Swimming in the Matrix: A Dialogue on Teaching Undergraduate Research

Full text

swimming
in
the
Matrix:
A
Dialogue
on
Teaching
Undergraduate
Research
Iris
Jastram
Reference
and
Instruction
Librarian,
Laurence
McKinley
Gould
Library,
Carleton
College
Steve
Lawson
Humanities
Librarian,
Tutt
Library,
Colorado
College
As instruction librarians at small liberal arts
colleges-and
therefore
as
two librarians in jobs very similar
to
Barbara
Fister's-we
have learned
a great deal from and with Barbara over
the
years.
Her
writing and
her
conversations often reveal fully articulated versions
of
ideas that we have
just begun forming ourselves, which
is
validating and humbling. But even
more than that,
her
deep and fundamental respect for undergraduates and
their learning process, combined with her ability to speak out forcefully
and constructively, have
put
her
in
the
position
of
being an informal men-
tor
for so many
of
us who "want
to
be
Barbara
when
we grow
up:'
One
key
theme
woven throughout Barbara's work
is
the importance
of
finding and having a voice, and
of
honoring the voices
of
others. For un-
dergraduates, this means finding their own voices while also incorporat-
ing
the
voices
of
others into their ever more robust knowledge constructs.
· They cannot download knowledge from
one
brain to another,
but
they can
engage with ideas and use that engagement to foster knowledge building.
69
Jastram, Iris, and Steve Lawson. 2013. "Swimming in the
Matrix: A Dialogue on Teaching Undergraduate Research." In
Finding a Public Voice: Barbara Fister as a Case Study,
edited by Danielle Theiss and Diane Kovacs. Chicago: ACRL.

70
CHAPTER
4
The same
is
true
of
other learners. Even librarians!
Like undergraduates, librarians, also learn
by
engaging with ideas1 either
through direct conversation
or
through
the
drawn-out conversations be-
tween articles and blog posts and conference presentations.
What
follows
is
just such a conversation. Each
of
us will present our individual ideas on
how
instruction librarians can work most meaningfully with undergradu-
ate researchers, and then we will engage in a dialogue about those ideas,
helping each other clarify and expand
our
understandings
of
the topic.
Ultimately, we hope to come to a deeper understanding
of
our fundamenc
tal goals
as
instruction librarians, share a few ideas about how to translate
those goals to the classroom, and do it all in a way that celebrates Barbara's
conviction that knowledge
is
born
of
engaged interaction.
Iris
on
Undergraduate
Research:
This
isn't
Stamp
Collecting!
Librarians and undergrads have one thing in common: we are obsessed
with the "finding things" definition
of
research.
When
I was in library
school,
everything-from
designing databases to bibliometrics to cata-
loging-had
"finding things"
as
its driving motivation. Ask anyone what
a librarian does and we are likely to say some variation
on
"find things:'
Meanwhile1 undergrads are similarly primed for focusing myopically
on
finding things whenever research projects appear
on
the syllabus. They
want a couple
of
sources that back up their thoughts1 point-by-point1 and
they want one hopelessly laughable source that can serve simultaneously
as
counterargument and whipping boy. As students see it, their job is to
gather together something akin to a brief on the topic
of
choice: patch
together the useful parts
of
the good sources;
flay
the bad source alive;
and arrive at what
John
Bean calls an "all about" paper1 designed to show
a professor that the student
is
capable
of
informing a hypothetical reader
"all about" the important things to know about a topic. In an ongoing re-
search project I am part of, the Information Literacy in Student Writing
(ILSW) project, this shallow understanding
of
research shows up all over
the place in the form of"patch writing"2 and over-citation.3 "See?" says the

