high school) and non-traditional learners (those who are attending college later in life). Teaching adult learners involves teaching new skills, challenging preconceived notions, and helping older learners self-regulate. Teaching adult learners also involves challenging what teaching methods the learners expect, as older learners expect “traditional teaching methods with instructors lecturing and providing feedback and some interaction,” whereas more recent approaches favor “self-directed learning, goal setting, self-evaluation, project management, critical thinking, group participation, and how to access information resources” (Spigner-Littles & Anderson, 1999, p. 207).
Older learners approach learning while attending to established careers and other life responsibilities. Spigner-Littles & Anderson (1999) argued that older learners tend to develop their knowledge and skills internally, and when opportunities are given to attach new information to “past knowledge,” information is “actively revis[ed], restructur[ed], experiment[ed] with, and plac[ed] . . . into . . . existing cognitive structures” (p. 205).
I hope to develop and sustain peer-to-peer relationships with both fellow librarians and graduate and undergraduate students. One of the most intriguing theoretical perspectives I learned about in the MET program is the Communities of Practice model advocated by Etienne Wenger. The communities of practice model involves a subject domain and a community who share expertise in the subject domain (Gola & Martin, 2020). For EDTECH 504, I created an annotated bibliography of resources focused on the building and implementation of communities of practice in an academic library context, with implications on library-related instruction of students and librarian professional development.
Librarians can also form reference department communities of practice where subject specialists and subject generalists not only share knowledge, but the process of escalating subject-specific and/or research-intensive questions to subject specialists can be streamlined through active participation in communities of practice. This can mean so much more than just knowing which librarian to refer reference questions to, but to actively building subject-specific knowledge and collaborative partnerships with subject-matter experts who can provide more information. Building on the work in the annotated bibliography, I wrote a reflective paper for EDTECH 504 discussing how such communities could be implemented in the areas of reference librarianship (and focusing on how complex reference questions can be more effectively addressed within the communities of practice fostered in libraries), information literacy instruction, and embedded librarianship (or the practice of embedding librarians in in-person or online courses to provide research support to students and instructional support to instructors). I learned that active collaboration is required to continue sustaining communities of practice in library settings, and how social-constructivist approaches influence communities of practice.
Lesson Three: Evaluation and Assessing Learning Experience and Environments
I explored the differences between evaluation and research in a discussion post written for EDTECH 504. I have learned that there are clear differences between research and evaluation. Research leads to general conclusions that can be used in later research, while evaluation is a more targeted process that involves measuring observed outcomes against course, grant, or program objectives. I am incorporating an evaluation completed for EDTECH 504, looking back at the period when library services shifted online at Boise State University’s Albertsons Library during the pandemic-related closures. The evaluation focused on measuring the effectiveness of online reference interviews, the escalation of reference questions to research consultations, and whether the reference interviews were guided by the Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers (colloquially known as the RUSA standards).
Evaluation and assessment processes in educational technology are composed of formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluation is an ongoing process which centers on evaluating a course in progress (DeVaughn and Stefaniak, 2021). Summative assessments are used to “make an end-point judgment of the overall course effectiveness,” and can include “course-end evaluations, capstone projects, and artifact studies” (Mullins, 2014, p. 343). The formative evaluation plan for the EDTECH 512 course, included a survey focused on the appraisals of subject-matter experts and fellow educational professionals on the design of my proposed course and what they thought could be improved to increase the effectiveness of the course.
Librarians are responsible for understanding the multiple commitments they have to institutional stakeholders, such as students, the university administration, the leadership of the library, and to themselves and the professional domain of librarianship “to investigate and document how and what students are learning via [information literacy] instruction.” Both formative and summative assessments are appropriate in this context. To illustrate how librarians can use both formative and summative assessment in information literacy instruction, I will look at librarians at Berkeley College, who used final grades or final papers to determine learner outcomes, an effective use of summative evaluations. In other cases, formative strategies helped teachers adjust while the course(s) were ongoing, and included such tools as “rubrics . . ., research journals, pre and post-tests, concept maps . . . audience response systems, peer-assessment, and bibliographies” (Charles, 2015, pp. 55-56). The summative evaluation plan for the EDTECH 512 course was more of a combination of a post-course course evaluation for students to fill out, together with the final course project (assessing what the students learned). Understanding both how students were impacted by the course as well as what they learned from the course is key to assessing course outcomes.
