Printer Friendly

Learning outcomes, instructional design, and the 50-minute information literacy session.


Scheduled librarian interaction with undergraduates is very often limited to one 50-minute class period per semester, commonly known as a "one-shot" session. One-shots present the challenge of providing instruction on use of the library and its resources, topic selection, search strategy, resource evaluation, and core principles of information literacy--while, simultaneously gathering data for assessment, addressing diverse learning styles and engaging students. The use of learning outcomes as the foundation for one-shot instructional design can both facilitate learning and increase content relevancy for students. This paper discusses applying outcome-based instructional design to one-shot sessions. It demonstrates how, by shifting the focus of the session from explication of library tools to student need-based searching skills and resource evaluation, the librarian can effectively address learning styles, promote student engagement, streamline and enliven the session, and produce data for needs assessment. An example of a session designed for Tier I writing classes at Michigan State University is presented along with student needs assessment data collected during these sessions in the fall semester of 2007.


Any college or university librarian who has done formal instruction will be familiar with the ubiquitous "one-shot" library session. In the time span of one class, generally 50 minutes, a librarian gets the chance to interact directly with a group of students. This session is usually the only scheduled time that the librarian gets to spend with these students, and there are a number of pressures that arise from the situation.

Many librarians can recall an instructor asking them to cover "everything the students need to know about the library" in one class, or specifying a long list of indexes or tools (pertinent or not) which they want the students to learn how to use. Our desires to be thorough, to probe the depths and possibilities of helpful and exciting resources, and even the temptation to show off our knowledge to our colleagues can all add to the growing load of material. On top of that, best practices such as active learning and facilitating student interaction can seem like "extra things" to fit in, and the 50-minute time constraint becomes an unattainable goal.

Not only is the "one shot" just that - a librarian's one time to interact formally with the students - but it is also his or her one opportunity to instill a positive image of the library, to engage students in critical thinking about information, and to provide them with the tools they need to not only complete their coursework but that will help to build the foundations of information literacy into their lives. Needless to say, librarians can and should maximize the potential and effectiveness of those short sessions. American Library Association author Veldof stated that "every minute ... that we have with our learners in the one-shot workshop needs to be intentionally designed to increase learning and performance." (Veldof 2006, 1)

It can be done. A well planned and designed session can address several facets of learning, directly or indirectly. We're all familiar with the "glazed look" that comes across the faces of students after hearing about a long string of resources. According to Jacobson and Xu, "Attempt(ing) to cover too much material will not only result in the superficial coverage of each point, but also a rushed delivery pace ... Too much information can only overwhelm and confuse (students), and they will 'often tune out'" (Jacobson and Xu 2004, 50). Fifty minutes can seem like an impossible restriction, but by using a disciplined design approach and learning outcomes, the time limit can actually be freeing. Knowing from the outset that many things will need to be left out can help the librarian to narrow the focus to one or two outcomes around which the flow of the class can be designed.

The following brief background on design approach (or design thinking), instructional design, and learning outcomes will permit practical and theoretical application of these concepts to the 50-minute information literacy session. As a result of this paper, readers should be able to critically evaluate their existing library sessions in order to restructure them for maximum effectiveness.


The design approach, or "design thinking," is based on a fundamentally simple concept: identifying the problem before identifying the solution. The purpose of design is to begin with discovering what the needs of the user, customer, or student actually are and then to create a product to address those needs. The American Library Association writers Bell and Shank explain: "Traditional business is about focusing on solving a problem, but the design process focuses on problem finding." (Bell and Shank 2007, 28) Although the modern design approach initially gained momentum in the business and product design world, its applications to education and libraries have been plentiful.

The IDEO company, a leader in design thinking, has been credited with pioneering the modern design approach. IDEO lists the following five-point method for approaching the design of a product or service, with comments by Bell and Shank:

1. Understand

"Get to know the needs and challenges of your user population and how they perceive your products and services."

2. Observe

"Watch people in real-life situations to find out how they work, what confuses them, what they like and dislike, and where their needs can be better served."