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
71
student through the wide margins next to block quotes,
"I
did it! I found
out everything you need to know about global warming and condensed it
for you into a digestible five-page essay!"
So
here we
all
are, pulling for the same goal, over and over, and constantly
disappointed with the results. Librarians train students in the fine art
of
finding things, students are bored
but
find things anyway, librarians feel
undervalued, classroom faculty are underwhelmed, and
our
ILSW project
keeps revealing patch-written
"all
about" papers. Maybe our goals need to
be adjusted.
"But finding things is what we
do,"
some librarians might
say.
"If
we adjust
that goal, are we
not
becoming something else?"
Not
at
all.
"Use infor-
mation effectively"
is
one
of
the ACRL Information Literacy Standards,4
so there
is
nothing in our Information Literacy contract that forces
us
to
draw the boundaries
of
our expertise well within the "finding things" part
of
research. In fact, doing
so
may actually
be
a disservice for our students.
Of
course, this doesn't mean that we should all go become writing instruc-
tors. Imagine, though, the impact
of
teaching
parallel
to disciplinary
fac-
ulty, rather than off in a
cul
de
sac
on
the side. All
of
a sudden, the disci-
plinary faculty and librarians become tracks the students can trolley along,
each reinforcing the other, and each track guiding students toward more
effective work. And,
as
Barbara Fister has pointed
out
over and over again,
librarians can fulfill their part
of
the bargain relatively easily
by
remember-
ing and making explicit that research
is
part
of
a fundamentally rhetori-
cal act.
As
she
says,
"Rather than describe the search process
as
a matter
of
finding
information-which
sounds like panning for solid nuggets
of
truth-librarians
should describe it
as
a way
of
tapping into a scholarly
communication network:'s
And
later, "Placing research skills in a rhetori-
cal framework will make the search process more meaningful and the eval-
uation
of
sources more natural for students.
And
more important, it will
help students to situate their research findings in a text
of
their own that
uses evidence in a more sophisticated and successful way:'6 The emphasis,

72
CHAPTER
4
then,
is
on
the connections between ideas and the conversations that these
connections enact.
It
is
not
all about "finding things:' It
is
about igniting
students' imaginations. It
is
about revealing how students can engage with
outside knowledge to build their own well-grounded ideas and to com-
municate those ideas effectively.
Steve
on
Undergraduate
Research:
From
curators
to
creators
I often find library instruction unsatisfying. My complaints are familiar:
my time with the class
is
too brief,
my
relationship with the students too
tenuous, my lesson too isolated from the rest
of
the course. But, like
all
academic instruction librarians, I am hopeful and diligent, and with each
class I teach, I look at
the
students' research assignment and
try
to carve
out
a piece
of
that project to call my own.
In
the past, this piece almost
always amounted to searching for sources in library-approved databases
and full-text collections.
But when I taught that
way,
when I pulled out "searching for sources"
as
my
sole contribution to a class I got to see once for an
hour
or
so,
I found that
I was reinforcing a problematic attitude toward research. Students would
speak
of
their research paper
as
if
the "research" was something wholly dif-
ferent and divorced from the "paper:' Like tying your shoes before you
play basketball,
or
putting
gas
in
the
tank before going for a drive, students
seemed to know that research was necessary,
but
also seemed to expect it
to be quick, preliminaryi and mostly a technical barrier to the real work
of
writing.
When
I got in front
of
them
and pulled
out
canned searches
of
my own devising to demonstrate the features
of
the article database, I was
reinforcing this view
of
research
as
a technical
or
even bureaucratic skill.
I was reinforcing a way
of
researching and writing that too often ends up
with students writing generally about a topic, rather than creating and sup-
porting a compelling argument.
I suspected there was something more, an approach perhaps implied
by
the multi-faceted ACRL Information Literacy Standards/
but
not
fully
articulated there
as
a pedagogy. I was attracted to the writing center
on

