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.

As the Foundational Learners Team approaches the learning experience of our students, we are focusing on the learning environments we currently create. We are exploring how we can adjust them  to be more learner centered, more knowledge centered, and more assessment centered, three concepts from the 2000 book, How People Learn, which Library Learning Services is currently reading as a unit.

 (chart from page 134)

In short, learner centered environments are those that pay attention to the prior knowledge, attitudes, and culture students bring with them to the educational setting (133), knowledge centered environments focus on the way students become knowledgeable (136) and assessment centered environments foster opportunities for feedback and revision (140). As you might guess, ideal learning environments contain all three.

One of our core projects this semester addresses learner centered environments: we are doing a series of focus groups with ENGL 15 students. In these focus groups, taking place later this week, we will investigate the most ideal learning atmospheres for students, as well as their attitudes and approaches to research. Through the knowledge gained in these encounters, we will make recommendations as to when and how library sessions should take place. It will also give LLS a general idea of where students are at educationally, culturally, etc, so we meet them where they are.

Knowledge centered environments are often guided by learning outcomes, and we are surveying the librarians in LLS, to see what learning outcomes they are teaching the most often, which will then guide our discussion of foundational instruction when our groups reconvene in May.

To address assessment centered environments, we are working on three projects. The first is mapping our learning outcomes to our student and faculty evaluations, making it easier to tailor assessment to what has been taught in class. The second project is a assessment guide, giving librarians ideas for formative and summative assessment which can be done in the classroom. Finally, more broadly we are looking at the Instruction Steering Committee’s document Evaluating Library Instruction Partnerships in General Education Courses as a rubric to approach both future and current partnerships.

The Foundational Learners group hopes to leave the Instruction Reboot with new ideas about the state of our learners, the best ways to share our content, and techniques that will lead us to assess our teaching and our programs. We’re well on our way!

National Research Council 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.

As Rebecca Miller Waltz noted in last week’s post, the Instruction Reboot has become a process of infusing the Library Learning Services teaching program with strategy, intention, and meaning.  These are bold words, brave words, and words that carry many possible meanings depending on the lens through which one looks. The terms are, in a word, squishy, particularly in the an academic environment often driven by metrics. So it is natural to ask next: What does success look like in the scenario driven by such squishiness?

Our answer to this question took shape during 2018, over the many months spent planning for the Instruction Reboot.  When contemplating the makings of a successful library teaching and learning program, we developed the following list:

• Articulated shared values and priorities
• Targeted learners (we know who we want to work with, why, and how
• Achievable/measureable learning outcomes
• Effective communications – within our unit, across the library, and with our targeted learning partners
• Adaptability and Flexibility
• A portfolio of teaching strategies and learning activities (which lend to the adaptability and flexibility point)
• Commitment to our own continued learning
• Administrative support and resources
• Understanding of our role within the bigger picture – within the curricula we work with and within the University Libraries
• Commitment to iterative design of our program

As I see our work progressing forward, I see each of these elements beginning to take shape, and it is exciting! In the coming weeks, you’ll hear more from our working teams about how these components are coming to life within their work.

Today marks the beginning of Spring Break at Penn State and the beginning of Week 9 of the Library Learning Services Instruction Reboot.  Since the Reboot will last through the Spring 2019 semester, we have just passed the halfway mark in our instruction reboot at this point.  It seems appropriate to take the time now to share a bit more about how this project is situated within the larger structure and goals of Library Learning Services and how this time has already started shaping our approach to instruction–and beyond!

As Anne Behler wrote a few weeks ago, I was enthusiastic when she mentioned the idea of taking a “sabbatical” of sorts in order to make the professional space to reflect, plan, and grow.  It was January 2018 when we first began discussing the possibilities and potential of such a project, which meant that I had just completed my first two full years in the role of Head of the Library Learning Services unit at Penn State.  As Anne also mentioned in her post, these two years had been full of change for the Library Learning Services team.  Over the course of these two years, we re-defined our mission and vision for Library Learning Services, identified a new scope of work including four strategic areas supporting our mission and vision, and welcomed new colleagues who would help us lead new projects within our four strategic areas of work. On top of all of this change, in January 2018, the Library Learning Services team also learned that it would be moving into a new, shared office space in late 2019 as part of a Libraries-wide renovation project, which will be a very different way of working for all of us, since it will be the first time the department has been co-located and the first time that many of us will be working in an open office environment

Essentially, in early 2018, I realized that our roles, responsibilities, resources, and working relationships were all shifting so dramatically that we needed an equally dramatic approach to managing our change. The major problem, though, was that we were so invested in our day-to-day routines of teaching, meeting, and answering emails we had no room for anything else–including managing change.  A time out from our hectic, daily schedules would give us the space, time, and capacity to reflect on how we’ve grown, strategize around how we want to continue to grow, and be intentional about where we invest our time, energy, and resources, going forward.

Together with our Library Learning Services colleagues, Anne and I worked hard during 2018 to clarify our goals and deliverables for what we ultimately named the Instruction Reboot.  This preparation paved the way for our conversations with our campus collaborators and library administrators.  As the Library Learning Services department head, I was able to use what came from our months of preparation to advocate for the goals of our Instruction Reboot with our Associate Deans and Dean.  Fortunately, our University Libraries administration understood our need, appreciated our planning, and supported our decision to hit the pause button on many of the face-to-face teaching opportunities we usually engage in during the Spring 2019 semester.

At this halfway point of our Instruction Reboot, I am excited by the data we’ve collected, the conversations we’ve had, and the shape that our work is taking.  If I had to pick one word that described our work during the Reboot and our future outlook, it would be “intentional.”  Our conversations have focused around being intentional about who we teach, what we teach, how we teach, and where we teach.  We recognize, though, that our intentions can still be constrained by a number of factors, including limited time, personnel, and resources.  Because of this, I would use two more words to describe our work during the Reboot:  meaningful and strategic.  We know, going forward, that we must make strategic, and often difficult, decisions about where and how we invest our time so that our work is meaningful to as many students, faculty, and community members as possible.  We have our work cut out for us over the next eight weeks or so as we continue to discover what is meaningful to our learners and to us and, with that information, make strategic decisions about our work.

Over the next week or so, all of the reboot teams will be sharing updates on our focused efforts revolving around foundational learners, distinctive populations, and digital badges.  Stay tuned for more details on what each of these teams has been up to over the last few weeks and what we’re finding!