information literacy in learning landscapes flexible adaptable low cost solutions

Reference Services Review Information literacy in learning landscapes: flexible, adaptable, low-cost solutions Lisa Kammerlocher Juliann Couture Olivia Sparks Matthew Harp Tammy Allgood Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Article information: To cite this document: Lisa Kammerlocher Juliann Couture Olivia Sparks Matthew Harp Tammy Allgood, (2011),"Information literacy in learning landscapes: flexible, adaptable, low-cost solutions", Reference Services Review, Vol 39 Iss pp 390 - 400 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321111161395 Downloaded on: 27 February 2017, At: 16:36 (PT) References: this document contains references to 40 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1265 times since 2011* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2014),"Exhibiting library collections online: Omeka in context", New Library World, Vol 115 Iss 3/4 pp 75-86 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2014-0013 (2011),"Information literacy instruction for satellite university students", Reference Services Review, Vol 39 Iss pp 497-513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321111161458 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:514603 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services Emerald is both COUNTER and TRANSFER compliant The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation *Related content and download information correct at time of download The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm RSR 39,3 390 Received April 2011 Revised June 2011 Accepted June 2011 THEME ARTICLE Information literacy in learning landscapes: flexible, adaptable, low-cost solutions Lisa Kammerlocher Fletcher Library, Arizona State University Libraries, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Juliann Couture Hayden Library, Arizona State University Libraries, Tempe, Arizona, USA Olivia Sparks Noble Science and Engineering Library, Arizona State University Libraries, Tempe, Arizona, USA, and Matthew Harp and Tammy Allgood Hayden Library, Arizona State University Libraries, Tempe, Arizona, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this article is to describe the rapidly changing learning landscapes academic libraries are facing using a case study of Arizona State University Flexible, adaptable and low-cost solutions are available for libraries who find themselves in a diverse learning landscape coupled with economic challenges Design/methodology/approach – This case study provides details of the processes for implementing low-cost alternatives to creating, managing and disseminating learning objects Findings – Low-cost solutions can give libraries an important information literacy presence within the university learning landscape Locally managed learning object repositories can be implemented with minimal fuss and facilitate faculty and student in a wide range of academic programs access to library learning content Practical implications – How to manage learning content in a local learning objects repository to maximize access, use and reuse for faculty, students and librarians This article describes an option for implementing a learning object repository with few fiscal and personnel resources Originality/value – Online information literacy on a budget is within reach for many academic libraries by tapping into the potential of free or low-cost web resources for creating and managing learning content Keywords Academic libraries, Tutorials, Technological change, Information literacy, Librarians, Resource management Paper type Case study Reference Services Review Vol 39 No 3, 2011 pp 390-400 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0090-7324 DOI 10.1108/00907321111161395 Introduction Today’s college and university learning landscapes are dynamic and characterized by increased student demand for highly flexible and self-paced online learning opportunities Recent fiscal conditions in higher education make learning landscape development more challenging due to finite resources and competing priorities Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Similarly, academic libraries are experiencing substantial budget and staff reductions Despite these trends, academic libraries are in a strong position to contribute to surrounding learning landscapes by expanding student online learning opportunities and promoting the critical use of information Evolving learning technologies available for free or at low cost provide higher education and libraries with the tools to respond to this fluid environment Arizona State University (ASU), one of the largest public universities in the USA, promotes a strategic focus on transdisciplinary curricula and escalating online programs In response to these conditions, ASU Libraries shaped online learning to align opportunities for information literacy instruction within online, blended and face-to-face courses This article outlines the processes, considerations and criteria used to choose free and low-cost solutions for creating, managing and providing access to learning content developed within ASU Libraries Background ASU, the New American University, is implementing a new model for higher education, committed to academic excellence, entrepreneurial energy and