Introduction:

 

In 1996 the University of North Carolina instituted a First Year Experience program. It was developed as a series of elective courses for those students wishing to participate in closely guided instruction during their first year. The classes were expected to be small and the interaction with the instructors was expected to be frequent and personal. The FYE program has many objectives in common with bibliographic instruction. For several years the library offered students the opportunity to take library instruction in small classes where they could get direct hands-on experience and interact directly with the library faculty. A self-paced library instruction program was also offered which requires only brief contact with the library faculty and the satisfactory completion of a final exam. Both bibliographic instruction classes (LR101 and LR102) satisfied the one-credit for Library Research required of all in-coming students and mandated before students can declare a major at the institution. Both the FYE program and the Library Research program aim to accommodate the incoming student and to meet a commonly agreed upon set of goals and objectives.

 

In 1997 the library underwent a re-evaluation of its Library Research program and it was decided to try several alternative approaches to instruction while maintaining the two standard approaches. It was at this time that the First Year Experience was combined with the one unit Library Research course as an Interdisciplinary Special Topics course (IST173) in an attempt to address the chronic complaint of instructors that library research courses are seldom relevant because they are not offered at the time that students need them or within a content-based environment.

 

The rich cultural environment of Asheville and the broad range of topics available to students in the local culture and history seemed a natural framework within which to develop and prepare a collaborative effort combining the core components of the First Year Experience with the concepts and practices of Library Research.  Initially conceived as a one-instructor course and derived from the initial instructor’s broad arts experience, the course was conceptually designed to pull from the visually rich art and architecture of the Asheville area. The instructor’s background in art history and critical studies provided the foundation for the development of a course outline. The addition of a second instructor provided welcome benefits for multiple points of exploration in the social sciences and the two approaches to library instruction offered an opportunity to sound out ideas before implementing them in the classroom.

 

The co-instructed course was offered for the first time in the fall of 1997 and within the first 15 minutes of registration, the class filled with students who already formed a cohort group, as many of them lived in the same dormitory and anticipated a “fun course” touring around Asheville. This close bonding of the class was a goal of the First Year Experience and was effective for many of the class activities, but, it was also found to be a deterrent to exploration and personal growth for many of the students in this initial class. Further, there was inadequate preparation of students for the academic rigors of the class and many complained that the course “required too much” --- especially that “dull library stuff”. The syllabus for the 1997 course was ambitious in scope and expectations and heavily weighted at the end of the course. The requirement of a final paper and bibliography followed the more standard instructional methodologies. The 1998 syllabus contained many elements of the 1997 syllabus but shows more refinement  (see 1997 Syllabus and 1998 Syllabus for comparison).

 

This 1997 offering of the course met with some success from the conceptual side and sound support from the First Year Experience program, but was a disappointment to the instructors from the instructional side. After some deliberation the instructors decided to offer the course a second time and to refine some of the elements of instruction, mainly the worksheets and the pacing of assignments and activities. In re-working of the 1998 syllabus, the instructors looked carefully at the student evaluations and attempted to learn from the comments and the distribution of comments over the sequence of classes. Assignments were more evenly balanced against the academic calendar and more time was allowed for completion of assignments. Many of the assignments were completed in class and were designed to be more interactive. Guest lectures were distributed throughout the course to give students a variety of voices and viewpoints. Reflection was individual and weekly through e-mail. It should be pointed out that the 1998 course did not back away from the high academic expectations seen in the 1997 course, nor from the assignment load, but the distribution and re-sequencing resulted in very few student complaints regarding the course expectations. Further, the second class were given an early and a  complete overview of the course and it was suggested that those who expected to “just tour Asheville” might want to look for another class. There was only one student who failed to engage the course in the 1998 group. The grade distribution suggested that the engagement was high to very high throughout the course. Timely completion of assignments was the highest seen in both instructor’s careers. 

 

Another area of significant improvement seen in the 1998 class was in the faculty-student interaction. The 1997 class participated in an open forum where all student reflections were available to all the class. This “commons” approach, while expected to be democratic and stimulating was too often used as a “gripe” forum and a vehicle to “flame” other cohorts and sometime the instructors. While it served to level the playing field, placing the faculty in the “chat room”, we quickly discovered this egalitarian form of communication was a dangerous practice for some cohort classes.  By preserving the privacy of the reflections in the 1998 class, we believe the responses were more thoughtful and less peer-driven and the level of the discourse more mature and relevant. The private discourse also resulted in more consultation and ongoing dialogs with students who needed extra clarification or support.

