ArticlePDF Available

Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This exploratory study aims to improve librarian support for undergraduate users as they find, access, evaluate, and appropriately use primary source materials in their research. By approaching object-based information literacy instruction via the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Framework), this project will promote use of academic library special collections and archives in ways that reinforce the theoretical approach espoused by that document. Primary source evaluations collected before and after one semester of Framework-based instruction indicate that the concepts identified therein are relevant to and support learning with primary sources.
Content may be subject to copyright.
246 Reference & User Services Quarterly
FEATURE
Reference & User Services Quarterly,
vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 246–256
© 2019 American Library Association.
All rights reserved.
Permission granted to reproduce for
nonprofit, educational use.
This exploratory study aims to improve
librarian support for undergraduate users
as they find, access, evaluate, and appro-
priately use primary source materials
in their research. By approaching object-
based information literacy instruction via
the Association of College and Research
Libraries’ (ACRL) Framework for Infor-
mation Literacy for Higher Education
(Framework), this project will promote
use of academic library special collec-
tions and archives in ways that reinforce
the theoretical approach espoused by that
document. Primary source evaluations
collected before and after one semester
of Framework-based instruction indicate
that the concepts identified therein are
relevant to and support learning with pri-
mary sources.
Primary source research con-
tinues to gain recognition for
fostering deep learning and
student engagement. Faculty
across many disciplines as well as aca-
demic librarians increasingly incorpo-
rate primary sources into their instruc-
tion. Large-scale digitization projects,
such as the Library of Congress’s
American Memory, have empowered
instructors to connect learners directly
with digital surrogates of important
primary sources. Institutional archives
or special collections are no longer the
only means of interacting with pri-
mary sources. Nonetheless, physically
interacting with primary sources is an
active learning opportunity that many
undergraduate students have not yet
experienced and instructors in diverse
disciplines seek to facilitate.
Academic librarians often lack
the extensive backgrounds in inves-
tigating and analyzing primary source
materials that faculty in other disci-
plines enjoy. Disparate documents and
frameworks exist to support primary
source document research. For exam-
ple, the Library of Congress offers a
simple “Primary Source Analysis Tool”
intended for K-12 grade learners.1 Sim-
ilarly, the joint taskforce of ACRL’s
Rare Books and Manuscripts Section
(RBMS) and the Society of American
Archivists (SAA) recently finalized
their new standard, the Guidelines for
Primary Source Literacy, which brings
together four core ideas and five learn-
ing objectives, and the Reference and
User Services Association (RUSA) His-
tory Section offers “Information Lit-
eracy Guidelines and Competencies
for Undergraduate History Students.”2
However, generalist and subject librar-
ians have looked to the ACRL Frame-
work for Information Literacy for Higher
Education (Framework) and Informa-
tion Literacy Competency Standards for
Brigitte Billeaudeaux and
Rachel E. Scott
Brigitte Billeaudeaux (bbilledx@
memphis.edu) is Special Collections
Librarian/Archivist, University of
Memphis; Rachel E. Scott (rescott3@
memphis.edu) is Integrated Library
Systems Librarian and Interim
Coordinator of Cataloging, Collection
Management, and Library Information
Systems, University of Memphis.
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to
Support Undergraduate Primary
Source Research
volume 58, issue 4 | Summer 2019 247
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research
Higher Education (Standards) documents for guidance in
planning and assessing undergraduate information literacy
instruction.3 This exploratory study investigates whether
the Framework is inclusive and robust enough to support
primary source research.