broad access Transdisciplinary research, specifically blurring the lines of traditional academic disciplines, is the driving force behind the new model ASU is a single, unified institution comprised of four campuses across the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and currently serves more than 70,000 students (over 56,000 undergraduate and 13,000 graduate students)[1] The ASU Online program is one recent effort to increase access to education and the goal is to enroll 100,000 students by 2020[2] (ASU Designs for Future with 2020 Vision, 2008) ASU Libraries is comprised of eight libraries housed on the four physical campuses of ASU Its collection contains over 4.5 million volumes and a full array of digital resources The Libraries’ web site at: http://lib.asu.edu provides access to the online catalog, 325 research databases, over 325,000 e-book titles and 78,000 full-text electronic journals The library’s discovery service Summon, branded as Library One Search, searches many of these research materials and the Ask a Librarian chat service provides 24/7 research support More than 200 librarian-crafted customized research guides on specific subjects, courses and current hot topics also support ASU’s learning landscape Literature review Learning landscapes encompass a selection of environments in which students interact and learn (Thody, 2008; Dugdale, 2009) Thody (2008) posed this working definition: University learning landscapes are conceptually holistic, loosely coupled interconnections of all formal and informal, on and off-campus, virtual and physical facilities, sites and services and how stakeholders use them A learning landscapes approach is distinguished from mere site management by [ ] conscious decisions to manipulate all these traditional and innovative facilities so they are continually, and ubiquitously available, collaborative opportunities to enhance learning (p 13) Dugdale (2009) also suggests that learning landscapes should “maximize encounters among people, places and ideas.” (p 52) Information literacy solutions 391 RSR 39,3 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) 392 E-learning E-learning has become common practice in higher education learning landscapes in recent years and shows promise for addressing issues of scalability while helping students achieve learning outcomes (Clark and Mayer, 2008; Leacock and Nesbit, 2007) The majority of e-learning tools described in the educational technology in higher education literature support formal online courses However, these tools also have applicability for supporting blended and face-to-face classrooms Studies indicate that e-learning is often as effective as face-to-face instruction, offering colleges and universities more options for delivering curricular content (Clark et al., 2006; US Department of Education) Findings of an extensive meta-analysis of online learning studies conclude “instruction conducted entirely online is as effective as face-to-face but no better” (US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2010, p 18) Another study by Figlio et al (2010) was critical of the Department of Education’s conclusions indicating that few studies reviewed in the meta-analysis offered direct comparisons of the effectiveness of online learning Reporting on their direct comparison, Figlio et al (2010) concluded that the relative benefits of “live versus online education is [ .] tenuous at best” (p 4) Further experimentation is needed to make claims regarding which mode of instructional delivery is better Regardless of the instruction mode, studies indicate that many students are satisfied with using online, self-paced learning options (Kammerlocher, 2009; Artino, 2008) Libraries experience success in developing and using video tutorials to deliver information literacy instruction Zhang (2002, p 358) asserts, “by focusing on information literacy skills and developing independent learners through effective use of web-based technologies, librarians can play an important role in higher education of the information age” One fundamental question about e-learning is whether or not students learn and retain information literacy skills and knowledge gained through online environments Studies by Anderson and May (2010) and Kraemer et al (2007) specifically investigate the effectiveness of library instruction in online, blended and face-to-face settings Their findings indicate that there are minimal differences among learning platforms in student retention of information literacy Learning objects Over the past ten to 15 years, small discrete learning objects that can be reused in a variety of disciplines or learning environments have emerged as a significant approach to e-learning These objects enable self-paced learning of content on demand Wiley (2003, p 6) defines learning objects as “any digital resources that can be reused to support learning” Reuse is an important aspect of a scalable learning landscape flexible enough to efficiently support diverse learning needs The ability to recontextualize and adapt learning objects for a variety of purposes is another important attribute (Koppi et al., 2005; Margaryan and Littlejohn, 2008) Tutorials are the most commonly created learning objects in libraries (Mestre et al., 2011) However, developing and implementing learning objects is complex and is