SWIMMING
IN
lHE
MATRIX
73
our
campus, where it seemed to
me
that
student
tutors
and
clients alike
took
their writing far
more
seriously
than
their research. I wondered, what,
if
anything1 could make those students
as
engaged with research
as
they
were with writing:
how
could research feel
as
personal,
as
necessary,
as
high-stakes
as
writing did? I began to change
the
way I taught from being a
"specialist"
who
passed
on
highly specific tips about this
or
that
library da-
tabase, to being more
of
a coach
or
even a counselor. I tried to first draw
the
class
out
with questions about their
work
and their ideas,
and
only once I'd
established this
context-this
need
for sources
or
evidence-would
I
turn
on
the
classroom projector and start talking about searching.
Whenever I have a good idea about teaching and learning in libraries, I always
find out that Barbara Fister has beaten
me
to it. Sometimes she's only ahead
of
me
by
a few days, posting a fully developed column online while I am still
mulling over the implications. But just
as
often-as
in this
case-it
turns
out
that Barbara
is
a decade
or
more ahead
of
me.
In
1990,
or
about twenty
years before I started thinking about this problem in earnest, Barbara wrote
about
how
students are too likely to see themselves
as
"hunters and gather-
ers" who use sources simply
as
collections
of
facts which they report back
on
in their papers.
8 Librarians are
not
the only source
or
cause
of
the students'
misconceptions,
of
course,
but
through
our
teaching we can help students
develop a view
of
themselves
as
creators
of
knowledge, and less
as
collectors
and curators
of
knowledge.
If
we're successful, knowledge
"is
not
something
that grows
by
accretion
of
new discoveries (that can
be
written up, set on
the
library shelf and located whenever a dose
of
truth
is
required),
but
changes
depending
on
the way in which
the
interpreting community views it:'9
After more than twenty years, I would have
hoped
that
our
profession
would have better internalized and formalized this understanding
of
how
we should address teaching research skills.
And
perhaps with ACRL's Infor-
mation Literacy Immersion program, we are getting there. But
it
still seems
like this integrated view
of
research, rhetoric, and writing
is
something
that
we
need
to relearn and reteach with some regularity. I am heartened some-
what
by
the
fact that Fister herself is still returning
to
this subject, finding

74
CHAPTER
4
new insights and new metaphors. In the winter
of
2012 Fister wrote: "We
need to help students understand the vast web
of
meaning
in
the making
and develop ways to shape their own ideas about what parts to pay atten-
tion to. They need to know
not
just
how
to find finished information
but
how to grasp meaning
as
it's made and how to participate in its making .... I
had a frustrating time this week helping students explore databases, which
seem like supremely clumsy boutique shopping sites for products that are
each sold
separatelYi
detached from the network that produced them:'
10
Instruction librarians are
not
personal shoppers, we are consumer advq-
cates. By the time I have added this idea
to
my repertoire, I am sure Bar-
bara Fister will have long moved
on
to another idea that I'll think oflater.
Dialogic
Learning:
Iris
and
Steve
Discuss
Undergraduate
Research
Iris: I find it really interesting that
when
we each articulated what we
saw
as
the deep underlying problem in the way that undergradu-
ates understand research (and therefore in the ways that we see
our
jobs), I talked about
how
undergraduates misunderstand the
point
of
gathering information, while you talked about
how
the
major problem
is
that undergraduates see information gathering
as
distinct and separate from writing.
I wonder
if
these conclusions point to the
same
deep underlying
problem,
or
if
you think they are two problems that often happen
together.
Steve: I think that research and writing
is
problematic overall, I guess. It
is
full
of
problems, and part
of
the process
is
understanding
or
over-
coming those problems
or
making those problems work for you.
Even in the short time since I wrote my contribution at the start
of
this chapter, I have been thinking about how students see that
,

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
75
split between researching and writing. And I think what they
actually do
is
more complicated than research first, writing later.
In fact, the work that Barbara did in the 1990s shortly after the
article that I quoted pointed to undergraduates having more com-
plicated and recursive methods than perhaps I gave
them
credit
for.11
I should also say that I don't think it
is
crazy for
them
to want to
do the research first, because they are so often working from a
state
of
near-total ignorance.
Iris:
Yes,
that
is
true.
Steve: Before they can even articulate a question, they have a lot
of
read-
ing to do. I think part
of
it might
be
a vocabulary problem,
as
in,
they refer to all this initial reading
as
"research:'
And
then
if
they
have time,
or
are diligent enough, they actually do continue to
read even
as
they write and revise. But they don't necessarily think
of
that
as
"research," they think
of
it
as
"writing:'
Iris: Ahh, that makes a lot
of
sense to me because it
is
research,
but
not
done for the same purpose.
On
top
of
all
of
this, undergraduates are making a difficult transi-
tion, I think, from school to higher
education-from
learning
about things to learning to actually produce new knowledge based
on
all that background they finally know. I think they are often
not
yet used to their goal being to create knowledge.
Steve:
Yes,
and I sometimes see terrible confusion about the role
of
"opinion" in student writing. Some students have been told that
papers shouldn't
be
their opinion, so they are very careful to
say nothing controversial
or
original.
Or
interesting. Then their
college professor
says,
"I need you to write more about what you
think
of
the subject;' and they feel stuck between two poles.