3. Visualize

"Think about new ideas and concepts and how the people who use your library will use them."

4. Evaluate and refine

or "prototyping"

5. Implement (Bell and Shank 2007, 29)

IDEO's approach parallels the development and rise of instructional design theory in the 1990s, and is closely related to the outcomes-based education movement of the same time period. As learning outcomes naturally migrated from broader educational applications to the library environment, design thinking followed in the same vein. In Academic Librarianship By Design, Bell and Shank (2007) provide examples of a design approach in everything from a library's physical setup to information literacy sessions.

Traditionally, librarians have tended to approach library-related instruction with some basic assumptions about what student needs actually are. These assumptions may include but are not limited to: believing students are interested in the topic, that students are currently working on a relevant assignment, that they have ever even set foot in a library, know what a catalog is, know what an article is, or know to even think of libraries and information in the same context. With regard to library-related instruction, these assumptions can lead to the librarian's deciding in advance what resources students need to learn, in what order they should learn them, how they should use them, and how they should be taught.

Taking a step back from assumptions about student needs can be very enlightening. A main component in the concept of information literacy grew from the observation that although students can be quick to find information, they often have very little skill in evaluating or using what they find. It had been assumed that at some point in their education, students would have learned about the qualities of information and how to do research, among other things. We can get a far better picture of what students actually need in regard to their information seeking and use from observing their behaviors and asking them questions. This inquiry corresponds to the "understand" and "observe" stages of the IDEO design approach.

Interacting with students at the reference desk, asking them to demonstrate how or where they have searched, engaging them in conversation about the library or their assignments, and paying attention to their classroom responses and participation can yield valuable information about student needs. Interacting with classroom instructors, asking questions about the quality of student work, and gaining insight into instructors' research styles can also clarify the true needs of students. Subtle nuances will come to light: for example, in my observation, many students use Google Scholar when searching for research material, but nearly all of those students do not know what makes material "scholarly." These students may have an immediate need to find scholarly articles, but more importantly need to know how to tell if something is scholarly when they find it. The greater need is evaluation; they already know at least one method of finding articles.

Applying a design approach to information literacy instruction allows the teaching librarian to re-examine his or her core mission. Bell and Shank cite the example of the Kodak company shifting the core of their business from film production to digital photo processing in response to user needs (Bell and Shank 2007). Looking at the library, this same adjustment is reflected in the evolution of the term "bibliographic instruction" to "library instruction" to "information literacy." The changing terminology for classes taught in or about the library largely reflects a shift toward design and outcomes thinking. The first two terms conjure more of a skills and tools focus, while the third speaks to a broader outcome. It is important to remember that information literacy is not only taught in the library or by librarians; it is acquired as part of the broader education and life experiences of an individual. By keeping the focus on information literacy in library sessions, it is a reminder of not only the concepts at the core of our teaching, but also of how the library fits into the larger context of student learning.


Using the needs-based focus of design thinking, it follows logically that the needs addressed in an instruction session would be those of the students. According to professor of instructional design Martin Tessmer, "instruction should be learning-centered and learner-centered. In learning-centered instruction, planning instruction begins by determining what should be learned, not what should be taught." (Tessmer 1985, 28) This shift in focus is at the heart of the learning outcomes approach.

Outcome based education, or OBE, is a major educational reform movement that began to spread widely in the 1990s. Outcome Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers, a defining work on the concept, was published in 1994 by William Spady, considered by many to be the "father" of outcome based education. OBE is built largely on works such as Benjamin Bloom's Learning for Mastery (1968), and John Carroll's "A Model of School Learning" (1963). OBE is based on the development and use of learning outcomes, defined briefly as "'that which a student should be able to do successfully at the end of a significant educational experience.' Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are then designed around the outcome" (Spady 2003, 1827).