driven by available resources when delivering an online information literacy program A 2008 Survey for Learning Object Integration administered by Online Learning Research Committee of ACRL’s Education and Behavioral Sciences Section highlight respondents’ instructional technology concerns including support, sustainability, Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) storage, functionality, platform interoperability, customizability, reusability and accessibility (Mestre et al., 2011, p 247) Screencasting is a prevalent strategy for creating tutorials (Mestre et al., 2011) Many articles describe the use of screencasting tools for library instruction, reference and staff training (Brown-Sica et al., 2009; Carr and Ly, 2009; Meier, 2007; Silver and Nickel, 2007) and in recent years, free screencasting software has improved with recording quality and ease of use (Farkas, 2009; Kroski, 2009; Rethlefsen, 2009; Slebodnik and Fraser-Riehle, 2009; Sparks, 2010; Steiner, 2010) Despite improvements in screencasting, librarians still need grounding in instructional design and online pedagogy to create quality learning objects Unfortunately, Mestre et al (2011) found that limited support and training is available for librarians creating online learning objects Brown-Sica et al (2009) articulates that all audiences, whether it be students or our library colleagues, can benefit from screencasts which quickly respond to users’ needs, either online or on-campus, and at any time of day With the development of more screencasts and other learning objects, the need to manage the output increases, requiring more attention on storage and accessibility issues Learning object repositories A learning object repository is an online collection of digital content that facilitates access to small units of educational information or activities (Lehman, 2007) Mardis and Ury (2008) stress the importance of creating a library of learning objects to facilitate their reuse In their example, Mardis and Ury (2008) provide a table of categorized learning objects accessible via direct web links, some of which are listed on a library web page[3] Repositories can be hosted locally however, many libraries rely on collaborative learning object collections, such as Animated Tutorial Sharing Project (ANTS, 2011)[4], MERLOT (2011)[5], PRIMO (n.d.)[6], and Cooperative Library Instruction Project (CLIP, 2011)[7] These collections contain peer-reviewed learning objects which are vetted by other instructors; often they host the learning object or at least provide links to the learning object hosted on the developing libraries’ site ANTS requires that submissions be as general as possible to encourage re-usability CLIP encourages users to download the tutorials and add institutional branding under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license Though collaborative repositories have great value by providing opportunities to share, discover and reuse learning objects, review process and standards for inclusion can delay access to rapidly developed learning resources Learning objects at ASU The current learning landscape at ASU is evolving so rapidly that it could be characterized as a landscape with few absolutes Traditional models of information literacy instruction no longer support the needs of our students resulting in ASU Libraries’ need to shape responsive and scalable learning options characterized by flexibility and adaptability The Online Learning Workgroup (OLW) was formed to address the need for increased learning objects in response to larger class sizes, multiple learning management systems (LMS), and on-demand research and instruction assistance for students Older models of lengthy, inflexible tutorials no longer supported the needs of ASU’s first year programs The ASU Libraries’ New Student Workgroup (NSW) proposed a series Information literacy solutions 393 RSR 39,3 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) 394 Table I Criteria for software evaluation Table II Features of screencasting software applications of learning objects that introduced core information literacy competencies that could be placed in online library guides and LMS OLW and NSW focused on conceptual, demonstration and orientation video tutorials This represented a new flexibility emphasizing reusable learning objects rather than a large, comprehensive, single tutorial Brief and discrete learning objects facilitated opportunities to better incorporate instructional design principles increasing the scaffolding of complex concepts and reducing cognitive load OLW began producing tutorials using the multimedia software Captivate These learning objects required instructional goals and subject content from librarians, technical and design expertise, a transparent process for production, web space, and style guidelines to be successful In consultation with faculty, approximately a dozen concepts were translated into a series of core learning objects that were primarily used with first year students Basic quizzes were developed and linked next to each learning module on the library web site Shortly after building the core set of learning objects budgetary constraints resulted in a reduction in staff and loss of technical expertise to produce and update learning objects in Captivate Concurrently, ASU experienced an explosion