.,
76
CHAPTER
4
Iris: Right. "Opinion"
is
kind oflike "research" in that we (and class-
room
faculty) use
them
to mean "independent thought" and "dis-
covery and synthesis" while students think they mean "feelings"
and "background:'
And
all
of
this gets compounded
by
misun-
derstandings about where knowledge-creation actually happens.
Students think "over there, with the experts" and we are trying to
tell them, "No, in
you-in
your head, where you synthesize all this
stuff from other people:'
Steve:
Yes,
and in fact, in one
of
these articles Barbara says that we
should teach constructivist knowledge creation
by
example-giv-
ing students a chance to see
how
we create knowledge in
our
own
heads.12
Is
that something that you
try
to
do
in the classroom?
Iris: I must, because that is
how
I think learning happens,
but
I wonder
what examples I actually set that help students learn to recognize
it for themselves.
What
do you do?
Steve: I have never, until this moment, sat down and thought, "how
do
I
teach constructivist knowledge creation
by
example?" But I think
that I do
by
exposing my ignorance to the classes I talk to. I try
and let
them
know when I don't know what I am talking about.
I don't use canned searches very often,
and
instead try
and
work
with what the students are actually interested in and what they .
have told
me
in that moment. For example, I will point out that I
am doing a really dumb search with just
one
keyword from
them
and I am expecting to get back lots
of
weird results.
And then I talk through
how
I look at the results and use
them
to
teach myself something about the topic
-what
kinds
of
journals
are publishing
on
the topic, what kinds
of
confusion
or
false hits I
can expect, and so on.
So
I am starting from a position
of
igno-
rance,
but
learning through the research process.

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
77
I think
that
might
be
what Barbara
is
talking about1
if
on
a
pretty
basic level. I am using the act
of
research to create a basic level
of
knowledge
as
I work. Then I also talk about why certain things
we find in
the
results might
be
interesting,
and
that
is very rarely
because "it will probably have facts I need:'
I notice
as
I tell you this, though,
that
I am still pretty well stuck
in
the
"finding things"
model
that you say we
need
to get beyond.
Iris: Well, I
think
we can never get rid
of
that
entirely. That would
be
throwing
out
babies with
bath
water. I think
that
there are
probably lots
of
places to work in examples
of
and
practice
with
knowledge creation, and certainly doing so while finding things is
important
too.
You have made
me
think
about
my
earlier statement
that
I
am
not
aware having
the
goal
of
teaching constructivist knowledge cre-
ation
by
example,
but
I am aware
that
I have shifted my concep-
tion
of
my
underlying goal from "help
them
find things" to "show
them
The Matrix:' So
when
I teach about attribution
and
bibliog-
raphies, for example, I teach
them
more about academic sociology
than
about citation styles.
I want
them
to
see each piece
of
information
not
as
a golden "nug-
get
of
truth"
13
but
as a node, almost. As a place that connects
to
a
whole
bunch
of
other
people
and
ideas and articulations.
I want
them
to take
the
red pill.
Steve: I
think
that
is
a very valuable approach.
In
some cases you will
be
reinforcing what
the
professors are already teaching
them
about
the
discipline,
but
in
many cases it seems like
the
professors are
fish and
the
academic discipline
is
the
water. You are throwing
the
students a snorkel.

