Running head: LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

Library searching in three steps:

Collaborative instructional design
Colleen Sanders
November 16, 2014
Emporia State University
LI837XO

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

Library searching in three steps: Collaborative instructional design

Learning Outcomes
1. Students can articulate differences between Internet searching and searching in a library.
Reasoning. Most college students have experience searching for information using
Internet search engines (referred to here as Google). In order to render that schema valuable to
library searching, this skillset must undergo some refinement (Leibiger, 2011, p. 189). By
addressing differences between Google and library searches first, I leverage prior knowledge and
transfer it to the new context (Booth, 2011, p. 44). Understanding the distinctive natures of both
search environments allows students to contextualize them in the research process. Their search
skills in both milieus become stronger. This module communicates how Google is appropriate
within a broader suite of research options, and calibrates pre-existing skills to segue into
outcomes 2 and 3.
2. Students are able to develop keywords using multiple strategies and tools.
Reasoning. Students need to understand how to dissect a research question into
keywords and develop those terms strategically. The brainstorming process of building
synonyms and related terms should be both targeted and creative, and can be supplemented by
resources like encyclopedias, thesauri, professional journals, and blogs. Google can help broaden
vocabulary to include major authors, terminology, and current trends. The goal is to learn how
and why to reduce natural language questions (Google skills) into core keywords (database
skills). The ability to develop a strong list of potentially useful keywords will give students more
leverage in refining their search within information retrieval systems, which is outcome 3.
3. Students can arrange keywords to form a search string, apply to library information retrieval
systems, and hone results.

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

Reasoning. Students must know how to ask the library system for information using
combinations of keywords linked with Boolean operators. After feeding their search terms to the
system, they must be able to interpret the results and refine them by toggling facets and
reorganizing search strings. This step gives hands-on experience with databases in the presence
of a librarian guide. Modifying results shows students how the system reacts to variations,
generating an understanding of how to ask for information and take control over their search.
Curriculum
Audience. This instructional session serves an in-person audience of 10-50 postsecondary students. It differs from traditional library instruction one-shot fare in that it uses
constructivist, collaborative learning techniques to conduct inquiry. Each module stands on its
own as a unit of learning and could therefore be taught in isolation from the full three-part
course. This could be done as a remedial session if, for example, a professor found her class to be
struggling with a particular segment of the research process. It could be augmented for public
library or high school level audiences, as the truly independent variable is the research question
and therefore depth of inquiry. Future iterations will include online synchronous and
asynchronous sessions detailing suggested software and Web sites to perform the exercises
collaboratively. This is a cursory three-part session intended to extrapolate generic Internet
search skills to a formal research context.
Planned content of session. Sessions will always begin with a recap of previous classes
and a statement of learning goals. As a group, we will discuss how these learning outcomes serve
students in their research (or assignment). I will pose questions about targets (What would you
all like to learn in this session today?) to aid metacognition and align instruction with studentgenerated goals (Booth, 2011, p. xx). The aim is to incite motivation and engagement. For

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

outcome/module 1, students must know how to use Google, as well as access the databases and
catalog via the library Web page. They must have a research question or topic. They need to
understand, at least functionally, the differences between Google and library databases. This
includes the body of materials to be searched, the presence of facets, how results are displayed,
and quality of results. For outcome/module 2, students need to understand their topic to think of
basic keywords; or they must know how to use resources to get foundational concepts. They
must differentiate between synonyms for relevancy, and be able the think their topic through
conceptually to envision needed information. For outcome/module 3, students need to know how
to evaluate results lists, how Boolean operators work, and how to apply filters. They will use this
knowledge to then filter results, harvest more keywords, chain authors, and toggle facets in order
to develop a search.
Justification for curriculum. This three-part session focuses on search skills and media.
It is not a comprehensive research skills curriculum, but rather focuses on the most essential
skills required to independently seek and find good information. In this sense, it sacrifices
comprehensiveness for practicality: it does not cover question formulation, ethical use of
information, citations, or writing concerns like structure. This session lends itself to being a step
in a complete research course, but ultimately focuses on the necessary skills and understanding
for using library resources. I made the choice of both content and the collaborative delivery
method based on the knowledge that library instruction sessions are generally limited in time and
scope. Therefore, it is my aim to present the most immediately useful skills in the most engaging,
memorable way possible to increase the sessions impact.
Modern students tend to be overconfident in their search skills and thus devalue library
instruction (Ellis, 2009, p. 46). By demonstrating how Internet vernacular fails in the library

