The Digital Badges Team was charged to evaluate the existing badges program and articulate the future direction of the program by investigating how badges scale, how badging can be sustainable, and the capacity of LLS to support the program as part of the larger strategy for instruction offerings provided by LLS. For a quick recap of what work around digital badges was prioritized during the reboot, I recommend reading Torrie Raish’s earlier post: Digital Badges Sub Team Introduction and Goals.

After identifying the priorities of the charge, we launched a pilot with 12 sections of ENGL 015 where students participated in two digital badges in place of an in-person traditional library instruction workshop. As part of this initiative we completed the following tasks: surveyed instructors and students, evaluated student work, reviewed the overall design of the badges, and assessed how this program can scale. Based  on the pilot implementation, assessment metrics, and an instructor focus group, the team recommends the following for the badge teaching load going forward as part of LLS instruction offerings:

• continue providing badges as an instruction method for ENGL 015 and other foundational courses.
• finalize all documentation for best practices for implementing badges within a course
• implement changes to badges suggested by the review committee during Summer 2019.
• maintain the same offering (2 badges for 12 sections with a minimum of 6-7 core badge evaluators) as our capacity threshold. Additional sections may be added on a case by case basis with special consideration based on the availability of badge evaluators. Instructors will be able to select their own badges.
• implement the criteria for inclusion of badge use within a course. For example, continuing to target foundational classes, focusing on instructors who want to use badges, identifying courses that have a need for research instruction, and timing badges to support student work.
• build continued awareness and collaborations across University Libraries for the badging program. This includes the creation of internal support to train evaluators such as through a canvas course or badge. This also includes strategic planning for the inclusion of our colleagues at campus locations.
• work to articulate the workflow for instructors requesting badge support for their courses developed over Summer 2019 and then communicate the workflow to these instructors. Potential workflow: review website and update as needed, have instructors fill out a badge request form, instructors consult with LLS before using badges for the first time.
• continue to develop badges as a teaching delivery method used in LLS and implement the recommendations identified so that the workload is sustainable.

The Foundational Learners team spent most of last semester asking questions in a variety of ways, striving to get to know our population better.

To understand this process better, we first must define what a foundational learner is. The easy answer is “freshmen” but something we learned from our focus groups is that all freshman are not on the same page when it comes to research. Some have a great deal more experience (and similar amounts of overconfidence) while others have only completed the most basic of research assignments before.  If foundational learners are students who are new to the type of research demanded of them at Penn State, it does likely mean all freshmen, but it also includes transfer students, ESL students, and even higher level students who have slipped through the cracks in some way.

Definition in hand, we began exploring the ways we reach out to these foundational students, completing an inventory that gathered together all of the places where LLS provided instruction. While we by far reached the most students through ENGL15, it was interesting to note that we reached 100% of ESL students. But the question was, looking at this document, is this the best usage of our time. Teaching, both in person and online, takes a significant amount of time and the question was, is this time well spent, or should we come up with an alternative.

This led us to complete a series of focus groups with ENGL15 students. Because of the Reboot, none of them had received in person library instruction. When asked if anyone had ever  explained research to them in a way that stuck, most students said no. While we would like to complete another focus group, one of students that had received library instructions, it is easy to make the assumption that if these students had attended a library session, they would understand research in a more in depth way.

In order to check this understanding, we reviewed and revitalized our faculty and student evaluations, mapping them to the learning outcomes that our librarians are teaching to. Instead of sending them out at the end of the semester as we have in the past, these assessments will be done at the end of class in order to get a fresh perspective.

So that left us with opportunities with students, but students are not the only variable in the classroom. Faculty buy-in, whether it’s in person or online, is vital to students’ commitment to learning. The Foundational Learners team took time to use a form created by the Instructional Steering committee to review instructional partnerships. This, combined with meetings with ENGL15 administrators let us know that the buy-in from ENGL15 instructors is comparably strong, and a good use of our time and energy.

There is still much work to do. Assessment is likely to need some tweaking as we push forward with the new time frame. There are many models of teaching, in person, badges, Credo modules, that our instructional partners may want, and navigating these different opportunities will require finesse. The reboot was just the start of our work, but it was a start that gave us both direction and drive as we make our way forward.