Lesson Four: Networking and Collaboration
Collaboration means “[w]orking with others to share ideas, take a point of view, defend a position, give and accept feedback, achieve consensus, and apply knowledge” (Morel, 2014, p. 37). Devlin-Scher and Sardone (2013) argued that in order to promote student learning and understand how adult learners learn, teachers should learn how to improve their teaching practice through collaboration, facilitating feedback “while contributing to the body of knowledge on student learning in a variety of contexts'' (p. 30). Brown et al. (2013) found that while many instructors are “trained in research and hold deep expertise in their disciplines,” far fewer instructors possess understanding of principles of instructional design and argued that a collaborative process bringing together expertise in instructional design, online teaching, and subject matter experts can lead to “quality, online graduate courses'' (p. 440).
Collaboration in my Educational Technology career focused largely on peer-review of my work (as well as peer review of other colleagues’ work) and active participation in discussion forums, including responding to ideas posed by fellow students. Collaboration leads to improved assignments and projects, because collaboration also includes actively discussing the work we do in our classes and careers with colleagues. We cannot always see our own blind spots. In EDTECH 504, I wrote a paper discussing the implications of creating communities of practice in academic library settings, including in the areas of virtual reference, embedded librarianship, and library instruction, building on prior efforts to create learning communities of practice at various universities.
Networking is a professional development tool that allows those who are new to a discipline to receive wisdom and experience from more experienced professionals within their content domain and also allows new professionals to “identify skills you might need to move into that area.” Networking is more than attending professional conferences or in-person meetings with other library staff, but is also facilitated through technology like social media, e-mail, phone, and video conferencing tools like Zoom or Google Meet (Howerton-Hicks & Maleeff, 2015, p. 17). Networking additionally helps us identify skills we can develop, and identifies new areas of research within our professional domain. I am going to continue to participate actively in library professional associations but am also going to attend conferences to develop professional networks, actively collaborating with other library staff in my workplace, learn how to more effectively use technological tools for video-conferencing, and enhance my professional practice through active publishing of scholarly work and peer review of the work of others.
Lesson Five: Ethical Dimensions of Professional Practice in Ed Tech
In the work that educational technologists do, it is important to acknowledge the tremendous diversity of life experiences and cultural backgrounds of learners. One of the most astounding facts I learned about disability is that nearly 20 percent of the population experiences disability in some form (Lin, 2007). A roughly similar proportion of the undergraduate population, 19 percent, also reported disabilities (Guilbaud et al., 2021). Disability can include apparent and non-apparent disabling conditions (or invisible disabilities). We do not always know who is disabled simply by looking at them, and learners should be encouraged to share their disabilities with instructors, who can refer them to ADA coordinators who can provide instructors with assistance in meeting the needs of disabled learners. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, any entity covered under the act should provide alternate communication formats to ensure content delivery is provided equitably to all learners. Aside from statutory requirements from the government, non-governmental organizations such as the World Wide Web Consortium have worked to develop guidelines and provide resources for accessible Web design (Lin, 2007). Accessibility to online resources is an area where there are significant areas for improvement in responsive website design. While academic libraries may be helpful to users with disabilities in regards to assisting them with retrieving materials or providing them information on accessibility software, blind spots remain in accessibility. For instance, the accessibility pages provided by libraries may have accessibility pages concealed in dropdown menus or perhaps, not even accessible from library homepages (Brunskill, 2021). There have been ADA complaints filed against libraries “for failing to provide access to digital content (websites, content management systems, and classroom technology). Specific cases include a case filed against California State University, Los Angeles in 1996 and another case against the University of California, Berkeley and UC Davis in 1999 (Rysavy & Michalak, 2020).