The outcomes approach draws similarities to the IDEO design approach in its fundamental premise: identifying the problem (what needs to be learned) before identifying the solution (what needs to be taught). Setting outcomes for a course or session helps to focus and streamline the instruction to the concepts that the students are learning. Using this approach also allows for flexibility in teaching methods in order to provide greater opportunity for all students to meet the desired outcomes.

Learning outcomes contain specific action verbs and are commonly based on well-known educational taxonomies, such as Bloom's (1956) original Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, subsequent revisions, and alternatives. These taxonomies provide an ordered list of educational goals - or what needs to be learned. Taxonomies provide a rich vocabulary for giving expression to our goals for an educational session. Learning outcomes are often phrased in the form of: "Students will (verb or action phrase) in order to ... (result)" (Gilchrist 2007). An example of a learning outcome for a library instruction session using this phrasing would be: "Students will critically evaluate information in order to determine its acceptability for inclusion in their research."

In designing a library session using outcomes, it is helpful to pull back and view the larger picture of information literacy in general. Reviewing the ACRL Standards for Information Literacy in Higher Education can refresh our perspective. ACRLs definition of information literacy, "... a set of abilities requiring individuals to 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information,'" (ACRL 2000, 2) is a helpful place to start when formulating overall goals for a session.

When setting the outcomes for a 50 minute or otherwise abbreviated session, it is best to limit the number of outcomes to one or two. The time restriction only allows for a few goals to be met effectively - adding more goals decreases the effectiveness of the overall session. An example of outcomes for an information literacy session, based on the larger, overarching goal of information literacy, would focus on location and evaluation of information. What this means for the session is that all the teaching, activities, and material will focus on these two concepts. Depending on the needs of the students, the outcomes may vary. In the earlier example of the student using Google Scholar but not knowing what scholarly information was, evaluation would be a key outcome to address that student's needs in an instruction session.

Notably absent from learning outcomes are skills and tools such as using the catalog, using an article index, discussing Wikipedia, etc. Those tasks each fall under an outcome, but in themselves are not the goal; the plan does not put skills or tools as the main focus of the session. Those skills will be addressed and practiced within the lesson, but only as a result of focusing on the concepts of evaluation and location--direct goals from the definition of information literacy. Skills and tools can be included in objectives, which explicitly describe what will take place during the class in order to meet the outcomes.


Aptly described by Veldof, "Objectives communicate to the client, the learners, and other library staff exactly what the learners will be able to do at the completion of the workshop. The objectives are taken from the task list ..." (Veldof 2006, 68) Listing out what practically needs to be accomplished in the time frame, according to your goals and outcomes, produces the material for objectives. An example of an objective would be: "As a result of this session, students will be able to initiate a basic search strategy by brainstorming a keyword list." The librarian will be able to tell that the students have learned to begin a search strategy by having them brainstorm a list of keywords, which can serve as an activity designed into the session.


Assessment, as demonstrated in the above example, is essential to outcomes and objectives. Reiser and Dick stated: "How can we judge whether instruction is effective? ... We can't make a judgment based on what the teacher does. Rather, we must make a judgment based on what students are able to do and how they feel as a result of the instruction that they receive" (Reiser and Dick 1996, 3). Assessment is an integral part of design- corresponding to the evaluate and refine stages of the IDEO process. Outcomes and objectives provide a platform for assessment, both within and outside of the 50-minute frame.

In a 50-minute session, assessment often falls by the wayside. Designing the session with assessment built in takes time and thought, but is necessary not only to evaluate student learning but to reexamine our teaching effectiveness continually.

Both outcomes and objectives can and should be assessed. For example, if an objective is for the students to evaluate a Web site by applying criteria, an exercise can be done in class that demonstrates students' ability to apply the criteria. If an outcome of an information literacy session is that students will critically evaluate information in order to determine its acceptability for inclusion in their research, this outcome can be evaluated by reviewing the students' bibliographies after their research project is handed in.

