At Ohio State University, a recent move from the quarter to the semester system prompted a revision of two asynchronous, for-credit online information literacy courses we have been teaching for over 10 years on our campus. Online instruction has matured over those years and has become a well-researched, increasingly popular, and evolving form of pedagogy. Several studies within our own field have shown that teaching information literacy in a variety of online formats can be as effective as teaching face-to-face (Burkhardt, Kinnie, & Cournoyer, 2008; Clark & Chinburg, 2010; Salisbury & Ellis, 2003; Beile & Boote, 2004). In order to achieve this high level of effectiveness, what matters most for successful student outcomes is the course design. Here are some tips for achieving the best design of an online information literacy course

Diaz, Karen R

Leaf, Brian

English

Diaz, Karen

Eastern Michigan University: Digital Commons@EMU

LOEX Quarterly  Volume 39 At Ohio State University, a recent move from the quarter to the semester system prompted a revision of two asynchro-nous, for-credit online information literacy courses we have been teaching for over 10 years on our campus. Online in-struction has matured over those years and has become a well-researched, increasingly popular, and evolving form of pedagogy.      Several studies within our own field have shown that teaching information literacy in a variety of online formats can be as effective as teaching face-to-face (Burkhardt, Kin-nie, & Cournoyer, 2008; Clark & Chinburg, 2010; Salisbury & Ellis, 2003; Beile & Boote, 2004).  In order to achieve this high level of effectiveness, what matters most for suc-cessful student outcomes is the course design. Here are some tips for achieving the best design of an online infor-mation literacy course.   Consider the Data (And Keep Doing So)   A number of national and regional studies on the infor-mation literacy skills of college students published in the past five years have provided data for what many of us have anecdotally known about student research behavior.  Thus, we no longer need to rely on our gut instincts regarding what students need to know and can begin using the data to inform what we teach. For example, we know that: Students don‘t have trouble finding information; in fact, they are overwhelmed with too much information, just like we all are.  Students rely on easy, simple solutions for finding in-formation and that they don‘t often recalibrate their search strategies when they are unsuccessful in meeting their specific needs.   Teaching students about ―tools‖ produce short-term effects in learning and often leave students unable to transfer skills to new research problems.  Students also have difficulty formulating interesting and researchable questions. They need help understanding the scholarly information landscape and gaining context for the pieces of information that are so easy to gather in the digital environment (Project Information Literacy).   Studies also show that many students don‘t exhibit a high level of skill in using the information that they do find. Students tend to be quick in their use of sources—writing from sentences and not from the whole source.  At best, they paraphrase rather than synthesize or copy rather than sum-marize the information they use; at worse, they cherry-pick information and plagiarize (Howard, Rodrigue, & Serviss, 2010).  Students not only enter college with these challenges, but they often graduate and enter the workplace still relying on simple and familiar solutions for solving information problems (like using Google), even when these familiar strategies are not appropriate and despite great technical skills in other, non-search related areas (Head, 2012).  Backward Design Isn’t Backward   With all of this data-driven evidence of student need, how can we address these issues? One effective approach is backward design. Introduced in the late 1990s by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), it is an iterative process to, in part, remedy coverage models that lack purpose. Students are not empty banks in which to cram information; there is a sci-ence behind learning. Rather than trying to stuff them with all the information surrounding a topic, we should consider what we hope the students will be able to do with that topic by the end of the course; ultimately, the instructor has to decide what constitutes sufficient evidence of a student‘s learning. Then we can try to determine the best way to get them there. Will students be able to identify differences be-tween popular and scholarly materials just because they‘ve read a description? Or should they actually engage with sources in some way?    An exercise within the backward design framework is the articulation of essential questions. These questions at-tempt to unpack and frame the deeper ideas and concepts behind learning objectives like using Boolean logic for search or authority for evaluating information. In our course, we have an essential question for each of our seven weekly modules (parenthesis indicate the broader core skills or knowledge). These not only help our own thinking and development, but also assist in communicating to students the significance of the core content: Week 1: How complex is the online information environ-ment? (Information Landscape, Part 1) Week 2: What should every Internet user know? (Information Landscape, Part 2) Week 3: What does it mean to search strategically? (Search, Part 1) Week 4: Why can‘t you cite Wikipedia? (Evaluation,  Part 1) Week 5: What hidden resources are available to you? (Search, Part 2) Week 6: How do scholars begin research? (Evaluation,  Part 2) Week 7: How do you navigate the information ecology? (Reflection) Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous Online Class    Karen Diaz and Brian Leaf, Ohio State University   Page 4 When designing the activities in which students will participate to answer each essential question, Bloom‘s Tax-onomy can be a helpful guide. Do your students need to start at a very basic level of understanding?  