78
CHAPTER
4
Iris:
And
fins! Because the student has to get up to speed pretty
quickly.
Steve: Right, yes. Swimming in the Matrix.
Iris:
You
can't have too many metaphors
Steve: Metaphors are the sand on the beach. Anyway ... I was thinking
of
the way you ended your piece. "It
is
not all about finding things.
It
is
about igniting students' imaginations ... " And while I do not
I
was
wondering about the student who just
is
not catching
fire.
The great Russian director Stanislavski wrote about
how
an actor
cannot expect to
be
"inspired" on command, that inspiration
comes rarely and technique has to carry the load a lot
of
the time.
So
can we teach students about doing research when they are
not
really inspired
or
on
fire,
when
they are merely
on
deadline?
Iris: Well, I do
not
think that
the
"here
is
how
you" approach to teach-
ing will help either the inspired or the uninspired.
Steve:
Yes,
very good point!
Iris:
If
we think
of
our
one session
as
one experience in a while long
set
of
experiences in which students develop good information lit-
erate habits
of
mind,
then
even
if
your one session does
not
make
a huge impression1 at least it
is
not
digging the student deeper into
misconceptions about the nature and purpose
of
research.
So
I try
not
to teach things very differently, though I certainly do have to
work harder to engage some classes, for sure. And some classes do
not
turn
out
well.
And just now,
as
we are talking, I realize that all
of
this
is
modeling
knowledge creation! I was doing it all along!

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
79
Steve: And simultaneously speaking prose!
Iris: Amazing!
Steve: I think I understand what you are saying, and I certainly do
not
think that the best way to reach bored uninspired students
is
to
be
boring and uninspired ourselves.
I think I am just hoping to abstract this a bit more,
so
that I can
tell students explicitly
or
implicitly, "here are 'techniques that will
help take you from choosing a subject through to a finished paper,
and they will help you regardless
of
how
excited and intellectually
engaged you
are:'
I think that
is
one appeal
of
teaching "finding stuff:' Finding stuff
will never let you down.
You
can assess finding stuff. Did they find
stuff? Excellent, assessment complete. It
is
a lot more difficult to
assess an imagination on
fire.
Iris:
Yes,
I
think
that
is true.
And
that
is
why
I have resisted many
of
the
more
simplistic assessment efforts floating around,
not
wanting
to
be
even
further
reduced
to
that
function just for
the
sake
of
numbers.
But
going
back
to
your
example from act-
ing, I
wonder
what
an acting coach would
be
able to teach us
about
reaching
the
uninspired. You talked
in
your
essay
about
moving from
being
a "specialist"
to
being
a "coach
or
even a
counselor." I
wonder
how
an acting coach
would
approach
the
problem.
Steve:
One
thing that actors have to do is
put
themselves in other
people's shoes and see things from that person
or
character's point
of
view. It is pointless for an actress to
say,
"well, I am just
not
that
ambitious"
if
she's playing Lady Macbeth.

80
CHAPTER
4
Iris: Several
of
Lady Macbeth's acquaintances would have LOVED
that
turn
of
affairs ...
Steve: "Whatever, damned spot"
is
not
very powerful.
Iris: Hah!
Steve:
So,
I think the acting coach would have
us
think about the people
in all stages
of
this research project.
Who
would care about this
topic? Once you have read what they
say,
why did they say that,
and what are they leaving out?
"What
is
my motivation?" is a
cli-
che,
but
it can
be
a great question to ask about academic sources
and their authors.
Iris: It is also a cliche to talk about
how
undergraduates are constantly
asked to pretend to
be
little academics in their coursework, so
maybe that can work in
our
favor, too.
Steve:
Yes,
I would say that I think it
is
fine to ask
them
to pretend to
be
junior professors. It
is
just a bad idea to think that they can do that
without any preparation. I think it might
be
fun to get more "let's
pretend"
into
our
teaching.
Iris:
Yes.
Maybe more powerful motivation to
try
for inspiration
as
goal might
be
that there
is
more than one kind
of
uninspired stu-
dent. A good chunk
of
them
might become more interested when
they see that there
is
more going
on
than panning for information
gold in an endless Google gold mine.
Steve:
Yes,
that
is
a good point.
One
of
my favorite academic authors
is
Gerald Graff.
He
writes about how
he
was never very engaged
by
literature until he found
out
after reading
Huckleberry
Finn
that it
was actually a controversial work and
not
just a kids' story. 14 Once
he
had to treat a work ofliterature
as
a problem to
be
solved or
as