The key to the most effective assessment of information literacy instruction is gained by building a relationship with the course instructor. One can easily keep a record of informal assessment; for example: conversations with the instructor including his or her impression of the session. However, to assess the session's outcomes thoroughly, the librarian needs input on the final quality of the students' research. Since the final student projects fall out of the purview and time frame of the 50-minute session, keeping contact with the instructor throughout the semester is vital. In a well developed librarian/instructor relationship, the librarian may not only receive input from the instructor on the students' final work, but may even be able to assist with designing relevant assignments with assessment built in.


Instructional design, or ID, as defined by Educause author DeBlois is "the systematic creation of an educational experience that will help students achieve a specified set of learning outcomes" (DeBlois 2005, 13). It facilitates learning in different situations. "Instructional methods ... can increase the probability that desired outcomes will be attained" (Oswald and Reigeluth 2003, 1147). Corresponding loosely to the visualize and implement phases of the IDEO method, instructional design addresses factors from different learning styles to physical constraints of a classroom. ID is a necessary consideration for a limiting factor such as the 50-minute time frame. For the one-shot session, a microinstructional strategy, or "a specific plan governing each part of the learning experience, such as a unit or lesson within a course or module" (Rothwell and Kazanas 1998, 212) can be utilized.

There is no "magic bullet" instructional design or method that will work for every 50-minute library session; rather, the group's needs, learning outcomes, and other factors will determine the design of the session. This perspective emphasizes the importance of beginning with a basic needs assessment and setting outcomes before determining how the session will work. The design of the session will also not be set in stone - the IDEO design principles of prototyping and ongoing evaluation allow for the classroom methods to be constantly refined depending on their effectiveness.

A plan for instructional design will include any technology used in the classroom, the types of activities planned for the session, what material will be covered, and the order in which it will occur, among other things. Simply put, the design is the nuts and bolts of the instruction session.

The beginning of the instructional design phase, once learning outcomes are set, is an appropriate time to list what needs to be covered during the session. Searching skills, introduction to specific databases or indexes, and the like can be listed at this point. Student needs such as interest, engagement, and different learning styles - along with any specific assignment information that the librarian has received from the course instructor - should also be listed. It is also an excellent moment for the librarian to brainstorm his or her own needs, such as assessment, data gathering, teaching methods and tools, and so forth. A list of needs will help provide a framework for designing the session.

The session's design phase is also the time for using innovative, engaging ideas. Looking at the list of needs, one should ask: can any of them be combined into an activity or short module? Creatively "hitting several birds with one stone," or incorporating several needs into an activity, can both save time and keep the students engaged. Consider ways to encourage student participation, examples that are relevant to student assignment and interests, and methods that engage different learning styles. Some sample resources are listed following the conclusion of this paper.


A complete redesign of a 50-minute session can be a daunting task. The outcomes and design methods are very time-intensive on the front end in terms of preparation and planning. The end result, however, is a flexible design that can be easily adapted for many different instruction situations. Time spent on the front end results in effectiveness in the classroom and shorter preparation times for individual classes.

When working with faculty, there are several benefits and also a few drawbacks to this method. Many departments whose students will be receiving library instruction have already established learning outcomes and objectives, and the library session is an excellent opportunity to visibly and practically incorporate these wider departmental goals. Aligning with departmental outcomes and objectives can also help to tailor library instruction to address specific disciplinary information needs. Collaborating with faculty can help greatly with assessment, as mentioned previously: the librarian will often not see the students' final results (bibliographies, etc.) that were directly affected by the library session, and a good relationship with a course instructor can often open doors for the librarian to have access to the students' final work in order to further assess the effectiveness of the session.

A major drawback to 50-minute session design when working with faculty is that not all students will receive their information literacy instruction at the point of need. When students arrive for a library session before they have received their research assignment, their interest will be lower and the effectiveness and relevancy of a well-designed session may lessen. At other times, the faculty member may not get the class assignment to the librarian ahead of time, which necessitates a broader, less focused approach. When working with the course faculty, it is important to communicate the importance of both point-of-need scheduling and the fact that the librarian needs to have a copy of the research assignment in a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the class. When all these factors are working in concert, the effectiveness of the session's design is maximized.