Is it possible to scaffold help and activities to then lead them to higher-level engagement with the question? Answering these questions isn‘t always easy, but it is necessary.   Authentic & Engaging Experiences   Authentic assessments that require students to complete activities reflective of real life situations are another impor-tant component of backward design. To address this, we wanted to teach students better research habits in an envi-ronment that they are already well acquainted with and often use: Wikipedia. If this is a primary source of information (Head & Eisenberg, 2010), learning how it should and shouldn‘t be used as a research tool might be both instruc-tional and compelling. And we decided to test this idea, and we adopted a two-part approach to engage students: 1) Conventional modes of learning such as readings, case studies, and quizzes that would be familiar and provide a linear structure for students; 2) An open-ended problem using Wikipedia that would allow students to be creative in how they come up with a solution and receive coaching through dialogue with the instructor.  Students engage with these two modes of instruction simultaneously. The conventional modes address the lower end of Bloom‘s and help scaffold a student‘s ability to en-gage with the open-ended, higher level activities. The level of involvement that an instructor takes in any problem-based learning depends on the amount of time he or she is able to commit.    Finally, the third leg of a successful course is student-to-student communication. Engagement in an online class is challenging as there is no opportunity for typical face-to-face social interaction.  However, there are a variety of tech-niques for online interaction amongst students to promote social engagement including: Peer review of projects Recorded student presentations Controversial readings & online discussions Use of wikis, blogs, or other social platforms   Just make sure that the activities you choose align to your desired outcomes!   User Testing    Even if you have assignments that are engaging and designed to meet your objectives, it is easier for confusion to ensue in an online course than in a traditional face-to-face Number 3 LOEX Quarterly  class.  Assignments and instructions that seem obvious to you, or even to your colleagues, may not be clear to your students.  It is important to find opportunities to test assign-ments.  We did this informally by emailing the assignment to colleagues in the library, colleagues outside of the library, and student workers. We asked them to complete the assign-ment, record how long it took them to complete it, and note any issues that arose. Use the results of tests to clarify in-structions, develop scaffolding where needed, and scale up or scale back minimum expectations.   Assess for Enhancement    Course assessment helps determine student learning, but also is the key to improve the design of a course.  A variety of tools can be employed for assessing an online course. Are students bored? Overwhelmed? Engaged?  In a face-to-face classroom this might be obvious through body language and rapport.  But since this information is not available in an online environment, a survey can reveal students‘ attitudes toward a course. Additionally, overall performance on course activities can help determine whether student out-comes are being reached. If they are not, more scaffolding or practice may be in order. Perhaps the concepts are not being taught clearly enough.  It may require a bit of work to determine where teaching improvements are required for better student outcomes.    Another avenue may be Quality Matters. Quality Mat-ters Review & Certification is a national program of faculty peer review of online and blended courses to ensure that they are meeting quality standards (Quality Matters Pro-gram, QM). Where face-to-face courses might be reviewed for quality by campus deans, peers or other officials, online courses can be reviewed by a certified QM reviewer.  A rubric (Quality Matters Program, Rubric Standards) lists all the areas that are assessed and the rubric and program are clearly supported through research in online instruction.  Campus Resources     Taken together, all of these options may seem over-whelming. But course design does not have to be done in a vacuum—seek out and use the various forms of expertise available on your campus. It is quite likely there are a num-ber of units to consider partnering with to enable your course design. Such collaborations provide greater aware-ness for your library and your course, especially on a larger campus. At OSU, we consulted personnel and attended workshops offered by our University Center for the Ad-vancement of Teaching (UCAT, http://ucat.osu.edu/), Cen-ter for the Study and Teaching of Writing (CSTW, http://cstw.osu.edu/writingcenter), and the Digital Union (part of the Learning Technology support unit, http://digitalunion.osu.edu/). These types of organizations help ensure we never stop seeking the latest data to help us shape the best future directions of our course.   (Online Class...Continued on page 3) Page 5 LOEX Quarterly  Number 3 log rather than debates. This chapter has several team build-ing exercise examples; they are a good idea if the team is not on a strict time limit or perhaps during an annual retreat, but could be construed as a time-waster for a very busy group, so use wisely. With or without team building exer-cise, conflict will inevitably occur and an effective facilita-tor can recognize the difference in productive conflict which helps define issues and bring about creative solutions, and unproductive conflict that centers on personal issues. When the latter form of conflict is present, the facilitator must not take sides, but exhibit empathy and take action to prevent a derailing of the meeting. Eller provides some useful notes on how to make sure conflict is productive (for example, to make sure alternative ideas are expressed) and does not keep building unchecked (for example, steps to help mediate dis-putes).    In the next two chapters, Eller addresses ways for the group to reach peak performance. One key function of a facilitator is to assess the energy level; low energy levels can cause group members to lose momentum and be bored. Although reason would suggest that very high energy levels would maximize decision making, too much energy can cause members to move too quickly through a problem. To increase energy, Eller suggests breaking a large group into small units to talk out a problem; alternatively, having mem-bers write responses can decrease energy. Brainstorming increases energy levels, but goals and time spent should be structured; criticism is discouraged until all ideas have been generated. Group members need a shared vision, which en-ables the group to see the final product, own the goal, and assess the outcome.  Page 3  References Beile, P. M., & Boote, D. N. (2004). Does the medium matter?:  A comparison of a Web-based tutorial with face-to-face  library instruction on education students' self-efficacy levels  and learning outcomes. Research Strategies, 20(1/2), 57-68.  Burkhardt, J. M., Kinnie, J., & Cournoyer, C. M. (2008). Infor- mation literacy successes compared: Online vs. face to face.  Journal Of Library Administration, 48(3/4), 379-389.   Clark, S., & Chinburg, S. (2010). Research performance in un dergraduates receiving face to face versus online library  instruction: A citation analysis. Journal Of Library Admini- stration, 50(5/6), 530-542.  Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, Michael B. (2010) How Today‘s  College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Re- search. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved from http:// www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476 Head, A.J. (2012, October 16). Learning curve: How college graduates solve information problems once they join the (Online Class...Continued from page 5) workplace. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_fall2012_workplaceStudy_FullReport.pdf  Howard, R. M., Rodrigue, T.K., & Serviss, T.C. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Peda-gogy, 2(2): 177-192. Retrieved from http://site.citationproject.net/?page_id=25=  McTighe, J. & Wiggins, Grant (2005). Understanding by design  (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision  and Curriculum Development. Salisbury, F., & Ellis, J. (2003). Online and face-to-face: evalu- ating methods for teaching information literacy skills to  undergraduate arts students. Library Review, 52(5), 209- 217.  Project Information Literacy. Retrieved from   http://projectinfolit.org Quality Matters Program. QM. Retrieved from   http://www.qmprogram.org/ Quality Matters Program. Rubric Standards. Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011-2013.pdf   Eller wraps things up by addressing the more negative aspects that may happen during group work. He points out that a facilitator must practice self-care; facilitation can put a strain on an individual. A crucial task is to separate the emo-tions of the group from those of the facilitator. Avoid letting high negative or positive emotions deter from the task at hand. A tip Eller mentions involves the delivery of controver-sial information: instead of delivering strictly verbally, go visual. Present information on a screen with the facilitator off to the side or on a handout, in both cases the group members are given something other than the facilitator to focus nega-tivity on.   Librarians have a plethora of opportunities to participate in and lead groups—campus-wide committees, professional library association committees, internal library work groups, etc. With creativity this text can be applied to meeting facili-tation in a multitude of environments. Each group will have specific needs and require different strategies and skills. Ef-fective Group Facilitation in Education: How to Energize Meetings and Manage Difficult Groups is a worthwhile read for all members of a group. An effective meeting creates a positive personal experience for the facilitator and a reward-ing experience for everyone involved.       

Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous Online Class

The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University)

University Libraries Faculty Scholarship University Libraries2012Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous OnlineClassKaren R. DiazBrian LeafFollow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/lib_facultyPart of the Library and Information Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Libraries at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted forinclusion in University Libraries Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information,please contact ian.harmon@mail.wvu.edu.Digital Commons CitationDiaz, Karen R. and Leaf, Brian, "Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous Online Class" (2012). University Libraries FacultyScholarship. 13.https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/lib_faculty/13LOEX Quarterly  Volume 39 At Ohio State University, a recent move from the quarter to the semester system prompted a revision of two asynchro-nous, for-credit online information literacy courses we have been teaching for over 10 years on our campus. Online in-struction has matured over those years and has become a well-researched, increasingly popular, and evolving form of pedagogy.      Several studies within our own field have shown that teaching information literacy in a variety of online formats can be as effective as teaching face-to-face (Burkhardt, Kin-nie, & Cournoyer, 2008; Clark & Chinburg, 2010; Salisbury & Ellis, 2003; Beile & Boote, 2004).  In order to achieve this high level of effectiveness, what matters most for suc-cessful student outcomes is the course design. Here are some tips for achieving the best design of an online infor-mation literacy course.   Consider the Data (And Keep Doing So)   A number of national and regional studies on the infor-mation literacy skills of college students published in the past five years have provided data for what many of us have anecdotally known about student research behavior.  Thus, we no longer need to rely on our gut instincts regarding what students need to know and can begin using the data to inform what we teach. For example, we know that: Students don‘t have trouble finding information; in fact, they are overwhelmed with too much information, just like we all are.  Students rely on easy, simple solutions for finding in-formation and that they don‘t often recalibrate their search strategies when they are unsuccessful in meeting their specific needs.   Teaching students about ―tools‖ produce short-term effects in learning and often leave students unable to transfer skills to new research problems.  Students also have difficulty formulating interesting and researchable questions. They need help understanding the scholarly information landscape and gaining context for the pieces of information that are so easy to gather in the digital environment (Project Information Literacy).   Studies also show that many students don‘t exhibit a high level of skill in using the information that they do find. Students tend to be quick in their use of sources—writing from sentences and not from the whole source.  At best, they paraphrase rather than synthesize or copy rather than sum-marize the information they use; at worse, they cherry-pick information and plagiarize (Howard, Rodrigue, & Serviss, 2010).  Students not only enter college with these challenges, but they often graduate and enter the workplace still relying on simple and familiar solutions for solving information problems (like using Google), even when these familiar strategies are not appropriate and despite great technical skills in other, non-search related areas (Head, 2012).  Backward Design Isn’t Backward   With all of this data-driven evidence of student need, how can we address these issues? One effective approach is backward design. Introduced in the late 1990s by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), it is an iterative process to, in part, remedy coverage models that lack purpose. Students are not empty banks in which to cram information; there is a sci-ence behind learning. Rather than trying to stuff them with all the information surrounding a topic, we should consider what we hope the students will be able to do with that topic by the end of the course; ultimately, the instructor has to decide what constitutes sufficient evidence of a student‘s learning. Then we can try to determine the best way to get them there. Will students be able to identify differences be-tween popular and scholarly materials just because they‘ve read a description? Or should they actually engage with sources in some way?    An exercise within the backward design framework is the articulation of essential questions. These questions at-tempt to unpack and frame the deeper ideas and concepts behind learning objectives like using Boolean logic for search or authority for evaluating information. In our course, we have an essential question for each of our seven weekly modules (parenthesis indicate the broader core skills or knowledge). These not only help our own thinking and development, but also assist in communicating to students the significance of the core content: Week 1: How complex is the online information environ-ment? (Information Landscape, Part 1) Week 2: What should every Internet user know? (Information Landscape, Part 2) Week 3: What does it mean to search strategically? (Search, Part 1) Week 4: Why can‘t you cite Wikipedia? (Evaluation,  Part 1) Week 5: What hidden resources are available to you? (Search, Part 2) Week 6: How do scholars begin research? (Evaluation,  Part 2) Week 7: How do you navigate the information ecology? (Reflection) Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous Online Class    Karen Diaz and Brian Leaf, Ohio State University   Page 4 When designing the activities in which students will participate to answer each essential question, Bloom‘s Tax-onomy can be a helpful guide. Do your students need to start at a very basic level of understanding?  