The following describes an exploratory study conducted
by two academic librarians, representing both systems
and special collections departments, in an undergraduate
research methods course at the University of Memphis. The
curriculum of this credit-bearing course was structured
around the Framework and included instruction for each of
the six frames. At the beginning and end of the semester,
students participated in a voluntary primary source evalu-
ation. The results of the study are not generalizable due to
the small class size. Nonetheless, the qualitative data shows
enhanced student understandings of what primary sources
are and how they might be evaluated and used. Addition-
ally, rubric analysis of the pre- and postinstruction surveys
reveals trends that provide some insight into library instruc-
tion with primary sources.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several studies have highlighted the enhanced learning that
primary source research fosters. Archivist Doris Malkmus
conducted a survey of how academic historians incorporate
primary sources into their instruction and reported that
working with these materials has a profound impact on
student learning.4 In 2010, she followed up on that study
with an article for academic librarians focusing on the active
learning opportunities that these resources afford and dis-
cussed the implications for a variety of course settings.5
Morris, Mykytiuk, and Weiner shift the focus to students
and reiterate the importance of archival literacy for history
students; noting the lack of standard for archival research
competencies at that time, they investigate faculty expecta-
tions for archival research.6
Archivists Elizabeth Yakel and Deborah A. Torres were
among the first to discuss information literacy in relation
to primary source research. In 2003, they published “AI:
Archival Intelligence and User Expertise,” which identi-
fies “domain knowledge, artifactual literacy, and archival
intelligence” as the three factors underlying user experience
in archives.7 Yakel subsequently authored a brief article
acknowledging the increasingly diverse audience that digiti-
zation was creating and made an argument for “defining core
knowledge and skill sets that would comprise information
literacy for primary sources.”8 In 2008, Yakel, Aprille McKay,
Wendy Duff, Joan Cherry, and Helen Tibbo collaborated to
introduce Archival Metrics Toolkits, which was designed to
facilitate archivist assessment via user-based evaluation.9
They acknowledged that user-based evaluation in archival
settings lagged behind similar processes in libraries and
that archives and special collections are unique informa-
tion settings.
Archivist Peter Carini noted the educational role of archi-
vists through teaching primary sources in his 2009 article.10
He also advocated for an approach to instruction that
embraced information literacy and research methods instead
of traditional bibliographic instruction. In his 2016 article,
“Information Literacy for Archives and Special Collections:
Defining Outcomes,” he provides a list of standards created
and used at Dartmouth College based on the work of Yakel
and Torres.11 He acknowledges the filing of the Framework
and allows that both the Standards and Framework have
weaknesses but nonetheless offer direction to librarians.
Sarah Horowitz describes how she considered a variety of
standards and documents before creating one in-house for
a pre- and posttest, as well as adopting the Association of
American Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) rubric for
information literacy for a paper analysis.12
Archivist Magia Krause investigated the assessment
of learning in archival and special collection settings and
found that few institutions were actively engaged in assess-
ment.13 In 2010, she introduced the use of rubrics to assess
student learning in these settings. Her rubric included four
categories:
z
Observation: Were students able to describe the elements
of a document, photograph, and finding aid?
zInterpretation/Historical Context: Were students able to
find meaning in the sources and place them in a broader
historical context?
zEvaluation/Critical Thinking: Were students able to ask
questions of the sources regarding their validity, limita-
tions, and strengths?
zResearch Skills: Did students have a meaningful aware-
ness of archives, where to locate primary sources, and
how to read a basic finding aid?14
She noted that these categories would evolve and perhaps
become standardized as archivists shared their instructional
materials and assessment tools. Archivist and special collec-
tions librarians Bahde and Smedberg offer a literature review
and discussion of assessment techniques appropriate for
these settings, as well as an acknowledgement that instruc-
tion librarians have more experience conducting learning
assessments.15
Eleanor Mitchell, Peggy Seiden, and Suzy Taraba edited a
2012 monograph on using special collections or archives to
enrich undergraduate teaching.16 Most of the chapters were
written by archivists or special collections librarians, though
students, nonlibrarian faculty, and other librarians also con-
tributed. The chapters present case studies related to spe-
cific disciplines, collections, or programs offered to connect
undergraduate learners with an institution’s unique materials.
The book was published before the Framework was written;
accordingly, it cites the Standards and not the Framework as
the guiding document for assessment and planning purposes.
Despite the documented importance of these unique
collections and the opportunities they create to support
248 Reference & User Services Quarterly
FEATURE
learners, there is a lack of literature on how instruction
librarians should best integrate primary sources into their
instruction. Samuelson and Coker articulate the differences
between library instruction in special collections and general
library settings and discuss opportunities for collaboration
using special collections.
