Home

Library Instruction Lesson Plans

 

Articles About Library Instruction

 

Articles About Information Literacy

 

Links to Resources

 

Bibliography of Library Instruction Papers

 

Privacy Policy

 

Information Literacy Blog

Creating a sense of community is important in a classroom.  Students benefit when they trust other students and the teacher.  Communication increases and student learn from one another.  However, creating a sense of community is difficult for academic library instruction sessions.  How can you create a community feeling in a one-shot library orientation session?  How do you get students to connect with each other when the students will probably never return to your classroom?  One method is to use the active learning technique of the jigsaw.  It allows the academic librarian to teach library skills and at the same time further communication and the send of community in the classroom.

A jigsaw activity was used at Michigan State University in the Fall of 2002.  Several courses of freshmen writing students participated in a jigsaw to teach each other the features of several databases.  Feedback from the instructors and from the students was positive.  The students enjoyed the activity and appeared to have achieved the desired learning outcome.  This paper will look at literature relevant to this activity, describe the jigsaw assignment, and detail how the students reacted to it.

Many educators have noted the importance of developing a classroom where students talk with each other and are active participants in their own education.  Wrote Jones and Jones (2001), “Peer relationships influence students’ achievements in several ways.  First, peer attitudes towards achievement affect students’ academic aspirations and school behavior.  Second, the quality of the peer relationships and personal support in classrooms affects the degree to which students’ personal needs are meet and, subsequently, their ability to be productively involved in the learning process.  Third, peer relationships can directly affect achievement through cooperative learning activities. Finally, at-risk students are more likely to feel alienated from school and have low rates of participation I school as early as 3rd grade.  It is likely that the quality of peer relationships students experience in the classroom and throughout the school day dramatically influence the extent to which students become involved in school (pp. 122).”

Librarians have seized upon the concept of active (also known as cooperative) learning.  Active learning is a method of educating students that allows them to participate in class. It takes them beyond the role of passive listener and note taker and allows the student to take some direction and initiative during the class. The role of the teacher is to lecturer less and instead directs the students in directions that will allow the students to "discover" the material as they work with other students to understand the curriculum. Active learning can encompass a variety of techniques that include small group discussion, role-playing, hands-on projects, and teacher driven questioning. The goal is to bring students into the process of their own education.

Some of the pioneers in the push for active learning in the last several decades are David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith. Although none of the three are librarians, all work in academia and have taught widely to faculty in higher education. Many academic librarians (including the author) have heard them speak and they are widely cited in library literature dealing with active learning. The three have argued for faculty because they feel lecturing over relies on active learning even though lecturing has several limitations. They wrote (1991) that students have trouble focusing on lecturing and that their attention diminishes over the course of a class. They also postulated that lecturing promotes the acquisition of facts rather than the development of higher cognitive processes such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluation. Finally, they believed that students find lectures boring.

Bonwell and Eison (1991) wrote that strategies that promote active learning have five common characteristics. Students are involved in class beyond listening. Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more emphasis is placed developing the skills of the students. The students are involved in higher order thinking such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluation. The students are involved in activities like reading, discussion, and writing. Finally, greater emphasis is placed on the exploration of student values and attitudes.

Active learning can also overcome the individualistic and competitive nature of traditional education. Wrote Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991), "When engaged in cooperative activities, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and to all other members of the group. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning (pp. 3)."

Another reason for using active learning by many is that non-traditional students in higher education (that is those that are older than 18-24) prefer it to lecturing. Slavin (1991) reported that traditional students have been lectured to their whole lives and expect it. However, older students have had the opportunity to work and have life experiences that have shown them that they can learn things on their own and can participate and interact with both other students and the teacher in the classroom. Cook, Kunkel, and Weaver (1995) found this to be true of non-traditional students in library instruction as well as they dealt with students at the different branch campuses of Kent State University.

Wrote Lorenzen (2001a), “While many active techniques are useable by academic librarians, most of these librarians are probably already using active learning in their lessons without realizing it. Hands-on learning is an important component of many library instruction lessons. Passing reference works around a room and allowing students to look at them is a low-level active learning exercise. With a little work, adding perhaps an opportunity to discuss why the reference works are useful, coupled with a group assignment to look up some information, the activity can become a truly beneficial and exciting active learning exercise. Even allowing students to use computers and conduct searches during class is an active learning approach. While active learning looks like it can be difficult for librarians to accommodate, with some modification librarians can build on what they are already doing and make their teaching more effective (pp. 20).”

