The library game: engaging unengaged freshmen.
AbstractIn an effort to enliven the freshman library orientation, the instruction librarians at Radford University developed a Jeopardy!-style game in which the librarian acted as game show host and the students competed in teams. This article discusses the creation of the game, the mechanics of running it, and assessment of the project.
Introduction
A library exercise has long been an important component of Radford University's freshman orientation course, University 100 (UNIV100); approximately 90% of Radford's 1800 freshmen take this course. Designed to introduce students to the basics of using McConnell Library, the exercise leads freshmen in a scavenger hunt through the building. Students visit pertinent areas of the main library beginning with the reference desk, where it is emphasized they should return if they have any problems during the course of the exercise. The students interact with library staff at various locations, utilize the online catalog, search an online database, and familiarize themselves with locating online and print journals in the collection. Over the years, the exercise has been updated to reflect current library resources and services. In response to faculty comments, it was recently shortened for quicker completion.
Traditionally, UNIV100 classes individually registered for a library tour/instruction session in preparation for completing the exercise. A librarian guided them through McConnell Library, pointing out the stations mentioned in the exercise. They followed up with a hands-on instruction session in the computer classroom, demonstrating the electronic components of the exercise. In the fall of 2003, the instructors completed evaluations of these sessions. In general, the instructors appreciated the librarians' time and effort, but indicated there was room for improvement. Some mentioned that the tour relied too heavily on lecture and the students were bored. The librarians agreed with these assessments, which confirmed their own observations of unengaged students, and tours that ended with fewer students than they began! Further discussion amongst the instruction librarians revealed an increasing level of burn-out from the numerous repetitive tours and classroom sessions. In May 2003, the librarians discussed innovative ways to make the sessions more engaging for all concerned.
Re-examining the present orientation
The UNIV100 library exercise was designed to stand by itself. In fact, a small number of classes did the exercise without a library tour. Students from these classes appeared to have no more trouble finishing the exercise than those who attended a library session. Given this, it was decided that the tour and instruction session as currently structured was redundant. Additionally, one UNIV100 instructor observed that the students did not pay attention during the session because they thought they knew how a library worked. With this in mind the librarians decided it might be more effective to have the library session after the students had completed the exercise. The session could reinforce concepts and skills addressed in the exercise and answer any questions students had after actually using the library. A literature review revealed that rather than focusing on how to use the library, a growing number of academic libraries host activities, such as murder mysteries, luaus, and scavenger hunts that promote both a positive introduction to the library and student engagement (Cahoy & Bichel 2004; Kirby 2003; Marcus & Beck 2003). The Radford University librarians agreed to focus the UNIV100 library sessions on a similar goal. The librarians decided to try a game competition approach, inspired by Krajewski and Piroli's (2002) article. This article described how Simmons College librarians developed a self-guided tour for students. Immediately following the tour, the students gathered to play a Jeopardy!-style game based on information from the tour. The game proved popular with faculty and students. Inspired by the article and the follow-up conversations with the authors, the Radford University librarians began planning for the UNIV 100 game.
Game Mechanics
Initially the librarians planned to follow the Jeopardy! model provided by Simmons College. In that version, students chose questions listed under different categories, jumping from one category to another. Radford University's first draft of questions were divided into categories made up of topics that are of interest to college students, such as alcohol and money management. This approach was soon abandoned, however, as the librarians felt that in order to successfully test the students' understanding of basic library skills a more structured reinforcement of concepts and skills was required, and that the game categories needed to be based on the library resources and services the students were exploring. This would give the librarians the ability to ask students questions sequentially within a category, commencing with elementary questions and segueing to more sophisticated ones. Hence, the game's questions were divided into the following six categories: What's Where?, Library Services, Library Catalog, InfoTrac Expanded Academic ASAP, Journals, and the Final Challenge with the original topics interspersed amongst these categories. All questions in a particular category would be asked before proceeding to the next area. [1]
The game required a site with multiple computer access points in which students could easily be organized into teams. The computer classroom used in this pilot game possessed four rows of five computers. Each row served as a team, thereby reducing the team assignment duties to the occasional relocation of students to balance team numbers. The average team size was five, allowing each team member to have a computer. The questions were broadcast in PowerPoint format on a screen at the front of the room. The classroom was equipped with an electronic buzzer system, similar to that used in academic bowl competitions. Each team had a buzzer and was told to pick a team captain. The team captain was responsible for indicating that his/her team had decided upon an answer. Optimal conditions for a smooth running of the game called for three instructors, one to serve as game show host, one as judge (to verify student answers), and one as scorekeeper/buzzer manager. As UNIV100 is team-taught with two teachers, the librarian could serve as game show host and allow the course teachers to handle the other tasks.
