Good for What?

Teaching Sources for Sustainable

Lifelong Information Literacy

Meredith Farkas, Portland Community College

Sara Seely, Portland Community College

Anne-Marie Deitering, Oregon State University

26 March 2015ACRL 2015 Portland, Oregon

What?

So What?

Now What?

BEAM me up!

Meredith Farkas

Portland Community College

ACRL 2015

Freshman Inquiry Assessment

Project

FRINQ = a year long GenEd class focused on writing,

critical thinking, quantitative literacy, diversity, and ethics

and social responsibility

The library has a close relationship with the program

Students create ePortfolios

Assessed for critical thinking and writing already

Our questions: How clearly do students define their research question or

thesis?

How well do students integrate outside information into

their paper and attribute it?

Do students use relevant sources?

Do students use authoritative sources?

Big takeaways Students didn’t seem to understand the purpose of

sources in research

Poorly integrated

Many summarized sources and didn’t use to bolster

argument or illustrate point

Sources often not relevant to the topic

Seemed forced in to meet a requirement

We felt that “sources” wasn’t meaningful to students

Do students really know what

to do with the sources they’ve

found?

Do they know what they’re

looking for in the first place?

“Students… think of research as

going to the library or the Web to

find articles to support a pre-

determined thesis.”

Bean, John. “Backward Design: Towards and Effective

Model of Staff Development in Writing in the

Disciplines.” In Writing in the Disciplines. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Sources ≠ Requirement to be

met

Sources = Evidence

Choose a topic

Ask a

research

question

Search for Sources

Think about

What Evidence

is Needed

Search for

Sources

What we see

What we’d like to see

How do librarians typically classify

sources when explaining them to

students?

We tend to focus on how they’re

made rather than how they

can be used

BEAM Model

Bizup, Joseph. "BEAM: A rhetorical vocabulary for teaching

research-based writing." Rhetoric Review 27.1 (2008): 72-

86.

BEAM Model

“If we want students to adopt a rhetorical perspective towards research-based writing then we should use language that focuses their attention not on what their sources and other material are… but on what they as writers might do with them.”

-Joseph Bizup, “BEAM: A rhetorical vocabulary…”

BEAM Model B = Background

E = Exhibit

A = Argument

M = Method

“Writers rely on background sources, interpret or analyze

exhibits, engage arguments, and follow methods.”

B = Background

Provides you with

context and big

picture.

Generally books

and reference

works.

E = Exhibit

Used to explain,

illustrate, analyze or

interpret

Usually are primary

sources, primary data,

etc.

A = Argument

Used to strengthen, refine,

or complicate an argument

Written by experts (books

or articles)

M = Method

An idea, framework, or

lens that informs your

analysis

Can be an

experimental

approach, a theoretical

perspective, etc.

And when students are thinking

about their sources

rhetorically….

Teaching BEAM

Activities for the Classroom

Have students list the sorts of evidence they think would be useful for their research using at least 2 or 3 of the categories in BEAM

Students who already have found sources: consider how they plan to use each one using the rhetorical vocabulary of BEAM

Reading an article to see how the author uses sources based on BEAM

Have students evaluate sources for authority based on how their intended use in the BEAM model

Your ideas?

Know Your Sources

using infographics to inspire complex thinking

Sara Robertson Seely

Portland Community College

ACRL 2015

WR 121 & WR 122

course outcomes“Locate, evaluate and use

information effectively and

ethically...”

“Evaluate source materials for

authority, currency, reliability,

sound reasoning and validity

of evidence.”

curiosity

What considerations do

students make when

describing why they

select one source over

another?

What do students value

in a source?

source selection assessment

winter 2013

over 200 student responses

at least 38 WR121 & WR 122 courses

~20% response rate

key finding

Students who made 2 or more different types of considerations

were significantly more likely to select the best source.

complexity

goodbad

currency

authorship

authority

editorial process

audience

visual

explanation

communicates

significance

displays data

fixed medium

Ashley Downs, MSGraduate Student Intern

Syracuse University’s

School of Information

Assistant Librarian

Mann Library

Cornell University

Andrew GrewellStudent Intern

Portland Community

College’s Graphic Design

Program

Front-End Developer

Provata Health

Portland, OR

tweets

blogs

online videos

newspapers

magazines

prof. journals

scholarly

journals

academic

books

encyclopedias

volume

time in review

number of

reviewers

author

education

number of

authors

jargon

specialized

vocabulary

assumed

knowledge

Engaging students

close reading

explain to peers

-what makes this worth considering?

-what does it make you think about?

-what’s problematic or not

represented?

Engaging students

timeline activity

search activity

-places sources in conversation

-visualizes iteration of information

-emphasis on access

Links

to Know Your Sources

pcc.edu/library/know-your-sources

to activity

http://bit.ly/knowyoursourcesactivity

to slides

http://bit.ly/knowyoursourcesslides

Images

Alby, James. “Pop shuv-tail.” Flickr.com 20 Feb 2009.

https://flic.kr/p/62g7YD

dwstucke. “Blueberry Bucket.” Flickr.com 1 Sept. 2006

https://flic.kr/p/nw49W

Estelle, Travis. “Deschutes Brewery and Public House.” Flickr.com 26

Mar 2013

https://flic.kr/p/e92ULq

Images, cont.

Farr, Nick. “Bucket.” Flickr.com 4 Jan. 2008

https://flic.kr/p/4iqGvK

zabisco. “Watch this space: Infographics are IN.” July 2011

http://ceblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/Infographic-of-infographics.jpg