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

context, I expose a learning gap and bring students into zone of proximal development (Booth,
2011, p. 40). The goal is not to belittle but validate their skills by escalating them to a more
refined environment. Library experiences must be positive because they can frame a students
affective relationship to research. In a 2005 study, Head found that for many students, the
research process is a barely tolerable task (p. 435). This may be exacerbated upon the
realization their existing search skills dont work in a library context, debasing their confidence
in both themselves and the library. By preparing students to communicate effectively with library
systems using what they already know in very simple steps, I hope to give them practical
knowledge. Ideally, it has the happy by-product of diverting frustration which can cast academic
research into a negative emotional light. Because the learning environment is hands-on and
collaborative, the learning process itself is meant to be enjoyable. Students can amend dead-end
searches in the presence of an instructor, which can divert frustration. It will serve them in any
future endeavor in which they want to propose a sound argument or make data-driven decisions.
Its purpose is to introduce basic searching language and syntax schemas for those interested in
genuine research for academic, personal, or professional needs (Liebiger, 2011, p. 189).
Pedagogy
While I try to avoid a tool-based lecture (p. 197) as much as possible in favor a
collaborative problem-based learning (PBL) approach, some demonstration is necessary to
present the curriculum before students began hands-on learning activities. PBL supports
constructivist pedagogy as it provides for multiple roles andpathways to solutions (p. 194).
These differences form conversation points, although lectures and demonstrations background
group-based experiential learning. The problem we are working together to solve is how to get
the databases to give us what we want with the least amount of effort expended. For this project,

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

the instructor has a computer with Internet access and a projector, and students work in small
groups with computer access. The topic is determined by their professors research assignment
(or, in public library contexts, their individually-developed research topic).
Module 1: Differentiate between Google and library search
I gleaned this activity from Lyda Ellis at University of Northern Colorado (Ellis, 2009, p.
46). Prompted by the instructor, students enter a natural language question into Google then
share the first few results aloud. We discuss the sources and the type of information presented
there. If different computers yield different results, I use it as a talking point to compare Googles
subjectivity based on user information to the librarys reliability. I then apply the research
question to Academic Search Premier on the projector, and ask students to anticipate how many
hits we will get. Afterwards, I ask students to reason aloud why so few results might appear. I
lead the discussion towards the differences between Google and databases, and as a class we
develop a list of characteristics for each information system. Then, I ask students to distill the
question into keywords, which I use to run another search in the database. We compare the
results from the database to those of Google, and discuss the needs and functions of both, while I
write responses on the board in a two-column Google vs. database visual guide, which includes
materials searched, retrieval methods used, and reliability of results.
To edify the demonstration with active learning, students break up into groups (size will
vary by class), with half the group assigned to Google and the other half to library databases.
Each group is tasked with finding five good resources for the topic using their retrieval system.
Each team works for 10 minutes then shares their results with the class. I lead the group in a
discussion about the nature of results retrieved, as well as how the systems respond to search
terms. Inevitably, students will discover the need to break questions down into keywords to get

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

good responses from the databases. Moving back and forth between action and discussion will
maintain engagement and promote active learning by immediately applying content. Using
dialogue rather than lecture allows students to direct their own learning, and the instructors
presence facilitates progress towards outcomes.
Module 2: Develop keywords and deepen engagement with topic
This module broadens the collaborative learning technique Word Webs (Barkley, Cross,
& Major, 2005, p. 226) into mind-mapping to have students develop keywords as a group. Using
the terms from the exercise in module 1, students draw mind maps on flip charts with colored
markers. This low-tech approach intends to demystify formal research and de-emphasize tools in
favor of process (sites like www.bubbl.us could be used for more tech-intensive programs or
online adaptations). Students are encouraged students to brainstorm not only keywords,
synonyms, antonyms, and related topics, but information they believe they will need for each
concept and sources they may use to find them. The list of sources from module 1 (from the
Google vs. Database exercise) can serve as a guide. They can use each other, Google, and online
encyclopedias and thesauri to develop the mind map after exhausting their own creativity. I will
emphasize that there are no right answers, although accuracy and specificity are worth more than
finding relationships between terms at this point. As it is visual, verbal, big-picture, and handson, this activity accommodates various learners styles (Booth, 2011, p. 108).
After 10 minutes, I will have the groups share their results, posting each flip chart sheet at
the front of the room so we can compare them. A representative from each group will present the
content of their concept map and explain what resources and reasoning they used to select their
terms. Depending on the length of the session, we might incorporate a game from Jason Dupree
of Southwestern Oklahoma State University (Dupree, 2009, p. 44). In this version, groups cannot