in its online learning presence with more than 25 degree programs launched within a year Faculty from various academic programs teaching in online and face-to-face environments discovered the online learning modules and integrated them into their courses However, the learning objects originally created to support first year students were general and basic and at times, faculty needed their students to use more discipline-focused learning content The convergence of rapidly developing programs, the need for on-demand subject-specific instruction and an increased number of low-cost screencasting tools led to a decision to teach subject librarians to build their own learning objects A team evaluated various screencasting software based on the criteria shown in Table I (Rethlefsen, 2009; Slebodnik and Fraser-Riehle, 2009; Sparks, 2010): To enable the subject librarians, especially those without access to Captivate, to create their own screencasts, OLW evaluated the features (Table II) of several free screencasting tools (Sparks, 2010) and ultimately decided to select Jing and purchase Screencasting software packages Free screencasting software Ease of use (for recording and for viewing) File output requirements (flash preferred) Multiple login Ease of use (ability to pause during recording and easy to find URLS) File output requirements (SWF, MP4) YouTube upload (closed captioning) Quizzing options Cost Jing (www.jingproject.com/) Screenr (http://screenr.com/) Features Local installation SWF files YouTube upload available with paid version Screenshot, image editing and annotations Browser based SWF and MP4 Files Direct upload to YouTube Download available after product is published Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) limited subscriptions to Jing Pro Jing Pro offered YouTube uploading options and the ability to create MP4 files OLW abandoned this decision when articulate announced the release of their free screencasting software, Screenr, launched in August 2009 Screenr offered the automatic YouTube uploading options and allowed the download of MP4 files at no charge Screenr is a web-based product and allows multiple simultaneous logins The web-based software was the perfect option for our multi-campus working environment The librarian role and skill set in relation to the university learning landscape is evolving While multimedia design skills and an understanding of online pedagogy are not absolutely necessary to develop learning objects, some training in these areas improves the quality of learning content created OLW launched a training program to support librarians’ ability to create screencasts on demand The training featured technical and design aspects of creating learning objects and how to locate and manipulate images The only requirement for each subject librarian is that they use a beginning and ending slide branded for ASU Libraries Otherwise, librarians used their own discretion to generate content and select images that best fit the student learning needs within their programs Within six months of the training program, subject librarians created approximately 100 learning objects to support curricular needs Librarians also began to experiment with creating small learning objects to help answer questions on chat or e-mail reference Screenr succeeded in meeting the subject librarians’ need to create on-demand tutorials but managing and organizing these videos quickly emerged as a priority By using a single username and login (asulibtutorials), the Screenr site (www.screenr com/user/asulibtutorials) became a temporary repository for all the screencasts developed in the ASU Libraries As the collection grew, it became increasingly difficult to search and find tutorials for reuse in other courses A “Community Toolkit” in ASU Libraries’ intranet enabled librarians to share exercises, presentations and links to specific Screenr videos However, this was strictly for internal use and inaccessible to faculty and students While searchable, the “Community Toolkit” was not the best solution to host the tutorials Librarians embedded learning objects into library guides, but again, only as links and not original hosted files As the library became reliant on the free web-based screencasting software, it was important to develop independent hosting options For example, one of the free screencasting options initially evaluated, Screentoaster (Sparks, 2010), is no longer available (as of 31 July 2010) and all videos created from this web site are not accessible The issues related to sustaining a set of current and relevant learning objects includes challenges such as maintaining currency and relevancy, implementing effective learning outcomes assessment, gathering deep level analytics to evaluate the online learning program, and providing a convenient space for students and faculty to access learning objects To date, options to address learning outcomes assessment have fallen short of our goals primarily because the ASU landscape is so varied and scalable solutions are limited Librarians are currently exploring Google Forms as one way to construct small-scale assessments within their academic programs The rapid development of learning objects also underscored a gap for faculty and students needing to locate and access the libraries’ learning content Fortunately, a turnkey, lower