17
Merinda Kaye Hensley, Benjamin
P. Murphy, and Ellen D. Swain authored one of the few arti-
cles that explicitly connects instruction librarians and their
assessment tools to special collections archives. It was writ-
ten before the Framework and suggests that the Standards
are insufficient: “the perfunctory mention of primary sources
in the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for
Higher Education does not sufficiently address how they could
be used as a pedagogical tool for information literacy instruc-
tion in the archives or special collections environment.”18
In their chapter on archival literacy in Teaching with
Primary Sources, Elizabeth Yakel and Doris Malkmus dis-
cuss both the Standards and Framework as they relate to
primary sources. They acknowledge that although primary
sources are not explicitly discussed in the Framework, the
nature of the document, and its use of threshold concepts
in particular, may be useful in archival settings because it
promotes creative approaches to addressing the frames.19
In a chapter in a monograph written for librarians and not
archivists, archivist Ellen Swain describes the collaboration
of the Student Life and Culture (SLC) Archives and the rheto
-
ric program at University of Illinois. She suggests that both
the Standards and Framework “do not address this type of
learning in a meaningful way” and advises readers to instead
consult literature written by archivists.20 Although the lit-
erature by and for archivists is incredibly rich on the subject
of primary source instruction, this article contends that the
recently submitted Framework—written by and for academic
librarians—is indeed useful for planning and assessing pri-
mary source–focused information literacy instruction.
In order to successfully leverage the Framework in the
classroom setting, librarians must invest in their instruc-
tional design, delivery, and assessment. The need for a teach-
ing practice that is thoughtful, dynamic, and evidence-based
is documented in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) literature. SoTL invites scholars to show the same
curiosity and care for their teaching as their research. In a
foreword to the book Into the Classroom: Developing the Schol-
arship of Teaching and Learning, SoTL scholar Lee. S. Shulman
provides a definitional quote: SoTL “invites faculty at all
these levels to view teaching as serious, intellectual work, ask
good questions about their students’ learning, seek evidence
in their classrooms that can be used to improve practice, and
make this work public so that others can critique it, build
on it, and contribute to the wider teaching commons.”21 As
Shulman confirms, SoTL relies on teachers documenting
and sharing their classroom practices so that their peers
can interact with and improve the curriculum, methods,
and results. It is in this spirit that the article at hand offers a
small-scale application of the Framework to conduct primary
source research.
METHODS
The authors conducted the study in their Fall 2017 section
of Honors Forum (UNHP1100). UNHP 1100 is a required
course for incoming honors students at the University of
Memphis and is typically comprised of first-semester fresh-
men. It is a one-credit hour course that meets for fifty-five
minutes once a week throughout the semester. Section
enrollment is limited to fifteen students; the instructors of
the course, who may be academic faculty or appropriately
credentialed staff, are selected by the dean of the Honors
College based on their proposed course design and cur-
riculum. The authors named their course “Know Your
University: Research Skills and Processes in Action” and
required students to work with physical primary sources
in the University Libraries Special Collections on several
occasions.
Drawing on SoTL’s terminology, the instructors asked
“What Works?” as they began to consider how best to teach
undergraduate students about primary source research. A
“What Works?” project begins by “seeking evidence about
the relative effectiveness of different approaches.”22 In this
case, the instructors wanted to generate evidence about the
utility of the Framework in teaching primary source analy-
sis. The instructors based all instruction and assessments on
the six frames presented in the Framework. Instructors took
turns preparing weekly curriculum but frequently consulted
each other throughout that process and copresented during
class time; the approach was highly collaborative and sup-
portive. The special collections librarian typically opened
class with a discussion of a physical primary source from the
special collections to pique student interest in the collection,
to reinforce the evaluative methods taught throughout the
semester, and to highlight the specific frame that would be
addressed in that class session.
Students completed a voluntary and ungraded primary
source evaluation assessment at the beginning and end of
the semester. The special collections librarian selected a
manuscript collection with a variety of similar artifacts, pri-
marily letters, and distributed these to students. The assess-
ment instruments, which may be viewed in their entirety in
appendixes A and B, included questions related to five of the
six frames. Because the primary sources were selected and
distributed by the instructors and not found or accessed by
the students, the frame Searching as Strategic Exploration
was omitted from the survey instrument. Preclass surveys
also included demographic questions, which provided use-
ful information to the authors as instructors. The authors’
local institutional review board (IRB) approved this study as
exempt and all student data was anonymized.
The authors devised a rubric to more systematically
approach and analyze changes in student methods for evalu-
ating, explaining, and making use of primary sources. The
rubric employed is available in appendix C. Because there
were so few students in the section, the authors worked
together to analyze and compare student responses. Doing
volume 58, issue 4 | Summer 2019 249
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research
so obviates concerns regarding inter-rater reliability. Results
of the scored pre- and posttests are in appendix D.