The following is a description of a 50-minute information literacy session which was designed using the learning outcomes and instructional design methods.


This session is designed for students in required Tier I WRA (Writing, Rhetoric, and American Culture) classes at Michigan State University. The number of students in the class usually ranges from 18-27, and the course instructor's presence is required. The course-related information literacy session is scheduled at the request of the instructor. The students are mostly freshmen from a representative population of the university. Students come from differing educational backgrounds, and have varying amounts of experience with libraries in general. For many of the students in the class, this is their first visit to an academic library. The students are mostly "digital natives" who tend to have good technology and computer usage skills, but many have haphazard information-seeking behavior. Students are used to looking for information on the Internet, but generally have little evaluation skill for the information that they find. These students have been assigned a research project for which they must use library resources in addition to open sources such as the Web.


In an effort to determine the actual rather than perceived needs of this group, I continually draw from three main sources: 1) observation and interaction with the students at the reference desk, in previous classes, and informally; 2) interaction with the instructors of the course; and 3) data collected during class activities.


Based on my ongoing needs assessment, I developed the following goals, outcomes and objectives:

Overall Goals for information literacy instruction:

1. Students' research, critical thinking, and information literacy skills will increase as a result of library instruction.

2. Students will learn the role of the library and librarians in relation to their current and future information seeking.

Outcomes for this session:

1. Students will effectively locate different types of information in order to gain knowledge and background for their research

2. Students will critically evaluate information in order to determine its acceptability for inclusion in their research

Objectives for this session:

As a result of this session, students will be able to:

1. Locate a book, article, opinion piece, background source, and Web site by using library resources

2. Differentiate between a popular and scholarly source by determining the source's authority

3. Identify a Web site's bias, accuracy, authority, and currency by applying Web evaluation criteria

4. Initiate a basic search strategy by brainstorming a keyword list

5. Find assistance by locating and contacting a librarian.


The outcomes for this session can be assessed by:

* Communication with the instructor regarding quality of final projects

* Examining student bibliographies from final projects

* In-class questions and activities

* Additional suggested library assignments, which may be discussed with the course instructor depending on the librarian/instructor relationship:

** Students keep a research journal detailing their search strategy and research process

** Students hand in a reflective essay on the research process with their final project

The objectives for this session can be assessed by:

* Demonstration or exercises in class

* Evaluation of resources on final student bibliography

* Keeping a record of student requests for assistance


The session meets in a classroom equipped with a computer for each student and a presentation computer, projected on a large overhead screen. (I use a tablet PC as the presentation computer for ease of handwriting during class exercises).


Pre-Class: The librarian prepares an online research guide including links to all of the library resources that will be demonstrated in class, several other resources that will not be discussed, and the librarian's contact information.

(5 minutes) As student computers are booting up, a general question related to their class (example: "How are race and ethnicity portrayed in the media?") is projected at the top of the screen. Students are asked to identify the most important words or terms, and the librarian underlines them with a stylus. The students are then asked to brainstorm keywords or related terms to the underlined words. These are then written or typed on the screen to provide the beginning of a search strategy. The importance of search strategy is very briefly discussed.

(30 minutes) After the keyword exercise, the class is divided into five groups. As the keyword exercise is left up on the screen, each group is asked to search, as they normally would, for a different type of material related to the topic. Group 1 is asked to find a scholarly article, Group 2: background information, Group 3: a book. Group 4: an opinion piece, and Group 5: a Web site. The groups are given five minutes to come up with a resource At the end of the five minutes, the librarian asks for a volunteer from the first group to come to the front of the room and demonstrate how the group searched. Even if the group did not locate a resource, the librarian emphasizes that he/she would still like to talk about the search process. The librarian then uses the search results from the group to discuss a definition of the particular type of resource (for example: what is a scholarly article) and any issues that arise specific to that type of resource. The librarian also discusses both practical positives and challenges to the search and its results, and builds upon the group's search results by demonstrating a relevant library resource. The librarian repeats these steps with each of the five groups.