Is it possible to scaffold help and activities to then lead them to higher-level engagement with the question? Answering these questions isn‘t always easy, but it is necessary.   Authentic & Engaging Experiences   Authentic assessments that require students to complete activities reflective of real life situations are another impor-tant component of backward design. To address this, we wanted to teach students better research habits in an envi-ronment that they are already well acquainted with and often use: Wikipedia. If this is a primary source of information (Head & Eisenberg, 2010), learning how it should and shouldn‘t be used as a research tool might be both instruc-tional and compelling. And we decided to test this idea, and we adopted a two-part approach to engage students: 1) Conventional modes of learning such as readings, case studies, and quizzes that would be familiar and provide a linear structure for students; 2) An open-ended problem using Wikipedia that would allow students to be creative in how they come up with a solution and receive coaching through dialogue with the instructor.  Students engage with these two modes of instruction simultaneously. The conventional modes address the lower end of Bloom‘s and help scaffold a student‘s ability to en-gage with the open-ended, higher level activities. The level of involvement that an instructor takes in any problem-based learning depends on the amount of time he or she is able to commit.    Finally, the third leg of a successful course is student-to-student communication. Engagement in an online class is challenging as there is no opportunity for typical face-to-face social interaction.  However, there are a variety of tech-niques for online interaction amongst students to promote social engagement including: Peer review of projects Recorded student presentations Controversial readings & online discussions Use of wikis, blogs, or other social platforms   Just make sure that the activities you choose align to your desired outcomes!   User Testing    Even if you have assignments that are engaging and designed to meet your objectives, it is easier for confusion to ensue in an online course than in a traditional face-to-face Number 3 LOEX Quarterly  class.  Assignments and instructions that seem obvious to you, or even to your colleagues, may not be clear to your students.  It is important to find opportunities to test assign-ments.  We did this informally by emailing the assignment to colleagues in the library, colleagues outside of the library, and student workers. We asked them to complete the assign-ment, record how long it took them to complete it, and note any issues that arose. Use the results of tests to clarify in-structions, develop scaffolding where needed, and scale up or scale back minimum expectations.   Assess for Enhancement    Course assessment helps determine student learning, but also is the key to improve the design of a course.  A variety of tools can be employed for assessing an online course. Are students bored? Overwhelmed? Engaged?  In a face-to-face classroom this might be obvious through body language and rapport.  But since this information is not available in an online environment, a survey can reveal students‘ attitudes toward a course. Additionally, overall performance on course activities can help determine whether student out-comes are being reached. If they are not, more scaffolding or practice may be in order. Perhaps the concepts are not being taught clearly enough.  It may require a bit of work to determine where teaching improvements are required for better student outcomes.    Another avenue may be Quality Matters. Quality Mat-ters Review & Certification is a national program of faculty peer review of online and blended courses to ensure that they are meeting quality standards (Quality Matters Pro-gram, QM). Where face-to-face courses might be reviewed for quality by campus deans, peers or other officials, online courses can be reviewed by a certified QM reviewer.  A rubric (Quality Matters Program, Rubric Standards) lists all the areas that are assessed and the rubric and program are clearly supported through research in online instruction.  Campus Resources     Taken together, all of these options may seem over-whelming. But course design does not have to be done in a vacuum—seek out and use the various forms of expertise available on your campus. It is quite likely there are a num-ber of units to consider partnering with to enable your course design. Such collaborations provide greater aware-ness for your library and your course, especially on a larger campus. At OSU, we consulted personnel and attended workshops offered by our University Center for the Ad-vancement of Teaching (UCAT, http://ucat.osu.edu/), Cen-ter for the Study and Teaching of Writing (CSTW, http://cstw.osu.edu/writingcenter), and the Digital Union (part of the Learning Technology support unit, http://digitalunion.osu.edu/). These types of organizations help ensure we never stop seeking the latest data to help us shape the best future directions of our course.   (Online Class...Continued on page 3) Page 5 LOEX Quarterly  Number 3 log rather than debates. This chapter has several team build-ing exercise examples; they are a good idea if the team is not on a strict time limit or perhaps during an annual retreat, but could be construed as a time-waster for a very busy group, so use wisely. With or without team building exer-cise, conflict will inevitably occur and an effective facilita-tor can recognize the difference in productive conflict which helps define issues and bring about creative solutions, and unproductive conflict that centers on personal issues. When the latter form of conflict is present, the facilitator must not take sides, but exhibit empathy and take action to prevent a derailing of the meeting. Eller provides some useful notes on how to make sure conflict is productive (for example, to make sure alternative ideas are expressed) and does not keep building unchecked (for example, steps to help mediate dis-putes).    In the next two chapters, Eller addresses ways for the group to reach peak performance. One key function of a facilitator is to assess the energy level; low energy levels can cause group members to lose momentum and be bored. Although reason would suggest that very high energy levels would maximize decision making, too much energy can cause members to move too quickly through a problem. To increase energy, Eller suggests breaking a large group into small units to talk out a problem; alternatively, having mem-bers write responses can decrease energy. Brainstorming increases energy levels, but goals and time spent should be structured; criticism is discouraged until all ideas have been generated. Group members need a shared vision, which en-ables the group to see the final product, own the goal, and assess the outcome.  Page 3  References Beile, P. M., & Boote, D. N. (2004). Does the medium matter?:  A comparison of a Web-based tutorial with face-to-face  library instruction on education students' self-efficacy levels  and learning outcomes. Research Strategies, 20(1/2), 57-68.  Burkhardt, J. M., Kinnie, J., & Cournoyer, C. M. (2008). Infor- mation literacy successes compared: Online vs. face to face.  Journal Of Library Administration, 48(3/4), 379-389.   Clark, S., & Chinburg, S. (2010). Research performance in un dergraduates receiving face to face versus online library  instruction: A citation analysis. Journal Of Library Admini- stration, 50(5/6), 530-542.  Head, A.J., & Eisenberg, Michael B. (2010) How Today‘s  College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Re- search. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved from http:// www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476 Head, A.J. (2012, October 16). Learning curve: How college graduates solve information problems once they join the (Online Class...Continued from page 5) workplace. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_fall2012_workplaceStudy_FullReport.pdf  Howard, R. M., Rodrigue, T.K., & Serviss, T.C. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Peda-gogy, 2(2): 177-192. Retrieved from http://site.citationproject.net/?page_id=25=  McTighe, J. & Wiggins, Grant (2005). Understanding by design  (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision  and Curriculum Development. Salisbury, F., & Ellis, J. (2003). Online and face-to-face: evalu- ating methods for teaching information literacy skills to  undergraduate arts students. Library Review, 52(5), 209- 217.  Project Information Literacy. Retrieved from   http://projectinfolit.org Quality Matters Program. QM. Retrieved from   http://www.qmprogram.org/ Quality Matters Program. Rubric Standards. Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011-2013.pdf   Eller wraps things up by addressing the more negative aspects that may happen during group work. He points out that a facilitator must practice self-care; facilitation can put a strain on an individual. A crucial task is to separate the emo-tions of the group from those of the facilitator. Avoid letting high negative or positive emotions deter from the task at hand. A tip Eller mentions involves the delivery of controver-sial information: instead of delivering strictly verbally, go visual. Present information on a screen with the facilitator off to the side or on a handout, in both cases the group members are given something other than the facilitator to focus nega-tivity on.   Librarians have a plethora of opportunities to participate in and lead groups—campus-wide committees, professional library association committees, internal library work groups, etc. With creativity this text can be applied to meeting facili-tation in a multitude of environments. Each group will have specific needs and require different strategies and skills. Ef-fective Group Facilitation in Education: How to Energize Meetings and Manage Difficult Groups is a worthwhile read for all members of a group. An effective meeting creates a positive personal experience for the facilitator and a reward-ing experience for everyone involved.       

https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&amp;context=loexquarterly

Tips for (Re)Designing an Asynchronous Online Class

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Eastern Michigan University: Digital Commons@EMU

The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University)