A jigsaw is an active learning technique.  The teacher decides to teach a concept.  This concept is then divided into smaller parts.  A class of students is broken down into small groups.  Each group is assigned one of these parts to work on.  Later, the students come back together as a class.  Each group then teaches what they have learned to the whole class.  The teacher guides each group and is there to clarify and correct the group presentations as necessary.

Ragains (1995) wrote about using a jigsaw in a library context.  His jigsaw method was based on Drueke’s Active Learning Paradigm.  Other recent authors have written about the jigsaw activity as well.  Wedman et al (1996) discussed how the technique could be used to teach students in a reading methods course.  Business faculty members experiment with jigsaws was reported by Lindquist (1997).  Adult students using this active learning method were written about by Will (1997).  Biology students were subjected successfully to the jigsaw as reported by Colosi and Zales (1998) in lab courses.  Finally, Ali Charania et all (2001) wrote about using the jigsaw technique with nursing students in Pakistan.

The author has noted many limitations that the one-shot library instruction sessions offer.  Many other librarians have noted these problems as well.  Students are not very motivated to learn the material being taught.  In most cases, the student will not be tested on what they are supposed to learn.  The librarian is unfamiliar to the students so there is no level of trust between the librarian and the students.  As the students will only be in the library classroom one time, it is hard for the librarian to got the students to talk or engage with each other.  Finally, the student can always get help at the Reference Desk in the library.  If the student fails to learn, there is no consequence, as the student will get one-on-one service later.

The nature of academic library instruction makes many of these issues difficult to address.  A faculty member who brings his/her class over to the library initiates almost all library instruction.  Hence, it is the faculty member who sets the tone for the class and builds community.  Even if the faculty member is successful in building a sense of community in the class, it rarely translates to the library session as the students have been put in a new environment with a new teacher for the day. It is also up to the faculty member to assess the learning from the library instruction.  Unless the faculty member makes it clear that the material being covered by the librarian will be graded in some fashion, most students will not take the library instruction seriously.

The author decided to use a jigsaw assignment to address the problem of student connectedness in the classroom.  It was hoped that this activity would encourage the students to talk with each other and the librarian.  By being required to work in small groups and teach each other, the belief was that the students would learn more than they would in a straight lecture they were unengaged in.

One problem with the jigsaw activity is that it is time intensive.  Most of the library instruction sessions the author teaches only last 50 minutes.  It was decided that these would be poor classes to try the jigsaw activity.  Instead, the jigsaw was used with four sections of freshmen writing courses that lasted for an hour and a half each.  Conceivably, it would be possible to rush this jigsaw in 50 minutes.  However, the author would recommend against doing this as this would cut down on the amount of time the students could collaborate with each other.  A good active learning assignment that uses other less time intensive methods would work better for the shorter classes.  Lorenzen (2001b) is a good example of such an assignment.

Before the assignment was handed out, the librarian began class by lecturing on several topics including the importance of limiting a search topic and how to use the online catalog.  The librarian also asked the students about some of their library experiences.  After this introduction, the jigsaw activity was explained
The jigsaw assignment required students to think about four separate databases.  These included WilsonSelect, ProQuest, Lexis-Nexis, and MD Consult.  The four classes had between 22 and 25 students in them.  The class was divided into four groups consisting of 4 to 5 students each.  These groups were then asked to learn about one of these four databases.

Questions included:
 

1. What is the scope of this database?  What is included?  Why would you use it?
2. How do you start a search?  Is there more than one collection to choose from at the initial screen?
3. What are some of the options for advanced searching?
4. How do you e-mail or print off results?
5. What did you like about this database?
6. What did you dislike about this database?

Students were informed before beginning that they would be asked to share what they learned with the entire class.  Each group was asked to select one spokesperson who would get up and speak about the group findings.

 Each group was then given 25 minutes to find the information about the database.  Each group had access to computers for each group member.  During this time, the librarian walked around and helped each group.  This also helped to keep each group on task. After the 25 minutes passed, each group talked for about 5 minutes about the database.  The presenter was allowed to use the instructor PC in the classroom that was projecting on a screen.  The librarian added details as each student spoke and corrected any erroneous details.

The librarian finished class with an overview of what had been covered during the lesson.  Students were also given an opportunity to ask any additional questions.  The librarian then asked the students what they thought of the jigsaw assignment. The faculty member then dismissed the class.

The reactions to this assignment were overwhelming positive.  The two faculty members who allowed this assignment to be used with their students were happy with the amount of enthusiasm the students showed.  The students themselves seemed pleased that they were able to do a project and have “fun” in the library.  Unfortunately, no surveys or other assessment tools were used to determine if the student learned more than they would have with the traditional lecture method.
Students were unsure of this assignment at first.  They had not expected to have to actually do any work in the library beyond listening to the librarian.  When the assignment was passed out, the librarian received several blank or perturbed stares.  Once the groups were established, there was also some indecision over who would be the group spokesman.