The first two rounds were multiple choice questions about the library and its services. Team captains would consult with their group, and then would buzz in and earn a point for a correct answer. Later rounds required the use of computers. For each question category students were directed to the relevant area of the university's library website. The students were asked a question and were required to display the answer on their monitors. Before a team got credit for an answer, at least three screens had to display the correct answer. Students had to raise their hands when they had the answer, and when the team leader observed that at least three teammates' hands were raised, she or he would activate the buzzer. The first team with the correct answer on three screens and verified by a judge won a point. When necessary the game would pause after a point was won to demonstrate how the answer was found to those students who expressed confusion. The game ends with the final challenge, designed to test students' ability to complete a common library task: locating a book in the library. Each team was given the title of a reference book set. When a signal was given the students looked up its title in the catalog, then retrieved any volume from that set from the reference area. The first team back with the correct volume got three points, the second two points, and the third one point.
Challenges
There were some minimal challenges to overcome when implementing this game. The biggest one occurred in situations where the students were not adequately prepared to play, by failing to either complete the library textbook exercise beforehand or to recall what was in it. The best solution was to turn the game into a partial instruction session. In this case, time constraints usually required skipping some of the questions, but the students did catch on. It can be difficult to maintain every student's engagement in the game. As with any team activity some students will participate more than others. This problem is alleviated somewhat by rotating the job of team captain, thereby forcing all to remain active. The opposite problem is also encountered: students who are so engaged in the game that they get "trigger happy" with the buzzer, activating it whether or not they knew the answer. This led to the formulation of the rule that buzzers could not be activated until the game host finished reading the question. If the problem persisted the team was warned that it would be penalized a point for each time the rule is broken. Sometimes, if one team was lagging behind the others, it might decide to give up. One way to counteract this was to allow the host to create an impromptu point scheme when the final challenge was reached, thereby giving the team in last place a chance to win. There were also instances when non-librarian judges were not familiar with the correct answer desired by the librarian, which led to some confusion. In these cases it helped if the librarian double-checked answers before awarding points.
Assessing the Game
In the Fall of 2004, 67 UNIV100 sections were offered, each team taught by a faculty and peer instructor, for a total of 134 instructors. Of these 67 sections (134 instructors), 50 sections (100 instructors) took part in a library session. Twenty-nine sections (58 instructors) chose the game, while 21 sections (42 instructors) opted for the standard tour-classroom session. The librarians' immediate impression was that the game as a success. They observed that many students became very competitive, and a number of instructors stayed after the game to mention how well their class worked as teams. A number of instructors expressed hope that the game would be offered again in the future. The greatest reward, however, was the students' reactions. It was not unusual for students to clap at the conclusion of the game, or to personally thank the librarian afterwards. This informal affirmation was very encouraging.
As gratifying as this was, the librarians decided to survey systematically the UNIV100 instructors' reactions to the game. To provide context, the survey asked all the instructors about their experiences with all the library instruction options: the game, the tour/instruction session with the exercise, exercise only, tour/instruction session only, or none of the above. The survey was created in a web-delivered format using the WebSurveyor software, and the URL was emailed to the instructors, who had two weeks to complete it. The response rate was gratifying: 72 (53.7%) of the 134 instructors completed the survey, all of whom incorporated a library component in their UNIV100 course. Thirty-five of the 72 instructors chose the game. When asked about the game mechanics, 97.1% (N=34) of the instructors who chose the game found the game questions easy to understand, 91.4% (N=32) thought the students understood the rules, while 97.1% (N=35) thought the instructors did too. Thirty-one (88.5%) of the instructors found the level of chaos in the game acceptable, while 28 (80.0%) instructors found the use of buzzers in the game acceptable. When asked about the learning outcomes of the game, 91.4% (N=32) thought that the game reflected the library exercise, 85.7% (N=30) thought the library exercise prepared the students for the game, 97.1% (N=34) thought the students learned about the library through the game, and 80.0% (N=28) agreed that the students enjoyed the competition.