cost solution existed in the form of open source repository software that required minimal staff resources to launch and maintain Information literacy solutions 395 RSR 39,3 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) 396 Learning objects repository The purpose of the learning object repository is to promote the dissemination of learning objects to faculty and students Before the repository, the objects resided in various locations, existed in numerous formats, therefore, search functionality across objects impossible To easily maintain the objects in one location, create format and metadata standards, and provide searching functionality across all objects, ASU Libraries created a locally controlled web publishing platform Because of resource scarcity, this platform needed to be easy to install, develop, and maintain To select the repository, we assessed whether the functional requirements of the software packages met our foundational requirements Simple side-by-side comparison, although minimally helpful, did not provide all the necessary information for choosing a software solution For example, Dspace (www.dspace.org/), an open source solution enabling content sharing, had metadata capabilities meeting our requirements, but out of the box was designed as an institutional repository system disseminating text documents We required a system designed specifically for collection of heterogeneous file types, including video, interactive Flash and PDF lessons over text Eprints (www.eprints.org/), a similar repository solution, required considerable development to meet our performance requirements as did Drupal (http://drupal.org/), another open source software platform Since we could not purchase new hardware, we based our choices on a system we could support with our current infrastructure and staffing levels Omeka (Center for History and New Media, George Mason University, 2011, http://omeka.org/) was selected for all of the requirements listed above Omeka is open source software “designed for libraries, museums and archives and scholarly exhibitions.” Omeka allowed us to easily establish collection policies, procedures, and workflows and provided a simplistic submission and ingestion workflow We were also able set up metadata schemas for our objects types to augment functionality using Omeka’s built in tools Omeka provides functionality for rich object, item, and collection metadata which translates to optimal learning object retrieval Using Omeka as a dedicated repository platform allows ASU Libraries to create collections and item level records with multiple, related file attachments to facilitate greater access to learning content Content from multiple places is stored in the repository and then redistributed to LibGuides, LMS and shared repositories (Figure 1) Implementation costs for the repository included technology, personnel and system installation resources We leveraged our existing virtual machine environment to deploy Omeka with no tangible (or additional) technology and infrastructure costs Personnel and time invested were minimal as compared to the resources required for the installation of the other platforms considered The system administrator set up the hardware and software environment The web librarian and digital library production manager collaborated with three subject librarians in order to address key issues for building the repository: branding, look and feel, organization and hierarchy, permissions, the digital ingest process, workflow, user interfaces, metadata schema and interoperability Because of the flexibility of Omeka, enhancements were quickly integrated and implemented on demand according to team specifications For example, a decision to change from the Extended Dublin Core to the basic Dublin Core was Diverse creation of learning objects Centralization of learning objects Dissemination of learning objects Information literacy solutions Captivate tutorials 397 Library guides Web server Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Screenr tutorials Screenr.com Intranet Excercise and handouts Web server iTunes U You Tube ASU libraries learning object repository Learning management systems Future External repositories Library minute videos implemented instantly The web librarian was able to make this change by simply deactivating an installed plugin The team could then review and confirm their decision without any time delay Because monetary, efficiency and technical barriers are reduced, librarians can publish accessible and reusable objects quickly Omeka provides a low cost, flexible and easily implemented platform which allows for the timely and centralized dissemination of objects to faculty and students Conclusion ASU Libraries initiated a flexible, adaptable and low-cost online learning presence to complement the evolving ASU learning landscape in the midst of an intense economic crisis Iterative strategies supporting functionality and discovery enabled us to implement an internally controlled learning objects repository and launch a new approach to creating learning objects in a timely fashion Consequently, we are not reliant on any proprietary systems for managing our learning content Librarians now have the freedom to meet student learning needs on demand With training in online pedagogy and instructional design, librarians