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
81
a cause
of
an argument, he suddenly found it engaging and excit-
ing.
Of
course, he then went
on
to
be
a professor ofliterature,
so
we
might want to be
careful-we
don't want to warp all our students
to that extent.
Iris: Heh.
Yes,
be inspiring,
but
not
TOO
inspiring.
But yes, it seems like most people go through this kind
of
transi-
tion, where they realize that things are deeper and more compli-
cated than they may seem at first glance. I went through a similar
moment
of
inspiration when I figured out that librarians do more
than find stuff (like I wrote about in my essay here).
Steve: I certainly
think
that
a liberal arts education tends to reveal
the
world
as
more
complicated
than
it first appears, rather
than
providing simple answers.
Which
does
not
make it any less
frustrating for us
as
individuals
who
seem to
need
to continu-
ally re-learn
the
lessons
of
the
past. I wrote a
bit
in
my
essay
about
how
it
seems like teaching research
as
a
part
of
rhetoric
is something
of
an evergreen topic for instruction librarians.
Barbara wrote
the
article I referenced
in
1990, yet it still seems
like this idea that we
need
to teach "information literacy" less
in isolation
and
more
in
the
context
of
critical inquiry is still a
notion
that we are struggling
with
as
a profession.
Do
you
think
that is true?
Iris: I think it is true, and I was reminded
of
our
favorite mantra that
information literacy sessions are
not
inoculations -you cannot
go
to one and then know everything you need to know. So
on
the one hand, I am disheartened that we
as
a profession have
not
internalized this more situated, critical, and nuanced understand-
ing
of
our work,
but
on
the other hand, I think it
is
just
as
true for

82
CHAPTER
4
us
as
it is for our students that we need repeated interactions with
the concepts throughout our careers.
The director
of
our writing program at Carleton has written about
how ongoing faculty development on teaching writing
is
analo-
gous to the ideas
of
"Writing Across The Curriculum," where re-
peated exposure and practice
is
more important than one perfect
exposure.
15
So that is
my
attempt to
be
optimistic about all this. The less opti-.
mistic part
of
me
wonders
if
we will ever learn these lessons.
Steve: I suppose it is just parallel to what we have been talking about all
along. Teaching
is
also something that must
be
learned through
imaginative inquiry and constructivist knowledge creation and
all that. It
is
easy to fall back
on
old habits and assumptions about
what it means to teach and learn.
Iris:
Yes.
Steve: Even had I read Barbara's article back in 1990, I think I would still
be
puzzling
out
all the implications and ramifications
of
trying to
teach constructivist knowledge creation
by
example. That
is
kind
of
the point.
Iris:
Yes,
I agree, and I think I will be able to read it
5,
10,
15
years from
now
and
it will
be
useful then, too.
Meanwhile, I will take your idea
of
being a coach and meld it with
my idea
of
revealing the Matrix and see
how
that shifts my teach-
ing. I guess that makes
me
Morpheus!
Steve: Hm. I am
not
sure putting
them
to sleep is a good plan.