(4 minutes) During the Web site (final) group's report, the librarian briefly discusses Web domains, authorship, authority, citation, and currency in relation to the group's findings. The librarian then projects a hoax or questionable Web site on the screen (I like to use; see Further Resources) and asks the students to identify qualities that both appear viable and those that indicate that the site is unreliable. The librarian may enhance this exercise by using a tablet or stylus to circle or highlight the aspects brought up by students.

(1 minute) The librarian projects his or her contact information on the screen, encouraging the students to send questions. The class is also shown how to locate the online research guide that has been prepared beforehand by the librarian.

Post-class: The librarian records information about the searches that the student groups demonstrated for a needs assessment. (Possible categories of data: Search starting point, type of search performed, reliability and availability of material selected, etc.)


The design of this nearly class-length activity, in addition to its goals, outcomes, and objectives, also accomplishes several advantageous tasks:

1. Provides insight for the librarian, observing course instructor, and fellow students into one another's searching behavior.

2. Collects data on students' pre-instruction search strategies for a needs assessment.

3. Provides opportunities (with the Web evaluation piece) for in-class assessment.

4. Provides a logical platform for introducing library resources, building on what students already know and do.

5. Increases the perceived relevancy of library resources by juxtaposing them with a typical Internet search.

6. Highlights the importance of evaluating resources.

7. Provides a rapidly changing, fast paced format to keep students engaged and hold their attention.

8. Provides an environment - in groups - that is conducive for students to authentically demonstrate current search strategies without pressure to provide a "right or wrong answer."

9. Provides an environment where lecture time is reduced, thereby addressing more than one learning style.

The online guide prepared by the librarian before the class session provides the next step for a motivated researcher. It also provides a forum for all of the important information that was excluded from class due to the time restraint -and allows students to explore this on their own time without having it packed into 50 minutes. It also acknowledges the Web skills of students and provides them autonomy, guided by a librarian, to locate information on their own.


The disadvantages to using this activity are:

1. Classroom tone: The instructor must be very careful to keep an objective demeanor and not judge or belittle students' search results.

2. Generality: The approach is general - if a class needs to know about a specific collection or set of resources, the activity is not always appropriate.

3. Transferability: While this approach transfers well between Tier I writing classes with different foci, it is not always appropriate for more advanced students.


I decided on the following four categories for gathering data: 1) where the group began their search, 2) what type of search the group performed, 3) whether or not the source the group located was authoritative, and 4) whether or not the source was available. After gathering and compiling data for ten classes during the fall semester of 2007, the following facts stood out to me as highlighting student needs:

* 48% of searches ended with a resource that was either not authoritative, had questionable authority, or the authority was unable to be determined.

** This number highlighted and reiterated the importance of focusing on the students' need for evaluation of sources.

* An Internet search engine was used as the starting place between 50-100% of the time for all types of materials except books.

** These data suggested to me that the students did not think to use library resources as a starting point for much of their searching, and could possibly not initially associate scholarly articles, opinion, and background information with the library. The need inferred was awareness of library resources.

* 40% of groups began their search for a book using a non-library resource, such as Google,, or Barnes&

** These data may suggest, among other things, that many students do not have the traditional association of books and libraries which librarians tend to assume exists. A need inferred from this data is awareness of free accessibility of books from the library and its partners.

* I observed, but did not quantify with data, that many students looked for an opinion piece or background information by using Google and typing in their keywords plus the terms "opinion," "history," or "background."

** This fact pointed out to me that students did not think to look in a specific resource according to the type of material that they needed, such as an encyclopedia or database with viewpoint articles. The student need highlighted is for efficiency in searching, including introduction to more specific resources. I plan to record these types of searches specifically in the future.


Using the theories of design thinking, learning outcomes, and instructional design to build or restructure a 50-minute information literacy session can result in greater efficiency, student engagement, and potential for assessment. Shifting the focus of the session from demonstrating tools and skills to addressing students' information seeking needs, the librarian can effectively address learning styles, streamline and enliven the session, and produce data for needs assessment. Understanding student needs is key to an effective learning experience, both for students and the librarian instructor alike.


