Baruch College, Newman Library, Room 415

October 8, 2004, 2 pm- 4 pm

Members in Attendance:

Alexandra deLuise, Queens

Jacqueline Gill, City College

Keith Muchowski, City Tech

Mounir Khalil, City College

Sandra DeMinco, Lehman College

Jeff Wayne, Borough of Manhattan

Charles Keyes, LaGuardia

Clover Steele, Medgar Evers College

Katherine Parsons, Bronx

William Gibbons

Edward Owusu-Ansah, Staten Island

Meeting commenced at 2pm.

After reflecting on topics covered so far, members discussed what topic to move on to. Though the ensuing discussion produced no concrete focus for future discussions, the issues addressed appeared to be of deep concern to participating members. At the core of the conversation was the question of how best to use the limited contacts permitted by single session engagement with students to provide as elaborate an information literacy instruction as could be possibly conceived under such constraints.

An issue captivating much attention was the question of how to teach to capture student attention. Acknowledging the relative lack of influence that the library instructor in such sessions actually wields, members pondered teaching styles and approaches that could capture the attention and facilitate student learning and participation during such sessions. Some members suggested an engaging style that not only provided instruction and engaged students in hands-on practice, but was also entertaining enough to make students willing to listen, participate, enjoy and appreciate the session experience. Central to such an approach, numerous members suggested, was the entertainment element: an active and upbeat teaching and engagement that engendered a relaxing, exciting and inspiring environment that mitigated the potentially dry and boring perception students might have in their preconceptions of a library-centered and research-oriented session.

Some members raised the question of whether we should be thinking of a standard curriculum, a structured content that could be used and would fit various session lengths (the one, two or more hour session). Such a structure, a lesson plan of sorts could ensure relative uniformity and guarantee that all library instructors are able to cover a minimum set of information literacy instructional expectations. All members acknowledged that while the idea could be a useful one, actual execution would undoubtedly be affected by individual personalities and teaching styles. The though of some kind of standardized expectation was however an interesting one to explore. In that spirit, members considered sharing whatever standard guides they might already have at their respective institutions. Those who had such tools already available promised to send them over to the Chair for distribution to all members, for their consideration and constructive evaluation. Members also thought the idea of visiting each other’s campuses to witness actual instructional sessions could be mutually beneficial. They committed to further exploring the chances for promoting such opportunities at their various campuses, acknowledging that their Chief Librarians would have to okay any such move.

There was further discussion on how instructional activities that engaged students for approximately an hour and comprised of single sessions could be effectively assessed. What was to be assessed and how could such assessment actually measure contribution to student learning and academic behavioral changes. Members acknowledged that though the instrumentality of self reporting by students on what they learn in such sessions could provide clues as to what might be improved and what might have worked better, they do not measure actual student performance, which would be a better indicator of impact. The discussion continues!

Next meeting will be on November 5, 2pm - 4pm.

Meeting adjourned at 4 pm.

Submitted by:

Edward Owusu-Ansah