Accessible online content can provide users with information on how to use and negotiate spaces “they have not yet explored,” understand what academic environments can provide them in terms of services, and can allow them to access additional supportive services provided by their institution (Brunskill et al., 2021, p. 947). I created an accessibility web site for EDTECH 502 in which I detailed resources to help web designers create more accessible websites.
We must also consider the role of socio-cultural considerations in instructional design. Instructional designers should critically examine their own internalized biases about what is expected of learners and what they personally believe creates the best environment for learning. There is no such thing as a culturally-neutral learning product, and designers should incorporate space for diverse learning experiences (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). I explored cultural considerations in instructional design plans created in EDTECH 503 and EDTECH 512, and developed materials that explore different ways learners can engage more effectively, such as gamified learning and mobile-friendly learning.
Much of the material available for educators to use is copyrighted, and fair use considers whether the use of copyrighted material is acceptable for fair use protections under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Schlipp, 2008, pp. 19-20). Copyright and fair use are particularly thorny issues in the design of instructional modules, as many instructors reuse learning content in an effort to reduce costs. It is imperative that instructional designers and instructors understand the principles of fair use and copyright, and without proper attribution, instructional design professionals and instructors are “susceptible to such ethical breaches as taking others’ credit consciously” (Lin, 2007, p. 414). To illustrate my understanding of copyright and fair use principles, I am incorporating a copyright and fair use scavenger hunt webpage completed in EDTECH 502. The scavenger hunt site was designed to teach library science students the fundamental concepts of fair use and copyright. The assignment includes worksheets and answer keys and links to libguides that contain material related to copyright and fair use.
Lesson Six: Leadership in Ed Tech
In the world of educational technology, educational technologists tend to focus on processes, theoretical approaches, objectives and assessments, and strategizing a synergistic perspective allowing inputs to be assessed for measurable outcomes. However, we also work within larger organizations, with their own strategic imperatives. As a result, the instructional designer must develop a flexibility of mind and consider the changing nature of technological development, assess the possibilities of organizational change, and how learners are interacting with technology. This means they need to be leaders and innovators (Ashbaugh, 2013).
Instructional designers should be leaders not in the sense of leading their organizations, but in the sense of keeping abreast of the latest trends in instructional design, such as the gamification of learning, mobile design, and web development. In EDTECH 501, we completed an innovator assignment in which we identified an issue with a learning process or learning objects that we wanted to improve upon, informed by contemporary scholarship, and the challenges of implementing it within a specific instructional context. I chose improvement of physical learning spaces within Albertsons Library to encourage the more widespread adoption of embedded librarianship. Embedded librarianship is a collaborative instructional process facilitated by recent communications technology. This means that the librarian need not be in the classroom with the instructor, but is involved in the course learning management system (LMS) and available for reference services through the website or through links to library material.
One area where instructional design is innovating heavily is in the field of gamification. Modern generations of students are “grow[ing] up surrounded by video games and . . . [crave] quick feedback and immediate rewards.” In addition, students are involved in social networks that have constant interaction across multiple platforms (Guardia et al., 2019, p. 37). In response, instructional designers are attempting to develop gamified learning systems to parallel the “near-ubiquity of interactive games in college students’ lives and rise of gamified experiences” elsewhere” (Moore-Russo et al., 2018). Before I took the Creating Educational Websites course, I was not as aware of the ways in which course material could be gamified. I am incorporating a scavenger hunt from the course. Understanding how learners are motivated and how motivation can be enhanced through gamification, helps me to be a leader in innovating learning technologies. This understanding also encourages me to keep abreast on future research on how gamification can be adopted in library and information science graduate courses.