However, after a few minutes, the students became engaged.  They started working together on the computers and started making discoveries about the databases.  The librarian mingled with the groups to keep the groups on track and focused.  Some students were more engaged than others.  However, as a whole, the students talked with each other and the librarian a lot.

Students who researched MD Consult and Lexis-Nexis needed the most help.  These databases are more specialized and complicated than the WilsonSelect and ProQuest.  The librarian had to give the groups examining MD Consult and Lexis-Nexis more attention than the other groups.  Other problems resulted from students who inadvertently crashed their computers.  Outside of these two areas, there were no problems with the assignment research.

The presentation went well.  Some of the students were more charismatic than others.  Hence, the enjoyment factor of the different presentations varied greatly.  However, all of the groups were able to give credible and mostly accurate presentations about the databases.  A few of the students in the class were engaged enough to ask the presenting students additional questions.  Some non-presenting members of other groups yelled out additional findings to the class when the group presenter failed to mention something.

At the end of class, the students were asked what they thought about the assignment.  The students appeared to be overwhelmingly positive.  Several mentioned that the class was not as boring as they had expected.  The author is mindful of the fact that this method of assessment has built in bias.  If students were unhappy or did not like the jigsaw, it is probable they would not have been bold enough to tell me.  However, the high number of positive responses is a good indicator that the assignment was well received.

Both faculty members commented on how surprised they were at how the students reacted to the jigsaw.  They had expected quiet compliance but not much excitement.  Both expressed interest in having the jigsaw assignment used with their classes in future terms.

Active learning and jigsaw assignments have been used many educators and some librarians over the years.  There is a rich literature supporting these teaching methods.  Academic library instruction has several problems that can be difficult to address do the nature of the one-shot library instruction session.  One of these is a lack of student involvement and motivation in class.  Another is the lack of connection that students have with each other in class.

A jigsaw assignment was used with several Michigan State University library instruction sessions to try to deal with the mentioned problems.  The assignment worked well and students seemed more engaged with the lesson, the librarian, and each other than they are in a traditional library lecture.  More practice and research needs to be done before this assignment can be deemed successful.  However, initial indicators are that this method of instruction works in the library classroom.  Other instruction librarians would benefit from using this type of assignment in their classrooms.

Ali Charania, N.A.M et al. (2001).  Playing jigsaw: A cooperative learning experience.  Journal of nursing education, 40(9), 420-421.

Bonwell, C. C. and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Colosi, J.C. and Zales, C.R. (1998).  Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses.  BioScience, 48 (February), pp. 118-124.

Cook, K. N., Kunkel, L. R., and Weaver, S. M. (1995). Cooperative learning in bibliographic instruction. Research strategies, 13 (Winter), pp. 17-25.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. and Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.

Jones, F.J. and Jones, L.S. (2001).  Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems, sixth edition.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.

Laverty, C. (1996). The cooperative jigsaw: A new approach to library learning. In New ways of "learning the library" and beyond, ed. by L. Shirato. Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, pp. 113-23.

Lindquist, T.M. (1997).  An experimental test of cooperative learning with faculty members as subjects.  Journal of education for business, 72 (January/February), pp. 157-163.

Lorenzen, M. (2001a).  Active learning and library instruction. Illinois libraries, 83(2), pp. 19-24.

Lorenzen, M. (2001b). Using tattooing to teach Boolean searching. In Teaching information literacy concepts: Activities and frameworks from the field, ed. by T. E. Jacobson and T. H. Gatti. Pittsburgh: Library Instruction Publications, pp. 195-199.

Ragains, P. (1995).  Four variations on Drueke's active learning paradigm. Research strategies, 13 (Winter), pp. 40-50.

Ricks, W. and Lee, W. (1996).   Foreign exchange: A new approach to cooperative learning.  American secondary education, 24(2), pp. 31-35.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 48(5), 71-77.

Wedman, J.M. et al. (1996).  The effect of jigsaw teams on preservice teachers’ knowledge of reading pedagogy and concerns about group learning in a reading methods course.  Reading improvement, 33 (Summer), pp. 111-123.

Will, A.M. (1997). Group learning in workshops.  New directions for adult and continuing education, 76 (Winter), pp. 33-40.

This content of this website is (c) 2002 by Michael Lorenzen.  All rights reserved. Permission is given to link to this page.