Design Thinking

Bell, S. J., and J. D. Shank. Academic librarianship by design: a blended librarian's guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association, 2007.

IDEO company's design process video:

Koppel, Ted, and Jack Smith. The deep dive. Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences, 2007. Motion picture.

Learning Times. Learning Times Library Online Community. 2008.


Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.

Association of College & Research Libraries. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association, 2001.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.

Web Portal For Educators. Bloom's Taxonomy Verbs. 2007.


Dick, W., and L. Carey. The systematic design of instruction. 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1985.

Gradowski, Gail et al., eds. Designs for active learning: A sourcebook of classroom strategies for information education. Chicago: The Association of College & Research Libraries, 1998.

Rothwell, W. J., and H.C. Kazanas. Mastering the instructional design process: a systematic approach. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

University of Texas at Austin. Tips and Techniques for Library Instruction, 2007.

Veldof, J. R. Creating the one-shot library workshop: a step-by-step guide. Chicago: American Library Association, 2006.


Google Directory: Hoax sites

POP! The First Male Pregnancy

(See also: biographical site of Male Pregnancy site artist, Virgil Wong) 1 = RYT + Hospital&typel = 2Select&name2 = First + Male + Pregnancy&type2 = 3Active


ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association, 2000.

BELL, STEVEN J., AND JOHN D. SHANK. Academic Librarianship by Design: A Blended Librarian's Guide to the Tools and Techniques. Chicago: American Library Association, 2007.

BLOOM, BENJAMIN S. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.

BLOOM, BENJAMIN S. Learning for mastery. Durham, NC: Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, 1960.

CARROLL, JOHN B. "A model of school learning." Teachers College Record 64 (1963): 723-33.

DEBLOIS, PETER B. "Leadership in Instructional Technology and Design: An Interview." Educause Quarterly 28, no. 4 (2005): 12-17.

GILCHRIST, DEBRA. "Worksheet: Developing Outcomes." ACRL Institute for Information Literacy: Immersion, 2007.

JACOBSON, TRUDI E, AND LIJUAN XU. Motivating Students in Information Literacy Classes, The New Library Series. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2004.

OSWALD, DANIEL F., AND CHARLES M. REIGELUTH. "Instructional Design: Overview." In Encyclopedia of Education, edited by James W. Guthrie, 1146-51. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2003.

REISER, ROBERT A., AND WALTER DICK. Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996.

ROTHWELL, WILLIAM J., AND H. C. KAZANAS. Mastering the Instructional Design Process: A Systematic Approach. 2nd ed., The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

SPADY, WILLIAM G. Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1994.

SPADY, WILLIAM G. "Outcome Based Education." In Encyclopedia of Education, edited by James W. Guthrie, 1827-31. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2003.

TESSMER, MARTIN. "Applications of Instructional Design to Library Instruction. 5th Annual Workshop of the Library Instruction Roundtable of the Colorado Library Association." Colorado Libraries 11: 28-31.

VELDOF, JERILYN R. Creating the One-Shot Library Workshop: A Step-by-Step Guide. Chicago: American Library Association, 2006.


Michigan State University
COPYRIGHT 2009 Michigan Academy of Science Arts & Letters
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Miller, Sara D.
Publication:Michigan Academician
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2009
Previous Article:Voices of culturally and linguistically diverse parents: a story of Korean parents of preschoolers.
Next Article:Defining Italian-Americans: the Ethnicity industry and the Bicentennial celebration 1974-1976.

Related Articles
Faculty technology training: learning objects.
Trial by fire: new librarians as team teachers.
Expanding library instruction to the web portal.
New assessment technology: the PRS alternative.
Science literacy: a collaborative approach.
Enhancing instruction through collaboration.
Impact of professional development on the literacy environments of preschool classrooms.
A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures.
Influencing the now and future faculty: retooling information literacy.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters