Assessing collaboration: Aligning inquiry-based pedagogy and shared learning outcomes for critical information literacy in first year writing classes

Abstract 

This article describes the results of a pilot study that used inquiry-based approaches to create consistency across first-year writing class pedagogies and the pedagogies used in library sessions connected to those classes. Outcomes-based assessment is used to indicate results informing the development of integrated inquiry-based critical information literacy instruction. This study emphasizes the need for more robust standards, developed collaboratively by librarians and writing instructors, to assess the use of information in context and not simply its location and evaluation. It provides a concrete set of categories for assessing an inquiry-based approach to source–based research instruction. 
Keywords 

Critical information literacy, standards, pedagogy, inquiry, collaboration, first year writing 

1.	Introduction
Our literature review illustrates that As our discussion below indicates, recent conversations about the role of library instruction in the wake of information literacy movements indicate that first-year writing courses are important sites for integration of critical information literacy instruction. In this article, we describe a pilot project that emerged from a designed and implemented critical inquiry-based research learning outcomes for a first-year writing program (FYWP).  Also reported are initial findings regarding how revising library instruction to reflect inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning affected student processes and products in some of the courses in our FYWP.  

2. Literature Review 
2.1 Standards and Competencies 
Traditionally, information literacy instruction for American first year college students has focused on competencies found in the first two standards of ACRL's Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education rather than the larger, more elusive contextual skills found in the ACRL Standards 3, 4, and 5 (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2000). Competencies such as evaluation and location of sources, navigating specific tools or databases, and strategies such as Boolean searching are most frequently addressed in the literature; there are numerous examples of assessment, teaching, online materials, tutorials, and case studies focusing on these competencies. While mastery of these skills is an essential basic for information literacy and is relatively easy to assess in the context of student learning, an exclusive focus on these discrete skills falls far short of not only ACRL Standards 3, 4, and 5, but also the student learning goals, namely critical literacythinkingthinking, related to information literacy instruction included in most required first year writing courses in higher education in the United States. 
This imbalance between the goal of achieving mastery, or  (a skills focus,) and the largergoal of a wider understanding of a situation - also described as strategic and communicative action - has been discussed in detail by Whitworth (2006) and has its roots in Habermas and critical social science. Whitworth posits that a balance between the two goals can be achieved, stating that “it becomes possible to argue that the objective of IL education should be to assist students towards becoming communicatively competent in both the specific sense (acquiring an ability to scrutinize the validity claims of actual texts and utterances) and the general (orienting their actions toward principles of justice and respect for others) (Whitworth 8, 2006)
The concept of critical information literacy has been emerging as a response to the skill mastery mindset,approach, which is reflected in an alternate definition of information literacy formfrom Hepworth and Walton:
A complex set of abilities, which enable individuals to engage critically with and make sense of the world and its knowledge, to participate effectively in learning and to make use of and contribute to the information landscape. (Hepworth, 2009)(Hepworth 10, 2009)
Simmons (2005)::In concert with this definition, Simmons (308, 2005) suggests that "research is not about finding information or facts, as most of the ACRL standards suggest, but instead…research is about constructing meaning through active engagement with the ideas and asking questions surrounding the information itself." Earlier, Christine Bruce (1997) had Christine Bruce (151, 1997) described information literacy as an "intricately woven fabric, revealing different patterns of meaning depending on the nature of the light cast upon it."  ," and in her discussion of the six frames of IL (2006)  explores those variations in ways of seeing teaching and learning in relation to information literacy. Bruce’s personal relevance and relational frames, in particular, address this dimension of a critical approach to IL and are the frames in which this pilot study was based.   
Critical information literacy has also come to the forefront in discussions of the goals and nature of higher education, particularly in the United States. Purdue (2003) puts a finer point on why critical information literacy matters for higher education: "At its best, IL can help guide students to a critical engagement with research, writing, and the life of the mind, as well as the active citizenship that ought to result from such engagement. At its worst, IL is merely a set of skills to enable individuals to ‘manage information’ more efficiently. This last point is not a bad thing - it is simply not the goal of a university education.” Our current work explores the challenges experienced when integrating critical information literacy skills into required FYWP courses and uses student products and instructor feedback to generate evidence-based assessment of our results. In the current era of demand for greater assessment and evidence of value in American higher education, it is essential that we present evidence for the value of IL and its contribution 
2.2 Implications for Pedagogy
As a response to the need for a more critical approach to information literacy, the pedagogy of inquiry-based learning has emerged as an effective method for engaging students with information. The foundations for research in information literacy and inquiry-based learning (IBL) have been laid primarily in the UK due to a greater emphasis on IBL in primary and secondary education (Hepworth, 2009). 
A focus on inquiry in both IL and FYW teaching is not simply a style preference, but is essential in communicating the critical nature of both IL and writing to students. Whether teachers employ a  skills or concepts focus for our information literacy efforts has direct implications for how we teach.  Referencing Young (1990), . IBL, defined by McKinney and Levy (2, 2006) as “encompass(ing) a broad spectrum of pedagogical approaches that ground the learning experience in a process of self-directed scholarly investigation and research,” provides a way for teaching a critical approach to information literacy. Whitworth indicates that an exclusively technical teaching of IL “fails even on its own terms… it cannot be effective at embedding in students a flexible, enquiring attitude” and that “(Teachers) are pursuing (goals) in a manner which tends to result in students accepting these (validity) claims on grounds other than those which seem valid to them in their own frameworks of reference. This results in a shallow knowledge, unconnected with students’ deepest beliefs…” Reinforcing this position, Webber & Johnston (2000) state that "in the educational field, it is now uncontroversial to say that curriculum design needs to address how a subject is taught as much as it addresses what is taught." (Whitworth 8, 2006) A competency approach can reinforce the misconception of a prescriptive, reportive, step-by-step process of research (and research writing) that does not accurately reflect the recursive nature and complex process of questioning and responding. Webber and Johnston's study, which establishes a basis for user perceptions of information literacy to inform pedagogy, emphasizes "that IL is not - and should not be taught as a list of skills." They further propose that misconceptions about information literacy have led to an "inappropriate pedagogic strategy" within which information literacy is taught as linear fact-finding and transmitted as a shallow approach to research. (Webber and Johnston, 2000) (e.g. merely requiring students to find a certain number of sources for an assignment) (Webber and Johnston 381, 2000). Fundamentally, an exclusive technical or strategic focus in teaching IL “is in contradiction with the use of the term ‘critically’” and strips IL of its “social scientific nature” (Whitworth, 8, 2006) A non-contextual, skills-based approach also holds implications for assessment, as illustrated by Jacobs (2008): "In using a generic or decontextualized evaluation ...(258, 2008): "In using a generic or decontextualized evaluation ... information literacy ... becomes disconnected from pedagogical theories and day-to-day practices."  This is especially true in writing courses focused on helping students make the transition to the literacy expectations accompanying advanced study. Taken out of the context of larger goals for teaching research (i.e. moving beyond information literacy as the consumption and accurate citation of information) information literacy becomes just another exercise in testing skills that may or may not support and enhance more engaged inquiry-based learning outcomes that affect knowledge-making processes and products. 

2.3 First Year Writing: Developing Critical Information Literacy through Inquiry 

Collaboration between information literacy librarians and first year writing instructors is not a new phenomenon. The literature documents numerous case studies and articles centered on first year writing, integration, and collaboration (Mounce, 2007). More recently, specific connections between literacy theory, genre theory, critical theory, and the pedagogies of information literacy and rhetoric and writing  have been discussed by Whitworth (2006), Norgaard (2003, 2004), Elmborg (2003, 2006), Simmons (2005), and Jacobs (2008). A crucial area of focus between the fields of writing and information literacy exists with the intersection of information literacy and information production, the importance of which is highlighted by Whitworth (9, 2006). The concept of inquiry, essential to both writing and research, provides possibly the strongest common frame for understanding information literacy and first-year writing in their dialectical contexts. The interconnection between these disciplines provides fertile ground for effective, contextual teaching that not only includes basic competencies but immerses students in the inquiry process inherent to purposeful research. Implications for information literacy pedagogy in an inquiry-based frame are best summed up by Ward (2006): , weaning them away from the traditional concept of research as a fact-finding, cut and dried reporting mission that takes the final form of a five paragraph essay so often favored in testing practices in secondary education in the United States. Implications for information literacy pedagogy in an inquiry-based frame are best summed up by Ward (399, 2006): "To teach students about personally meaningful information... means first and foremost to create a space ...where students can love the question. Librarians and teachers must design information literacy instruction that permits this possibility." 
Using inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning to align FYWP and information literacy pedagogies more closely allowed for the operationalization of outcomes for assessment purposes as we redesigned assignment sequences and integrated library sessions. Shared inquiry-based pedagogy has also resulted in the inclusion of articles about information and literacy in training materials and in the reader that many FYW teachers use in their FYW courses (Reading and Writing Literacies edited by Collin Craig, Nancy C.  DeJoy and Steven T. Lessner (2010)).  The inclusion of scholarship about information literacy opens up conversations beyond those meant merely t teach skills, shifting the ground of instruction.  In Beyond Notecards Bruce Ballenger (1999)(10, 1999) argues convincingly that "conventional research paper instruction has largely failed to move students towards the belief that they can be active knowers, or conscious participants in the making of knowledge. Ballenger reminds us that the picture of the "academic landscape" that students (and, we would add, teachers) are invited into through the research paper too often "fences off" their research processes and work in ways that isolate them away from any community (including the scholarly research communities that focus on the importance of information literacy as critical to the development of knowledge-making processes).  Assignments that require a certain number of sources rather than exploration of the expectations for inclusion of research and/or scholarship in particular discourse communities positions student research products as mere projects for testing skills and adaptation to requirements that do not reflect the values of inquiry expected in authentic research writing situations.  Promoting research as inquiry, then, is about a larger cultural shift that revalues students as contributing to our knowledge bases. This shift approach is proposed by the Boyer Commission Report (1998) which suggests that higher education should focus on approaches that "would turn the prevailing culture of receivers into a culture of inquirers, a culture in which faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates share an adventure of discovery."   T(1999)his means reorienting teachers and students away from the research as reporting and toward inquiry as ‘ the generation of new knowledge; it refigures students and their products as participating in and contributing to what we know and how we know what we know, rather than as subjects of testing who merely adapt to correct citation practices. Most importantly in attempts to create complementary pedagogies across FYWPs and information literacy instruction, Ballenger's pedagogical frame gives an alternative to assignments that favor exercise-based (rather than inquiry-based) approaches. For example, students are encouraged to engage with sources to generate questions rather than to find answers or employ authorities to back up what they already think..  They also reflect well the assumptions about writing as a process that are familiar to most teachers in FYWPs:  that prewriting, writing, and rewriting change ideas and knowledge bases as well as texts.   Research assignments that reinforce asking good questions and building essential research skills as a process of revisiting those questions, create an integrated frame for teaching and learning about the analysis and generation of source-based products.  According to Ballenger (2008), good inquiry-based assignments: 
•	"are driven by questions, and teach what constitutes a good question.
•	put students in charge of their own investigations.
•	engage students’ curiosity.
•	initially encourage uncertainty.
•	emphasize exploration before judgment, and allow time in the process for open-ended investigation.
•	are developmental, designed to recognize students  prior beliefs about knowledge and complicate them.
•	celebrate discovery and surprise.
•	incorporate reflection on the process and discussion of how to apply the process in other situations".

What makes these guides for assignments 'good' is that they allow us to focus inquiry on skills, knowledge bases, and attitudes that support the learning outcomes for research in our FYWP.  These key components of inquiry also articulate with the ACRL Information Literacy Standards numbers three and four (2000) " The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system": "The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose."
-analyze the effects of ingninquiry-based writing . For example, students are encouraged to engage with sources to generate questions rather than to find answers or employ authorities to back up what they already think.the :  that prewriting, writing, and rewriting change ideas and knowledge bases as well as texts.   Rsthat  as a process of revisiting those questionse about the analysis and generation of source-based products(2008)numbers three and four(2000)4. 
Research Questions and Methodology
Building upon the inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning that inform the FYWP at XXX, we sought to intentionally align the pedagogy of course-integrated information literacy sessions taught by librarians. We set out to accomplish two purposes: 1) lay the groundwork for developing assessments to measure students' inquiry-based approach to selection, use, and engagement with sources, and 2) analyze the effects of aligning library instruction with inquiry-based writing classroom pedagogy to measure the effects of that alignment. To begin we chose to look at two specific FYWP research learning outcomes:

Outcome #1: Demonstrate the ability to locate, critically evaluate, and employ a variety of sources for a range of purposes
Outcome #2: Demonstrate an understanding of research as epistemic and recursive processes that arise from and respond back to various communities
These outcomes were selected because they allowed us to identify a variety of moments and artifacts for gathering data:  before, during, and after library sessions were delivered, qualitative data from student responses to surveys and to a question on student instructor rating system (SIRS) forms, etc.
To measure our progress toward meeting these outcomes we looked for indicators of students' inquiry approaches to sources by asking the following questions:
•	How do students perceive the research process, both before and after the information literacy session? (Personal Relevance Frame)
•	How do students select, use, react to, and engage with sources within their research project? (Relational Frame)
The inquiry focus prompted us to completely rethink our library session, and to attempt to assess whether or not an inquiry-based session would have an impact on students' orientation toward an inquiry mindset in relation to their research. Due to the foundational nature of our study, we collected as much and as many types of data as possible in order to identify the best indicators of an inquiry approach to sources on the students' behalf.
Design overview: The project was carried out with 9 sections of FYW (100-level courses) with a distribution of themes during the Spring Semester of 2010. Data collection revolved around one course-embedded, 110-minute library instruction session. Prior to the session, the selected FYW classroom instructors provided the librarian with their research assignments. Each FYW classroom instructor administered a questionnaire to students before and after attending the scheduled library information literacy session. During the scheduled information literacy session, the librarian used inquiry-based pedagogical methods (see "Description of the library session"). Students completed a worksheet in groups, and turned in to the librarian both the worksheets and an individually written reflective statement at the end of the session. None of the questionnaires, worksheets, or reflective statements were graded. The end-of-semester SIRS (student evaluation) forms included a narrative question regarding student approach to research, which the librarian reviewed. The librarian (Miller) and FYW program director (DeJoy) also created a rubric to review students’ final papers for integration of sources. This assessment had no bearing on students’ final grades and only clean copies of student papers were used for our assessment purposes. Target population: The target population for this study was XXX students enrolled in FYW classes (100 level) with instructors who used inquiry-based methods in the course. Potential participating classes were identified from a list of instructors teaching 110 minute long sections of FYW in the spring semester of 2010; the list was generated by the FYW director (DeJoy) and included instructors trained to use inquiry-based pedagogies. The instructors on the list were contacted with an e-mail asking for their participation. Those who agreed were provided with consent forms for themselves and the students in their classes during a brief visit to the class by the librarian to explain the study. Minimal risk was explained to students, who were given the chance to opt out. 
 
Population Samples: Initially, for an even sample, we aimed for 10 sections of approximately 27 students each, plus one instructor per section. The sections were identified across the eight FYW themes to ensure diversity of the sample; six individual course themes were represented among the participants. After recruitment, the actual number of participants included 9 sections: 7 instructors (one instructor was responsible for three sections) and __ students.  
 
Data collected: Because tour goal was to assess the effects of  creating connections between inquiry-based pedagogy in the library classroom and the writing classroom, we obtained a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data were obtained through Likert-based surveys: a pre- and post survey administered to students. Qualitative data include a worksheet filled out by groups of 3-6 students during the library session, an anonymous, individual minute paper collected at the end of the library session, full texts of student research projects (which had been assigned at the time of the library session), and student responses to the question “As a result of this class, have your research practices changed, and how?” from the end-of semester SIRS form.  
 
Quantitative data: 
The pre and post library session survey data was collected using the course management system employed by the University (ANGEL), and included identical questions regarding students’ inquiry approach to research, confidence level, perceived skill level, and perception of the necessity of explicit library instruction and use of resources.  The post-class survey also included questions on the perceived relevance of the session and transfer of learning. 
 
Qualitative data: 
Collected during the library session: 
•	Class worksheet: results of in-class group activity, collected on paper and coded
•	Reflective paper: brief qualitative statement reflecting on content of class, collected on paper and coded
Collected outside of the library session:
•	SIRS forms: already being done as part of the curriculum - narrative indicators of attitude toward research in context of semester-long class
•	Student papers: already being done as part of the curriculum; analyzed with a rubric (Appendix A)

4.1 Description of the library session

Figure 1: Inquiry model for library session

Setting: 90 minutes, computer lab with projected demonstration computer and individual computers for students

In the library session, we model inquiry in the following ways (Fig. 1):

1. Response: The class begins with the display of an online article, video, or other source related to the course theme. Students read and respond to the article to generate a list of keywords and phrases as a group. Questions asked of the students are "What was the article about?" and "What was its purpose?'

2. Seek out new information, analyze, evaluate, and plan: Students are put into small groups and use the responses generated by the class to search for different types of sources that reflect the content or theme of the original source. Each group is tasked to find either a scholarly article, background information, opinion, a book, Web site, or primary source. Students are encouraged to search as they normally would -- most begin with Google or a search engine. Groups then decide on one source among themselves and write answers to the following questions about the source on a worksheet:
•	How did you find this information?
•	How did you decide that it was (specific type, eg. scholarly) information?
•	Where did the information come from?
•	What is the material's purpose? Why was it written?
•	Find some text in the source that might help you refine or change your search in some way. How might your search change, and what would you search for next after reading this material?
•	Why would the type of writing in this material be important to the conversation about this issue?
3. Create new knowledge: One spokesperson from each group demonstrates to the class how the source was located, and the librarian initiates a discussion about the nature of the material, drawing from the worksheet questions. As the students bring up aspects of evaluative criteria in their discussion, the librarian identifies and creates a list of these criteria (e.g. authority, bias, currency) on a separate display surface. As all five groups display and discuss their sources, the librarian guides discussion as needed to gererate  a complete list of criteria. (Fig. 2) After each group has discussed their respective source, the librarian very briefly demonstrates a library resource that is ideal for locating that type of information as an alternative to the source that the students first used. Librarian demonstration is limited to allow maximum time for discussion and student interaction with sources and one another. A thorough online course guide, with details of library resources, online modules, research guides, librarian contact information, and other mechanics is prepared for the students and presented at the end of class to facilitate future research and classroom activities. 
4. Response: At the end of class, students write a brief minute paper answering the questions, "What was the most important thing you learned today?" and "What would you still like to know more about?"
Figure 2: Examples of criteria generation through inquiry
Sample instructor question 	Sample student response 	Resulting criteria definition 	
"Why do you think this article might or might not be scholarly?" 	"It looks like the person who wrote it is from a university."
"It came from a .edu website."
"The person is Dr. So and So." 	Authorship 	
"Why did you skip the Wikipedia entry?" 	"Because anyone can change it." 
"Because it might be wrong."
"Because our profs don't like it." 	Authority 	

5. Discussion
We analyzed our data in relation to the two selected FYW outcomes:
Outcome #1: Demonstrate the ability to locate, critically evaluate, and employ a variety of sources for a range of purposes
Obviously, this outcome is extremely important in courses that often introduce students to the resources available in a library with which they are unfamiliar.  One of our goals has been to create and maintain a focus on introducing resources while creating instructional spaces that also support the inquiry-based attitudes that enhance more basic search skills.  Understanding the ways that sources can be used for a range of purposes, especially those beyond mere reporting is the transition we hope to foster as students begin to see the differences between research as reporting and the more sophisticated goals for researching in higher education.  As the chart titled "What is the purpose of this information?" (which was asked during the library session in relation to a source located during a group activity) (Fig. 3) indicates, this research issue is as much a reading issue as a writing or planning issue.  As students move through the library session, they identify how multiple purposes can be served by source-based written products, and this becomes a spring-board for future classroom conversations about writing.  The pie chart in Figure 4, “End-of-semester perspective on research practices” reports student responses to the question posed at the end of the semester, “As a result of this class, did your research practices change, and how?”  This chart indicates that students did get oriented to the library resources specifically covered in the sessions, especially those related to new methods (such as using different keywords) that support a more general move away from looking for materials that support preconceived ideas and toward including a wider range of types of sources and, therefore the voices of communities that may not have been included as important to research at the start of the project. It also reflects the high value that students placed on the “how-to” skills that fall under this outcome, and were still learned although they were not positioned as the main focus of the library session. 

Figure 3: In-session group analysis of information source - Purpose

Figure 4: End-of-semester perspective on research practices

Outcome #2: Demonstrate an understanding of research as epistemic and recursive processes that arise from and respond back to various communities

Although clearer information about assignments will have to be gathered in the next round of this research, current data shows that the relevance of the library session to the assignment is high. (Fig. 5)  Collaborating to be sure that both library sessions and assignments are focused on inquiry-based approaches and activities has resulted in high correlations to relevance (Fig. 5) and transfer of learning (Fig. 6).  The pre- and post-test inquiry attitudes chart (Fig. 7) indicates that inquiry-based research activities, represented by questions 1 and 2 (allowing research to affect your focus and figure out what to say) are positively affected; behaviors that do not support inquiry  (represented by questions 3-5) also begin to decrease as a result of the revised library sessions.  These changes are minimal, but they do indicate that focusing not only on fostering new behaviors, but also on decreasing learned behaviors that may negatively affect more global goals for information literacy instruction and integration is an important pedagogical move.  
Some data (Figs. 3 and 8)  also indicate that most students view the purpose of information sources in a purely “informative” or “explaining a side” context, but others are beginning to see the possibilities of the information’s contribution as part of an ongoing conversation. This trend is also reflected in the responses to the question, asked in the same context, “How does this information contribute to the conversation about this issue?” (Fig. 8).

Most responses to the end-of-semester question (Fig. 4) indicate a general change or one involving a perceived measurable skill, such as a "how-to" or "correct method." This data also suggests that the majority of students who recognize that their research practices have changed may still  view research in relation to acquiring a new set of skills related to searching.  Making stronger connections between these skills and other habits of inquiry we hope to inspire is indicated as necessary here.

Figure 5: Relevance: How strong was the relationship between the library session and the activities you will have to engage in for your current research assignment?

Figure 6: Transfer of Learning: Did the library session reflect the way that major concepts from the class transfer to research activities?

Figure 7: Pre and Post Class Inquiry Attitude

Figure 8: In-session group analysis of information source – Conversation

Our strongest indicators that revising library sessions around an inquiry-based delivery model helps students to see research as epistemic and recursive appears in their responses to two questions: "How did your search change?" (Fig. 9) and "How does this information contribute to the conversation about the issue?" (Fig. 8) The session resulted in the use of new keywords and, therefore, the inclusion of new communities of sources.  Students also reformulated or created new questions to guide their research processes as a result of the library session, indicating that research was becoming a recursive process that does not just determine what search behaviors one engages in, but also the focus and purposes for research activities.  This data also indicates some awareness that sources  provide    materials that do more than merely support orexplain  a preconstructed position, indicating some consciousness about the epistemic processes that result from finding new sources.

Figure 9: In-session group analysis of information source – Search Strategy

We also looked at student's final research papers for the semester.  Using a rubric which we collaboratively designed (Appendix A) to measure synthesis, source evaluation, recursivity, and relevancy, we attempted to determine if final papers reflected inquiry-based approaches to researching.  The total possible combined score was 20, which would indicate an excellent inquiry approach as demonstrated through the standard of source integration. Our data indicates student products falling right in the middle, (Fig. 10) with inquiry-driven research indicated at some level, but with products still displaying a relatively traditional "reporting" delivery system in final products. Sources are only somewhat integral to the projects, and recursivity is not generally demonstrated by their use. The highest score in the source evaluation category indicates that students are generally grasping the practical evaluative criteria from the library session  in their work. In the next phase of research, control groups will help indicate how these scores do or do not differ from groups of students who have a more traditional library session experience, or no library session at all.  It is important to note that our scores do not reflect the evaluation of papers as assessed and graded by instructors, as we did not have access to that information.  What we can say is that inclusion of the assessment of final products raises a series of questions about the more general issues of assessment and teacher and student assumptions about source-based products. 
Another issue that arose from our individual use of the rubric was that while our final average scores were very close, there were 14 out of 29 papers where we had a total score that differed by three or more points (on a five-point scale). We looked more closely at these papers to attempt to identify the possible factors that contributed to the discrepancy in scoring, which highlighted the need for more conversation and collaboration between librarian and writing instructor as to what the goal for inquiry is in the assignment.  One factor that immediately stood out was that the librarian had not counted personal experience as a "source," and therefore scored these papers lower than the writing instructor. Also, the writing instructor tended to see the use of a question as a rhetorical device – a tool of persuasion for opening up a discussion in a way that the writer wanted it to go rather than reflecting a critical response. The librarian tended to count any actual phrased question as inquiry, and therefore scored them higher. 

Figure 10: Average Rubric Scores

	Synthesis	Source Evaluation	Recursivity	Relevancy	Total Score	
Librarian 	2.8	2.9	2.1	2.5	10.4	
Writing Instructor 	2.4	2.6	2.3	2.7	9.9	

6. Conclusions
There is ample evidence that shared inquiry-based pedagogies in library sessions integrated into first year writing courses offers one way to support focusing on deeper critical information literacy skills without losing the focus on skill-building necessary for students transitioning into new research spaces and expectations.

Evidence indicates that there was a rise in inquiry-based attitudes and a drop in traditional attitudes after the inquiry-based library session, despite the indicator that the majority of the students still hold a traditional attitude toward research. This suggests that the library session aided in the shift toward an inquiry-based approach, and has implications for promoting alignment of the pedagogy of the library session with the pedagogy and outcomes stated in the larger course or program. 

There is also evidence that at least half of students studied are not using the kind of inquiry-based approach to research as stated in the first year writing program’s outcomes and are still in a "reporting" mindset. The median average scores from the inquiry rubric indicated that more study is needed in how students develop an inquiry-based approach to research. What are the factors, and can they be isolated and assessed? How do assignment design, instructor communication of expectations, perceptions of the librarian and instructor, previous ingrained approaches to research, or pedagogy in the library or regular classroom influence students' approaches to research?    

Collaboration was essential to this study, and the need for continuous collaboration between information literacy librarians and instructors of writing and rhetoric was reinforced by several factors. The assessments used could not have been developed or carried out by a librarian alone; it is imperative that future assessment in this area will also require close collaboration with teaching faculty. The discrepancy in our rubric scoring also highlighted our disciplinary background differences and indicated the need for more discourse and collaboration between the instructors.