 

Whether the re-structuring of the 1998 course was responsible for the promotion and the nurturing of mature social and educational values, is still not entirely clear. The critical mix of students is often a wild card in the success or failure to engage a classroom of freshmen, or any rank, for that matter. Nonetheless, the second class was significantly more successful in promoting and maintaining mature social and educational practices among themselves and with the instructors and the outcomes were significantly more successful from both the instructor and the student side. 

 

Would we do this again?  Yes, probably, but we have chosen to sit out the 1999 semester.  While there were many positive outcomes from the two classes, several important obstacles need to be addressed. Three of the most important issues, are those of time, time and time.  The course has a high requirement for preparation and the need to take field trips requires a block of time that may not be realistic in some schedules. The integration of two programs, library instruction and the First Year Experience was a complex juggle and the addition of the art and architecture course content made for major sequencing and balancing problems in the course structure and required numerous hours of planning. Library instruction, generally a one unit course, was integrated into the three unit IST173 course. Yet, in the IST173 course, the students were given a grade rather than the S/U common to the LR101 and LR102 courses.  The LR102 self-paced course addresses the requirements for some 500+ students during the first semester of the school year. The IST173 Biltmore and Beyond course addressed the library research needs of only 15 students. One library instructor can shepherd two classes of 50+ students through the LR102 labs and final exam, but two instructors spent some 3 hours per week and additional preparation and grading time to address the needs of 15 students each week for an entire semester.

 

Yet, economies of scale aside, it cannot be disputed that the students in the IST173 Biltmore and Beyond class received a richer experience than those in the standard self-paced course. Certainly they were engaged in learning library research in a relevant environment. The diverse range of instruction and the accommodation of a wide range of interests in the student was stimulating and energizing for the freshmen. The challenge of the course assignments was always supported by the ready accessibility of the instructors and the rigorous writing and critical thinking skills assignments offered sound preparation for upper level coursework.  We are firmly convinced that the course offering was a viable alternative to the standard approach to bibliographic instruction but that it requires significant commitment on the part of the instructor(s). What remains to be measured is whether the LR102 student and the IST173 Biltmore and Beyond student have equivalent library research skills on completion of the two courses.  Equivalent testing might provide some means for measuring outcomes in the area of bibliographic instruction, but could not address the other skill levels aimed for in the goals of the First Year Experience.  One outcome of the First Year Experience that has been measured can be found in the recent evaluation of students who had participated in the First Year Experience in 1996- -- . The institutional study by the FYE program showed that the retention rate was higher for students who had participated in the FYE experience than that of students who had not participated in the FYE program. Of those students who chose to take First Year Experience  xxx % go on to complete the full four years. This new statistic, while still emerging with the new program,  has important implications for institutions struggling with poor retention. The recent proliferation of First Year Experience programs is testimony to the growing awareness of institutions to the importance of this Freshman offering.

 

As bibliographic instruction programs struggle with the growing need for courses that address critical thinking skills, and which engage students in the research process early in their academic careers, this pilot collaboration contains elements that may be useful to institutions considering the restructure of their bibliographic instruction programs. While it is not the most efficient means of instruction, it may be one of the more effective means for engaging the incoming student and providing them with a meaningful and long-lasting educational experience. It links libraries with the larger academic community and underscores the contribution of librarians to guided research and it reaches out to the external community in a manner which has important implications for building community relationships and partnerships with other cultural institutions. It provides an excellent opportunity for Special Collections to become a resource for instruction throughout the curriculum and to introduce students to the concept of doing original research with primary source materials. It provides an opportunity for library faculty to partner with regular faculty in similar courses, or for librarians to partner with community speakers and professionals while providing students with career models outside the walls of the academy.  Would we teach this course again? I think we would. Would we recommend this alternative instructional model to others. Yes, but only to the committed and to those who wish to focus their energy on the concepts of bibliographic instruction and not on the skills process.