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

use any of the original keywords for the final product, requiring they create meaningful
synonyms. It also promises each group will come up with variable results, providing contrast and
enriching the shared dialogue. Ideally, these presentations will form discussion points about how
topics develop in different directions and research offers many (as opposed to one correct)
pathways to knowledge.
Module 3: Interpret and modify search results
This module begins with a database search demonstration using the student-generated
keywords from module 2. Using Academic Search Premier, I will enter a keyword then ask
students to evaluate the results. It is likely the results list will be broad and unwieldy, offering me
an opportunity to introduce Boolean operators. I will apply operators one at time to show how
they narrow or widen the results, as well as asterisk truncation. Using Ellis concept of
mathematical equations with words (2009, p. 47), I will demonstrate how quotation marks and
Boolean operators can alter a search string. In order to remember the effect AND/OR/NOT have
on results, I will recommend they use the following grammatical template:
(My results must have)

_______________ AND _______________

(My results must have)

_______________ OR_________________

(My results must have)

_______________ NOT________________

I will scroll through results until someone identifies an article they want to use, and then I
will open it and explore the anatomy of an academic article with students, focusing on areas they
will want to scan as they sift through their results: keywords, abstract, introduction, and
references (using a visual like http://studysmart.library.qut.edu.au/module1/1_7/1_7_3.jsp). This
will be the one traditional lecture in the session, merely for the sake of time. Once I feel the
material has been sufficiently explained, students will once again break away into groups. Their

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS

task will be to spend 5 minutes finding what I call a foundational article: one article that
responds directly to their research question and from which they can build their search outwards.
Concluding the session with a foundational article provides some satisfaction and a sense of
accomplishment, as well as a benchmark of progress on their assignment reference list.
Assessment
I designed this course around very specific learning goals, therefore my assessment aims
to measure students thinking and performance (Suskie, 2009, p. 5) concerning those goals.
The majority of my assessment will be direct observation of discussions, groupwork, and
presentations. Accardi (2013) describes classroom assessment techniques (CATs) as formative
assessments (p. 83) that allow students to evidence learning as it accumulates, which suits this
sessions structure. Each module includes group discussions, groupwork, and a brief expository
presentation, giving students have the opportunity to display their progress through participation,
which I monitor through direct observation. As students reason aloud regarding why our query
fails in the database environment, I can assess how well they critically think their way into the
new search environment. During groupwork, I can take turns listening in on group dialogue and
observe how individual contributions shape the direction of the final product, as well as nip any
missteps in the bud. In their mind map presentations, they have the opportunity to explain and
reflect upon their outcomes, which will evidence how deeply they engaged with the content. As
Liebiger (2011) asserts, assessment must allow students articulate their learning to make tacit
knowledge to be made explicit (p. 194). I am looking for evidence that students can reason their
way through their topic to develop keywords and apply them to database searching. The in-class
dialogue and verbal expositions lend the opportunity for me to form authentic assessment that
reflects the way knowledge is assessed in real life (2011, p. 194), that is, through analyzing the