RESULTS
Fifteen out of fifteen enrolled students submitted pretests,
but one of those students dropped the course after the first
class and another was absent when the posttest was admin-
istered. The pretest survey opened with some demographic
questions about the students intended college/school and
familiarity with primary sources. Of the fifteen students, all
indicated that they had never visited an archive or library
special collections. Thirteen indicated that they were familiar
with primary sources, but one student qualified the response
with “somewhat” and another added, “I’d say I used them
without knowledge of the term.” Nine students indicated
that they have used a primary resource in a presentation or
paper, five had not, and one did not answer this question.
Students self-identified as representing seven of the colleges
or schools, with only one student indicating instead that
they were undecided: one student each selected Nursing,
University College, and Arts and Sciences; two students each
selected Communication and Fine Arts, and Health Studies;
three students selected Business and Economics; and four
students selected Engineering.
In both the pre- and posttests, students were assigned
a primary source, asked to define “primary resource,” and
answer several open-ended questions. Student results, as
scored by the rubric, were tallied to measure the overall gains
or losses for each of the frame-based questions, as well as
for individual student progress. Rubric results, available in
appendix D, indicate that all individual students experienced
an increase in their primary source evaluation score from
the beginning to the end of the semester, with scores rang-
ing from plus three to plus nine. Although some individual
students and frame-based questions experienced isolated
negative changes from pre- to posttest, overall scores were
entirely and largely positive (see figure 1). Likewise, all of
the frame-based questions received higher scores at the end
of the semester, with gains ranging from plus three to plus
fifteen (see figure 2).
Five frames and one definition were evaluated in the
pre- and posttest. The sixth frame, Searching as Strategic
Exploration, was omitted from the pre- and posttest evalua-
tion because the primary sources provided to students were
curated by the special collections librarian. The Information
has Value frame was evaluated in two ways: through student
citations of an assigned primary source and through student
answers to an open-ended question about how and when to
use a primary source for research. This provided the authors
with seven total indicators that could be measured against
the rubric.
With the exception of the frame Research as Inquiry,
each of the frames saw moderate to significant gains that
would indicate that Framework-based instruction may be
Figure 1. Relative Changes for Each Frame from Pre- to Posttest. Notes: Student 1 did not answer questions 5-7. Students 2 and 6 are
not included in this table because they did not take the post-test.
-1
0
1
2
1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Increase or decrease by rubric criteria (ACRL Information Literacy Frame)
Student
Pre-Post Test Changes
Def initio n of prima ry sou rce Recognizes difference in information formats (Information creation as process)
Articulates context of primary sources (Scholarhip as conversation) Evalu ate s author ity of author ( Authority is constru cted and con textual)
Cites sources appropriately (Information has value) Appreciates value of primary sources (Information has value)
Develops inquiry-driven research strategy (Research as inquiry)
250 Reference & User Services Quarterly
FEATURE
useful for teaching undergraduate students about evaluat-
ing, understanding, and using primary sources. Those indi-
cators receiving between eight to ten points are designated
as having moderate growth. Defining primary sources and
questions for the frames Scholarship as a Conversation and
Authority is Constructed and Contextual all saw moder-
ate growth. Those frames with scores of eleven or higher
are considered as having significant growth. The question
for Information Creation as a Process and both questions
associated with Information Has Value showed significant
growth and are considered most successful in leveraging
Framework-based instruction as a tool to teach undergradu-
ates about primary sources.
DISCUSSION
Each class session made use of ACRL’s Framework to expli-
cate some aspect of primary source or archival literacy. Stu-
dents gained hands-on experience with primary sources
through workshops and individual research appointments
held in special collections. The special collections librarian
continued this learning by presenting and leading a discus-
sion of a primary source before most classroom sessions.
Reflection essays challenged students to think through
conceptual frames by responding to class discussions and a
few open-ended questions in their own words. Diverse class-
room activities, such as creating metadata for social media
posts and evaluating the networks formed by the sources
in a publication, enabled instructors to model some of the
knowledge practices in which they engage as researchers and
learners. In the following paragraphs, the rubric results for
each frame will be contextualized with information about
how that frame was discussed in the classroom throughout
the semester. Table 1 presents a week-by-week outline of
planned instruction. The final three weeks were dedicated
to student presentations.