When asked to compare the effectiveness of the game with the library tour/instruction session as a teaching tool, 60% (N=21) of the instructors rated the game more effective, 17.1% (N=6) found it equally effective, while only 5.7% (N=2) rated the game less effective. The remaining 17.1% (N=6) of the instructors never participated in a library tour/instruction session, so offered no opinion. Thirty-three (94.3%) of the 35 instructors who participated in the game responded "yes" when asked if the library should offer the game in the future. When all 72 of the instructors were asked what library instruction option they would select in the future, 58.3% (N=42) chose the game.
In conclusion, it is easy to see that the game was not only the most frequently used option (48.6% of all the instructors, N=35) but also the most popular in terms of being the most highly recommended by 58.3% (N=42) of all the UNIV100 instructors (N=72). The librarians were surprised that instructors who had not taken part in the game recommended it be offered in the future. Comments revealed that good "word of mouth" about the game had reached these instructors, and they planned to participate in the game next time. The game is even more popular among those instructors who actually participated in the game, with 94.3% (N=33) recommending that it be offered again. As one of the instructors commented: "I think the Jeopardy game grabbed the students' attention more than just giving them a tour of the library. It was a unique way to get them to learn about the library so that [they] may make the most use out of the wonderful resources that the library offers."
Conclusions
Based on the survey findings, the McConnell Library will definitely offer the library exercise/Jeopardy game option to future UNIV 100 classes. The game mechanics will be continuously refined as librarians experiment with ways to improve the student experience. The questions will be revised in order to keep the game current and fresh for new crops of students. At the recommendation of some of the instructors, the librarians will investigate appropriate incentive prizes to give to the winning team. In addition, due to the spectacular success of the game and the positive influence it has wrought on librarian, faculty and student morale, the librarians will try to incorporate a similar competitive and fun approach into the other library instruction options, such as the UNIV 100 tour-classroom session.
References
Cahoy, Ellysa Stern and Rebecca Merritt Bichel. "A Luau in the Library? A New Model of Library Orientation." College & Undergraduate Libraries. 11.1 (2004): 49-61.
Kirby, Michael. "How to Host a Murder Mystery in Your Library." Gould Library, Carleton College. Aug. 2003. Accessed 13 January 2005. <http://www.carleton.edu/campus/library/reference/workshops /MurderMystery.html>
Krajewski, Patricia R. and Vivienne B. Piroli. "Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: active learning in the classroom." Journal of Library Administration. 36.1/2 (2002): 177-94.
Marcus, Sandra and Sheila Beck. "A Library Adventure: Comparing a Treasure Hunt with a Traditional Freshman Orientation Tour." College & Research Libraries. 64.1 (2003):23-44.
Eric Ackermann, Radford University, VA
Candice Benjes-Small, Radford University, VA
Lisa Vassady, Radford University, VA
Endnotes
[1] Library Game questions can be viewed online at http://lib.radford.edu/Instruction/BItraining/LibraryChallengeGame.pdf
Ackermann, MLIS, is Reference/Instruction and Assessment Librarian; Benjes-Small, MLIS, is Instruction Team Leader and Reference/Instruction Librarian; and Vassady, MLIS, is Reference/Instruction and Distance Education Librarian at McConnell Library
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Vassady, Lisa |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Academic Exchange Quarterly |
| Geographic Code: | 1USA |
| Date: | Jun 22, 2005 |
| Words: | 2521 |
| Previous Article: | Leader as teacher: conversations to grow teams. |
| Next Article: | Helping teachers become transformational leaders. |
| Topics: | |