Closing Thoughts on Research & Practice
In closing, I look at myself as an information professional and now as an educational technology professional. Both educational technology and library science have a strong ethical perspective that grounds discussions about diversity, copyright, and accessibility of material/collections. Educational technology builds on librarianship, and vice versa.
However the key difference is that while library science focuses on theories of information access and information retrieval, educational technology focuses on theoretical perspectives on pedagogy/andragogy and how they are implemented in instructional contexts. While librarianship discusses design in passing (especially as it relates to designing programming and crafting mission, vision and values documents), design and development lie at the core of educational technology in a way they are not centered in the professional practice of library science. I have met classmates who are also librarians in the program, and have been fortunate to understand how their experiences will inform their professional practice.
I will have a stronger focus on instruction and assessment/evaluation than before I embarked on this journey through the various theoretical and practical issues surrounding educational technology. I hope to improve accessibility of instructional materials to library patrons with disabilities and to improve instructional materials for learners with diverse sets of needs.
References
Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Personal leadership in practice: A critical approach to instructional design innovation work. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(5), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0694-5
Brown, B., Eaton, S. E., Jacobsen, D. M., Roy, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Instructional design collaboration: A professional learning and growth experience. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(3), 439–452.
Brunskill, A., Lantz, C., & Mundle, K. (2021). What information are we providing to users with disabilities? An analysis of ARL libraries’ accessibility webpages. College & Research Libraries, 82(7), 935–958. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.7.935
Charles, L. H. (2015). Using an information literacy curriculum map as a means of communication and accountability for stakeholders in higher education. Journal of Information Literacy, 9(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.11645/9.1.1959
Davis, A. L. (2013). Using instructional design principles to develop effective information literacy instruction. College & Research Libraries News, 74(4), 205–207. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.74.4.8934
DeVaughn, P., & Stefaniak, J. (2021). An exploration of the challenges instructional designers encounter while conducting evaluations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21332
Devlin-Scherer, R., & Sardone, N. (2013). Collaboration as a form of professional development: Improving learning for faculty and students. College Teaching, 61(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2012.714815
Gola, C. H., & Martin, L. (2020). Creating an emotional intelligence community of practice: A case study for academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 60(7), 752–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1786982
Guardia, J. J., Del Olmo, J. L., Roa, I., & Berlanga, V. (2019). Innovation in the teaching-learning process: the case of Kahoot! On the Horizon, 27(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2018-0035
Guilbaud, T. C., Martin, F., & Newton, X. (2021). Faculty perceptions on accessibility in online learning: Knowledge, practice and professional development. Online Learning, 25(2), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2233
Heaster-Ekholm, K. L. (2020). Popular instructional design models: Their theoretical roots and cultural considerations. International Journal of Education & Development Using Information & Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65.
Howerton-Hicks, L., & Maleeff, T. Z. (2015). Network like nobody’s watching: Demystifying networking as a skill for the librarian and information professional community. Information Outlook, 19(4), 15–22.
Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(5), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9029-y
Moore-Russo, D., Wiss, A., & Grabowski, J. (2018). Integration of gamification into course design: A noble endeavor with potential pitfalls. College Teaching, 66(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1295016
Morel, N. J. (2014). Setting the stage for collaboration: An essential skill for professional growth. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 36–39.
Mullins, K. (2014). Good IDEA: Instructional design model for integrating information literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.012
Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13(1), 26–29.
Rysavy, M. D. T., & Michalak, R. (2020). Assessing the accessibility of library tools & services when you aren’t an accessibility expert: Part 1. Journal of Library Administration, 60(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2019.1685273
Schlipp, J. (2008). Coaching teaching faculty: Copyright awareness programs in academic libraries. Kentucky Libraries, 72(3), 18–22.
Spigner-Littles, D., & Anderson, C. E. (1999). Constructivism: A paradigm for older learners. Educational Gerontology, 25(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/036012799267828
Vai, M., & Sosulski, K. (2016). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide. Routledge.