are building the capacity to create quality learning content by identifying learning goals, storyboarding content, implementing simple multimedia standards and learning to use basic e-learning software Queues and lengthy processes for generating learning content have all but disappeared Librarians no longer have to wait for their learning content to rise to the top of an expert staff member’s list of priorities to meet student learning needs Faculty and students have centralized and seamless access to learning objects for reuse in LMS, web pages and more As the learning object repository is populated, the tagged items will be more accessible and can be used to support chat and e-mail services Librarians, in collaboration with faculty and instructional designers will be able to build Figure Learning object creation, management and dissemination RSR 39,3 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) 398 instructional modules from discrete learning objects in the repository For example, a module could be created in a LibGuide with screencasted tutorials, exercises, assignments and assessments of student learning Academic libraries are positioned to form adaptive development environments that strike a balance between building time-consuming perfect products and creating learning objects on demand We are in a unique position to take advantage of the increasing number of low-cost web resources that are available to help shape responsive, flexible, scalable and sustainable learning landscapes for students in the Digital Age Notes http://uoia.asu.edu/ ASU campus growth; http://asunews.asu.edu/20080131_campusgrowth www.nwmissouri.edu/library/courses/research/research.htm#tutorials] http://ants.wetpaint.com/page/Aboutỵ theỵ ANTSỵ Project www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm www.ala.org/apps/primo/public/search.cfm www.clipinfolit.org References Anderson, K and May, F.A (2010), “Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol 36 No 6, pp 495-500 ANTS (2011), “About the ANTS project”, available at: http://ants.wetpaint.com/page/ About^the^ANTS^ Project (accessed 10 June 2011) Artino, A.R (2008), “Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: predicting satisfaction with online training”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 24 No 3, pp 260-70 ASU Designs for Future with 2020 Vision (2008), available at: http://asunews.asu.edu/20080131_ campusgrowth (accessed April 2011) Brown-Sica, M., Sobel, K and Pan, D (2009), “Learning for all: teaching students, faculty and staff with screencasting”, Public Services Quarterly, Vol No 2, pp 81-97 Carr, A and Ly, P (2009), “‘More than words’: screencasting as a reference tool”, Reference Services Review, Vol 37 No 4, pp 408-20 Center for History and New Media, George Mason University (2011), “Omeka”, available at: http://omeka.org/ (accessed April 2011) Clark, R.C and Mayer, R.E (2008), E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed., Wiley, San Francisco, CA Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F and Sweller, J (2006), Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load, Wiley, San Francisco, CA CLIP (2011), Cooperative Library Instruction Project, available at: www.clipinfolit.org/ (accessed 10 June 2011) Dugdale, S (2009), “Space strategies for the new learning landscape”, EDUCAUSE Review, Vol 44 No 2, pp 50-2 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Farkas, M (2009), “Your desktop: the movie”, American Libraries, Vol 40 No 11, p 33 Figlio, D.N., Rush, M and Yin, L (2010), “Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning”, Working Paper No 16089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, June Kammerlocher, L (2009), “Using online learning modules to promote students’ ability to identify and locate empirical research articles”, doctoral thesis, EdD, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Koppi, T., Bogle, L and Bogle, M (2005), “Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability”, Open Learning, Vol 20 No 1, pp 83-91 Kraemer, E.W., Lombardo, S.V and Lepkowski, F.J (2007), “The librarian, the machine, or a little of both: a comparative study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University”, College & Research Libraries, Vol 68 No 4, pp 330-4 Kroski, E (2009), “That’s infotainment!”, School Library Journal, Vol 55 No 2, pp 40-2 Leacock, T.L and Nesbit, J.C (2007), “A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol 10 No 2, pp 44-59 Lehman, R (2007), “Learning object repositories”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No 113, pp 57-66 Mardis, L.A and Ury, C.J (2008), “Innovation – an LO library: reuse of learning objects”, Reference Services Review, Vol 36 No 4, pp 389-412 Margaryan, A and Littlejohn, A (2008), “Repositories and communities at cross-purposes: issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 24 No 4, pp 333-47 Meier, J.J (2007), “Staying afloat in a flood of new technologies”, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, No 51, available at: www.istl.org/07-summer/viewpoint.html (accessed 12 May 2011) MERLOT (2011), available at: Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching, www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm (accessed 10 June 2011) Mestre, L.S., Baures, L., Niedbala, M., Bishop, S.C., Perez, A and Silfen, K (2011), “Learning objects as tools for teaching information literacy online: a survey of librarian usage”, College & Research Libraries, Vol 72 No 3, pp 236-52 PRIMO (n.d.), Peer-Reviewed Instructional Materials Online Database, available at: www.ala org/apps/primo/public/search.cfm (accessed 10 June 2011) Rethlefsen, M.L (2009), “Screencast like a pro”, Library Journal, Vol 134 No 7, pp 62-3 Silver, S.L and Nickel, L.T (2007), “Are online tutorials effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods”, Research Strategies, Vol 20 No 4, pp 389-96 Slebodnik, M and Fraser-Riehle, C (2009), “Creating online tutorials at your libraries: software choices and practical implications”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol 49 No 1, pp 33-51 Sparks, O (2010), “Five minute screencasts – the super tool for science and engineering librarians”, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, No 60, available at: www.istl org/10-winter/tips.html (accessed 12 May 2011) Steiner, H (2010), “Livening virtual reference with screen casting and screen sharing”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol 27 Nos 4/5, p Thody, A.M (2008), “Learning landscapes for universities: mapping the field”, Working Paper No 1, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, February Information literacy solutions 399 RSR 39,3 Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) 400 US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (2010), “Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies”, US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Washington, DC, available at: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ ppss/reports.html (accessed 12 May 2011) Wiley, D (2003), “Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory”, The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, Agency for Instructional Technology, Bloomington, IN Zhang, W (2002), “Developing web-enhanced learning for information fluency”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol 41 No 4, pp 356-63 Further reading Adobe Systems Inc (2011), “Adobe Captivate 5”, available at: www.adobe.com/products/ captivate/ (accessed April 2011) Arizona State University, Office of Institutional Analysis (2011), “Enrollment Summary”, Fall, available at: uoia.asu.edu (accessed 10 June 2011) Articulate Global, Inc (2011), “Screenr”, available at: www.screenr.com/ (accessed April 2011) Northwest Missouri State University, Owens Library (2011), “Research tutorials”, available at: www.nwmissouri.edu/library/courses/research/research.htm#tutorials] (accessed 10 June 2011) Oehrli, J.A., Piacentine, J., Peters, A and Nanamaker, B (2011), “Do screencasts really work? Assessing student learning through instructional screencasts”, paper presented at Association of College & Research Libraries Conference (ACRL), Philadelphia, PA, 30 March-2 April, available at: www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/national/2011/ papers/do_screencasts_work.pdf (accessed June 2011) US Department of Education, Institute for Education Science (2009), Ranking Report for 12-Month Enrollment: 12-Month Unduplicated Headcount 2008-09, US Department of Education, Institute for Education Science, Washington, DC, available at: http://nces.ed gov/ipeds/datacenter/Ranking.aspx (accessed 12 May 2011) About the authors Lisa Kammerlocher is a Social Sciences Subject Librarian and Co-chair of the Libraries Online Learning Workgroup Her research interests are in information literacy, online learning and learning outcomes assessment Lisa Kammerlocher is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: lk@asu.edu Juliann Couture is a Social Sciences Subject Librarian and Co-chair of the Libraries Online Learning Workgroup Olivia Sparks is a Science Librarian at Arizona State University Libraries, Noble Science Library Matthew Harp is Cyberinfrastructure Tech Support Analyst at Arizona State University Libraries Tammy Allgood is currently the Web Services Librarian at Arizona State University She is responsible for designing, developing, and maintaining the ASU Libraries’ web site, as well as many other internal and external library interfaces and web applications To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints This article has been cited by: Downloaded by FREIE UNIVERSITAT BERLIN At 16:36 27 February 2017 (PT) Michael Courtney, Sara Wilhoite-Mathews 2015 From Distance Education to Online Learning: Practical Approaches to Information Literacy Instruction and Collaborative Learning in Online Environments Journal of Library Administration 55:4, 261-277 [CrossRef] Cameron Barnes 2013 MOOCs: The Challenges for Academic Librarians Australian Academic & Research Libraries 44:3, 163-175 [CrossRef] ... alternatives to creating, managing and disseminating learning objects Findings – Low- cost solutions can give libraries an important information literacy presence within the university learning landscape... surrounding learning landscapes by expanding student online learning opportunities and promoting the critical use of information Evolving learning technologies available for free or at low cost. .. Originality/value – Online information literacy on a budget is within reach for many academic libraries by tapping into the potential of free or low- cost web resources for creating and managing learning