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 10

results. By comparing their responses to the lecture content, I can determine whether they have
accomplished autonomous thought, rather than uncritically regurgitate what they have learned
(Accardi, 2013, p. 76).
During module 1, as the class dictates differences between Google and databases to me, I
am collecting the evidence of their reasoning and translating it into an artifact on the board.
Then, using the student-generated keywords to return to databases, we engage in discovery
learning by collectively devising search terms that will serve our work. This direct observation
gives me assessment information as to what students are truly internalizing and what aspects of
the curriculum require further elaboration. It is an immediate feedback loop allowing me to
calibrate their existing skill level with the subject. I will evaluate student response to initial
database searching, looking for critical thinking and the ability to modify their queries to the
databases to achieve quality results. The in-class group exercises are both pedagogy and
assessment, as I can gauge their progress by their responses to the curriculum. This assessment
feeds my understanding of the groups learning pace and can help me moderate my delivery to
calibrate with their cognitive load (Booth, 2011, p. 43).
The same is true for module 2. Librarian Jaki King at Clark College finds students do
best when they will have to perform in front of their peers, reporting, People learn best when
they have to teach that knowledge to othersthey are far more likely to want to do a good job
and be informed (King, 2014). By presenting their findings and explain their reasoning to the
group, students engage in metacognitive analysis. Knowing they will have to defend their
reasoning to their peers adds a layer of motivation, and therefore engagement, with the exercise.

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 11

I would like to implement strategies that [priviledge] student involvement in the
assessment process (Accardi, 2013, p. 77). This will take the form of a research journal, which
helps students become aware of their learning and pose questions as well as extends the learning
beyond the in-class activities. As students go about their research for their course-based
assignment, they can have the option to maintain a log/journal of their search strategy for extra
credit points. This log must include search terms, subject headings, database names, and the
search strings they used to achieve results. They must provide documentation of searches which
failed and the amended searches to demonstrate they can troubleshoot a weak search strategy. By
providing their keywords, operators, and databased used, they give both myself and the instructor
evidence that they can identify and correct a problematic keyword strategy. This portion of their
final assignment submission should be evaluated by the instructor and librarian according to a
rubric and factor into the final assignment grade. These journals have the added benefit of
providing me a feedback loop and list of possible topics to inform my learning goals for future
sessions.
Another CAT Accardi proposes is the muddiest point paper (p. 84), wherein students
elucidate what they learned alongside the concepts which remain unclear. I will employ a fiveminute reflective essay at the end of this session for students to reiterate their learning and
express what areas they struggled with. This assessment has the added benefit of providing me
with a feedback loop to inform the goals, structure, and emphasis for future sessions. Students
will also write a response to the Neil Gaiman quote, Google can bring you back 100,000
answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one. The prompt asks them to respond to the
quote and explain if and how they agree or disagree with it.
Criteria

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 12

The specific behavior I am looking for is active engagement. During the discussion of
Google, I would hope to see students react with both inquisitiveness and defensiveness. I want to
see their interest in this new information resource (library databases), but I also want to see them
stick up for the old workhorse Google and reason aloud why it can be used effectively. The skill I
want them to glean is awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of various search tools by
exploring their natures. Thus, by comparing Google and library resources, they should be able to
identify positives and negatives for both. This criterion indicates to me that they are able to
research with intention, rather than haphazardly. The more they articulate their experiences with
Google to me, the more scaffolding material I have to work with in presenting databases.
In the concept maps, I want to see revision and exploration of the topic. Evidence of
success will include use of multiple resources, tangential additions, and a realistic list of sources
they might search to find this information. Students should be able to explain verbally why they
chose the terms they did, and ideally challenge my assignments requirement that using our
original terms is taboo, because the original terms might well be the best ones. By choosing
paper and markers rather than a Word document, I offered the opportunity to engage playfully
and creatively, and I will look to see that students used this leeway to some meaningful end. I
would like to see some affective response throughout these exercises that research is neither dull
nor perfunctory nor divorced from our personal interests. The concept maps and presentations of
their findings give them a chance to develop multiple approaches to a topic, with the peripheral
benefit of hopefully to surprising me with their creativity. I will be convinced of their learning if
their mind maps take various directions, rather than have each groups turn out identically.
In module 3, I am looking to see students adapt. While AND/OR/NOT are not
complicated concepts, they require some usage to fully understand. Therefore, the largest