SWIMMING
IN
THE
MATRIX
83
Iris: Riiiiiight. Good
po
int.
Steve: But I will certainly use this metaphor
as
an excuse to incorporate
more leather and sunglasses into my teaching.
Iri
s:
You
know what they
say:
Pies
Or
It Didn't Happen.
Fi
n
is
NOTES
1.
John Bean,
Engaging
Ideas,
2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jessey-Bass, 2011), 26-2
7.
2.
Patch writing refers to the practice
of
gathering verbatim passages from various sources
and then piecing them together, much like a patchwork quilt, with connecting words and
sentences. The term
was
coined by Rebecca Moore Howard in Standing
in
the
Shadow
of
Giants:
Plagiarists,
Authors,
Collaborators
(Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishers, 1999 ).
3.
Iris Jastram, Danya Leebaw, and Heather Tompkins. "CSI(L) Carleton: Forensic Librar-
ians and Reflective Practices,"
In
the
Library
with
the
Lead
Pipe
(2011). http://www.inthe-
librarywiththeleadpipe.org/2011 / csil-carleton-forensic-librarians-and-reflective-practic-
es
/.
4.
Association
of
College and Research Libraries, ''ACRL Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education" (2000), http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/stan-
dards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm.
5.
Barbara Fister, "Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions
of
Research;'
Research
Strategies
11,
no.4
(1993): 214.
6.
Fister, "Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions;' 218.
7.
Association
of
College and Research Libraries, "Standards:'
8.
Fister, "Teaching Research
as
a Social Act:'
RQ
29 (1990): 506.
9.
Ibid.
10.
Barbara Fister, "Information Literacy in a World That
is
Too
Big
to
Know,"
Peer-to-Peer
Review-Library
Journal,
2012. http: / / lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/02/ opinion/informa-
tion-literacy-in-a-world-thats-too-big-to-know-peer-to-peer-review/.
11.
See Barbara Fister, "The Research Processes
of
Undergraduate Students,"
Journal
of
Aca-
demic
Librarianship,
18 no. 3 (1992).
12.
"We can encourage them by example to perceive research not
as
a mechanical gathering
process, not
as
a mastery
of
technical access tools,
but
as
a meaningful way
of
making new
knowledge." Fister, "Teaching Research;' 509.
13.
"Rather than describe the search process
as
a matter
of
finding
information-which
sounds
like panning for solid nuggets
of
truth-librarians
should describe it
as
a
way
of
tapping
into a scholarly communication network." Fister, "Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions,"
214.
14.
Gerald
Graff,
Beyond
the
Culture
Wars,
(New
York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), 67-
68.
15.
Carol Rutz and Jacqulyn Lauer-Glebov, ''Assessment and Innovation: One Darn Thing
Leads to Another;'
Assessing
Writing 1
O,
no. 2 ( 2005): 88.

84
CHAPTER
4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association
of
College and Research Libraries.
''.ACRL
Information Literacy Competency Stan-
dards for Higher Education;' 2000.
http:/
/www.ala.org/ ala/
mgrps/
divs/ acrl/ standards/
informationliteracycompetency.cfm.
Bean, John.
Engaging
Ideas.
2nd
ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.
Fister, Barbara. "Teaching Research
as
a Social Act: Collaborative Learning and the Library
."
RQ
29, (1990): 505-509.
---."The
Research Process
of
Undergraduate Students."
Journal
of
Academic
Librarianship
18,
no
.
3(1992)
:163-69.
---.
"Teaching the Rhetorical Dimensions
of
Research:'
Research
Strategies
11, no. 4 ( 1993):
211-219
.
---.
"Information Literacy
in
a World That is Too Big to Know:'
Peer-to-Peer
Review-Library
Journal,
2012. http
://
lj.libraryjournal.com
/2
012/02/opinion/information-literacy-in-
a-
world-thats-too-big-to-know-peer-to-peer-review
/.
Graff, Gerald.
Beyond
the
Culture
Wars.
New York : W.W.
Norton
& Company, 1992.
Howard, Rebecca Moore.
Standing
in
the
Shadow
of
Giants:
Plagiarists,
Authors,
Collaborators.
Stamford, CT: AblexPublishers,
1999.
Jastram, Iris, Danya Leebaw, and Heather Tompkins. "CSI(L) Carleton: Forensic Librarians
and
Reflective Practices."
111
the Library
with
tlie
Lead
Pipe,
2011. http: / / www.inthelibrarywith-
theleadpipe.org/
2011 / csil-carl eton-forensic-librarians-and-reflective-practices
/.
Rutz, Carol, and Jacqulyn Lauer-Glebov. ''.Assessment and Innovation:
One
Darn
Thing Leads to
Another:'
Assessing
Writing
IO,
no. 2 (2005):
80-99.