This learning session, led by a librarian, is for first-year community college students in an academic library setting. The intention of this session is to scaffold onto existing research writing skills acquired in previous education, as well as use of popular video sharing platforms to obtain information, like TikTok. Informative videos produced by everyday people are a growing form of intellectual connection between all audiences and scholarly sources based on relatability, as well as visibility of marginalized issues larger news organizations do not address. When the information messenger is familiar yet dynamic in their presentation and provides information that the public is not informed on, viewers are more inclined to listen than if it were just a research paper or a scholarly representative of a research community. There are, however, citation issues and basic research principles missing in several of these videos, based solely on most video sharing platform’s intention to obtain engagement, not to responsibly inform/educate its users. As researchers, it is crucial to discern engagement-intended, incendiary content with informative, well-researched content that our neighbors are making, even if their intentions are good.

This library class was designed for the courses Scene Design and Technical Theatre. However, it can be adapted and used for courses that make use of digital archives and other types of digital objects to support their arguments.

This workshop engages participants in exploring corporate data collection, personal profiling, deceptive design, and data brokerage practices. Workshop content is contextualized with the theoretical frameworks of panoptic sort (Gandy), surveillance capitalism (Zuboff), and the four regulators (Lessig) and presented through a privacy and business ethics lens. Participants will learn how companies make money from data collection practices; explore how interface design can influence our choices and behaviors; and discuss business ethics regarding privacy and big data.
The workshop is designed for 75-minute class sessions, but can be compressed into 60-minute sessions.
Includes workshop guide, presentation slides, learning activities, and assessment instrument.

Learn how to go beneath the headlines and current debates to examine the text of laws and/or proposed legislation with a focus on Congress, the Supreme Court, Executive Orders, and state legislatures. This introductory workshop will highlight library resources, open government resources, and search strategies to support researchers across many disciplines and interest areas to navigate legal and legislative history resources.

The SIFT* & PICK approach to evaluating sources adapts and builds on Mike Caulfield's SIFT method to help students select quality sources by practicing:

• Lateral Reading (SIFT): fact-checking by examining other sources and internet fact-checking tools; and
• Vertical Reading (PICK): examining the source itself to decide whether it is the best choice for their needs.

*The SIFT method was created by Mike Caulfield under a CC BY 4.0 International License.

How do you detmerine whether your research has had an impact? This lesson plan covers journal and author metrics such as Journal Impact Factors, H-index, citation counts, and altmetrics. After a mini-lecture of the definitions of these metrics and how to find them using Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics, students create a researcher profile to position themselves as scholars. 

Supplies needed: Printed researcher profile handouts.

This activity takes approxiately 30 minutes.  

Directions: Identify a university or research center you’d want to be affiliated with, and make up a title of an article you’d be interested in writing. Then, find a real journal that would publish that article. Use Google Scholar to look up the journal’s h-index and Ulrich’s to determine if it’s open access. Make up a number for how many times you think the article would be cited!

Description: The Database Scavenger Hunt engages pairs of students in locating specific information or performing specific tasks across multiple resources. Each team works through a series of 16 questions/tasks, with verification of correct answers from the librarian/professor after every 1 or 2 questions, then places a mark on the corresponding wall grid of questions once an answer is deemed correct. The process repeats until the team completes all questions.

The wall grid acts as a way to track where teams are in the game and creates a light-weight race to finish first. (Optional: provide a small prize to either the first team to finish or do a drawing of all teams that finished to give out a prize). See image below of completed wall-grid, with each color/shape of sticky note representing a different team.

Verifying answers after each/every 2 questions ensures students are finding the correct information and completing the tasks. Once a majority of teams complete all 16 questions, there is a group discussion of difficult questions and demoing of any specific problem areas. Before the activity begins, the librarian/instructor can demo where to find databases & database descriptions on the library webpage and mention how to log in. 

Questions can be customized to match the class/subject area. The example attached below is for an undergraduate research group. Examples of changes include: switching databases & examples, focusing on different types of information (patents, standards, handbooks, webpages, etc.), changing tasks based on assignment needs, etc.

Note: Because of the verification step, this activity is best with groups of 20 or less and with the assistance of either the professor or another colleague. 

Materials Needed:

• Question sheet for each student
• Answer sheet for each librarian/professor/instructor
• Wall grid, cut into half-size pages
• Sticky notes (or some method of distinguishing team marks on grid)
• Tape to adhere grid to wall
• Prize (optional)