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 13

indicator of success in the third module will be finding an appropriate foundational article and
being able to articulate why it is relevant.
The mini-essay and optional research journal extend the interaction (Booth, 2011, p.
120) by having students engage with the materials over a longer period of time and outside of the
classroom environment. The results of these papers and journals will be used to inform future
sessions, as assessments are worthwhile only if the results are put to good use (Suskie, 2009 p.
273). By evaluating my students success, I can critically reflect upon my own methods.
Reflection
By my own criteria for assessment, my teaching session was a success: students
responded to my prompts during the lecture by asking questions and offering input, engaged in
groupwork to complete keyword mind maps, and presented those findings to the class in a wellreasoned manner. I observed all group members actively contributing to the mind mapping
process, and the three groups final mind maps displayed significant enough differences to
evidence that each group engaged in unique conversations informed by individual contributions.
The feedback I received was largely positive and included an appreciation for the clarity of
learning goals, how my lecture explained the why of keywords, the use of video. The most
common response was that the activity was appropriate, engaging, and above all, yielded results
that were illuminating to share in a group presentation format. Suggests for improvement
included to be careful of library jargon, Id like to see the difference keyword searching made
in the database, suggestions for further reading, and the desire for more time. I had meant to
apply the groups keywords from their mind maps to the database, but forgot by the end of the
session. In a real teaching scenario, I would call that a big mistake, especially if I was just
covering module 2 and not the whole three acts.

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 14

Honestly, I feel like I flew through the Prezi and lecture, which is why I kept asking
questions like, Does that make sense? and Do you understand what I mean by that? I knew
what I was talking about and had basic talking points in mind and on my slides, but I didnt like
the lecture format because I had absolutely no feedback from my students. It was really
disheartening to see faces staring at computer screens or at papers on their desk rather than
making eye contact with meI like feeling like we are having a conversation. I think I increased
the volume of my voice to try to get them to look up. Also, I should have framed Google
searching and keyword searching as presearching (Accardi, 2013, p. 107), and possibly
included an overall infographic of the research process as well as the various steps in more
detail.
Two of my takeaways from the session were surprisingly mundane: the arrangement of
the physical environment plays a significant role in the classroom atmosphere. This type of
learning doesnt suit the sage-on-the-stage rows of desks; rather, they should have been in a
circle. Also, this session made me reflect on timing in relation to cognitive load: it took place at
the end of a long day of learning, and students were reasonably starting to disengage. In future
situations when I know I might be facing a tired (or otherwise distracted) crowd, I will probably
bring treats to give them a small boost. I want to learn more about strategies for combatting
wavering attention, fatigue, and hungerI think the groupwork, drawing with markers, and
knowing they would have to present helped.
I really enjoyed play-teaching, but I dont feel like it was experience enough for me to
know if I like teaching or could be any good at it. There were no stakes; there was no way they
would walk away not knowing my content. I want to know how Id do with real students; I want
to see what kind of questions they ask. My biggest fear is that it will be a long time until Im in a

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 15

position to truly practice teaching, and that it might be in a situation that does not give me a lot
of freedom to experiment. The more I read, the more interested I become in critical pedagogy
and feminist pedagogy (some of it), and I hope to work at an institution that looks favorably on
these ideas. At least I hope to work in one that values innovation and constructivist learning.
Writing this paper made me realize how critical preparation is to successful teaching, as well as
preparations partner, reflection. The type of teaching I hope to do will be completely dependent
on my own commitment to it and ability to build on experience. Im grateful for this assignment.

LIBRARY SEARCHING IN THREE STEPS 16

References
Accardi, M. T. (2013). Feminist pedagogy for library instruction. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice
Press.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A
handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Booth, C. (2011). Reflective teaching, effective learning: Instructional literacy for library
educators. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Dupree, J. (2009). Taming the taboo. In Sittler, R. L., & Cook, D. (Eds.), The library instruction
cookbook (44-45). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Ellis, L. (2009). Why wont the database answer my question? In Sittler, R. L., & Cook, D.
(Eds.), The library instruction cookbook (46-47). Chicago, IL: American Library
Association.
Head, A. J. (2008). Information literacy from the trenches: How do humanities and social science
majors conduct research? College & Research Libraries, 69(5), 427-445.
King, J. (2014, October 19). Martinez Mercier Librarian Interview. Message posted to
https://canvas.emporia.edu/courses/4926/discussion_topics/10073
Leibiger, C. A. (2011). Google reigns triumphant?: Stemming the tide of Googlitis via
collaborative, situated information literacy instruction. Behavior & Social Sciences
Libraries, 30, 187-122. Doi: 10.1080/01639269.2011.628886
Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd Ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.