At the very least, this study emphasizes the need for more robust standards, developed collaboratively by librarians and disciplinary instructors, to assess the use of information in context and not simply its location and evaluation. The rubric was very helpful in providing a concrete analysis point for identifying foundations to assessing an inquiry-based approach to sources in research. Up to this point, no instrument has been found to measure that goal, although it is a widely stated and accepted outcome. Subsequent studies might focus on collaborative development of rubrics as a formative activity in the creation of deeper shared understandings of information literacy instruction in the context of writing classes whose purpose is to enhance students’ transitions to reading, writing and researching in higher education.

Appendix A: Rubric for assessing inquiry through the standard of integration

Criteria	Weak Integration	Competent Integration	Strong Integration	
Points	0	1	2	3	4	5	
Synthesis 	No questions or ideas are stated in the paper at all; it is simply one long “report.”	Sources only used for reporting of factual information (including ideas) or quotation.	Sources summarized or explained but not demonstrated to impact formation of ideas (e.g. “backing up” ideas but not helping to form them)	Sources impact formation of ideas  through analysis, evaluation, and integration	
Source Evaluation
	Types of information selected are inappropriate and their relationship to the project is not clear	Information sources are appropriate and their relationship to the project is demonstrated	Appropriateness of all source types demonstrated through their integrated use in the project.	
Recursivity 	Sources are listed in bibliography but not cited in paper	Quotations from sources do not respond to ideas or questions (e.g. only report)	Text demonstrates a critical response or question in relation to  at least one cited source	Use of sources underlies and mirrors a clear process of questioning and responding throughout the project	
Relevancy	Sources share some relevance to theme, topic, or question demonstrated by keywords or terms but not by ideas	Sources demonstrate a strong relationship between theme or topic and source ideas. 	At least one source displays relevance by providing impetus for further questioning or response	Sources are integral to the structure of the project. 	
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OPTION:
Selection
 	Student does not indicate why a particular source was or was not used	Student provides a basic rationale for use or nonuse of sources, not including any evaluative criteria (e.g. “it just didn’t seem right for my project.”)	Student provides a rationale for use or nonuse of sources not necessarily including criteria from library session	Student lists some appropriate criteria from library session in explaining their use or nonuse of sources	Student lists detailed, accurate, and appropriate evaluative criteria from library session in explaining their use or nonuse of sources	

References

1998. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University: Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 2000. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, Chicago, American Library Association.
BALLENGER, B. 2008. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
BRUCE, C., EDWARDS, S. & LUPTON, M. 2006. Six Frames for Information Literacy Education. ITALICS E-Journal, 5.
CRAIG, C., NANCY C. DEJOY AND STEVEN T. LESSNER.  2010. Reading and Writing Literacies, New York, Pearson Longman.
ELMBORG, J. 2006. Critical Information Literacy: Implications for Instructional Practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32, 192-199.
ELMBORG, J. K. 2003. Information literacy and Writing across the Curriculum: sharing the vision. Reference Services Review, 31, 68-80.
HEPWORTH, M. 2009. Teaching information literacy for inquiry-based learning, Oxford, Chandos.
JACOBS, H. L. M. 2008. Information Literacy and Reflective Pedagogical Praxis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 6.
MOUNCE, M. 2007. Academic librarian and English composition instructor collaboration: A selective annotated bibliography 1998-2007. Reference Services Review, 37.
NORGAARD, R. 2003. Writing Information Literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43.
NORGAARD, R. 2004. Writing Information Literacy in the Classroom: Pedagogical Enactments and Implications. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43.
PURDUE, J. 2003. Stories, Not  Information: Transforming Information Literacy. portal: Libraries and  the Academy, 3.
SIMMONS, M. H. 2005. Librarians as Disciplinary Discourse Mediators: Using Genre Theory to Move Toward Critical Information Literacy. Portal : Libraries and the Academy, 5.