The highest gain was associated with the first Infor-
mation has Value question. The pre- and posttests asked
students to provide a comprehensive citation for the object
that they were evaluating. The second Information has
Value question asked students to consider how and when
they might use a primary source for their own research.
The authors requested citations “as if you were using it in a
presentation or paper” to provide a useful point of reference
for students, who in the authors’ experience often lack con-
fidence citing archival and primary sources. Students were
encouraged to note all of the information that is available
about the source, as well as where it came from, includ-
ing collection number, information on the item’s housing,
25
19
16
23
26
23
22
28
30
31
30
30
32
31
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deve lops inquiry-d riven research strategy (Resea rch a s inquiry)
Appreciates value of primary sources (Information has value)
Cites sources appropriately (Information has value)
Eval uate s auth orit y of author (Auth ority is constructed and contextua l)
Articulates context of primary sources (Scholarhip as conversation)
Recognizes difference in information formats (Information creation as
pro c es s)
Definition of primary source
Aggregate Pre and Pos t-Test S cores
Post-Test (without student 1) Pre-Test (w ithout student 1)
Figure 2. UNHP 1100 Class Outline
volume 58, issue 4 | Summer 2019 251
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research
name of the holding institution, the creator of the item,
and a title of the item. Instruction for this frame began in
the second class period, in which students visited special
collections, filled out a researcher registration form, and
learned the standardized language for crediting University
of Memphis Special Collections. In the class period dedi-
cated to this frame, the authors invited a copyright expert
to give students an overview of copyright and copyleft and
discuss how both work within digital collections. His lec-
ture reinforced the importance of providing correct infor-
mation about the primary source’s provenance through
bibliographic citation. The students reflected on this frame
as they cited primary and secondary sources and all visual
materials used in annotated bibliographies, essays, and
final projects.
Information Creation as a Process also saw significant
growth from pre- to posttests. Classroom activities and
discussions introduced students to the digital lifecycle and
to some of the challenges of digital preservation. Students
reflected on the digital lifecycle by creating a personal digital
social media history and practiced creating metadata records
that captured social media activity on their preferred plat-
form. Doing so not only helped them appreciate some of the
many steps, decisions, and processes entailed in creating,
describing, and organizing information, but also appreciate
the iterative nature of this work. It also helped them to reflect
on the format of the information and the importance of for-
mat for content, quality, and stability, which was inquired
after in pre- and posttests.
Changes from pre- to posttests indicate moderate growth
for the frame Authority is Constructed and Contextual.
Instruction for this frame gave students a foundation for
what authority is and what it means for authority to be
constructed within a given community and contextualized
based on the community’s information needs. A historian of
African-American women was invited to share with the class
the processes by which she has investigated the authority of
primary sources in her own work. Based on class discussions
and qualitative analysis of student responses, it is highly
likely that students have had prior experience with the con-
cept of authority prior to this course. Indeed, at University
of Memphis, consideration of authority and bias is taught
in a lower-level English composition course taken by many
honors students as dual-enrollment high school students.
Six respondents noted authority or bias in their pretests,
and nine respondents noted authority and bias in the post-
test. Two different respondents referred to authority and
bias without using the words authority or bias. The pre- and
posttest results indicate that the students were attempting
to integrate these themes into their answers, though some
students did so with less success.
Another frame that saw moderate growth was Scholar-
ship as Conversation. Instruction focused on the idea that
scholarship is an ongoing conversation within a discipline
and is usually exclusive to vetted participants within a speci-
fied academic community. This helped develop a dialogue
surrounding inclusivity regarding who participates in these
communities and the implications of what including more
and varied voices can have within a community. Students
reflected on this frame by writing an essay in which they
evaluated how they “conversed” with the sources cited in
one of their previous research papers. The pre- and posttest
assessment for this frame asked students when and why an
item was created. Throughout the semester, students were
Table 1. UNHP 1100 Class Outline
Week Description
1. Class Introduction Syllabus distributed and discussed, pretest described and voluntarily completed
2. Introduction to Special Collections Discussion of content and services available to researchers in Special Collections
3. Searching as Strategic Exploration Discussion of challenges to finding primary source surrogates online; essay comparing
finding primary source surrogates on various platforms assigned
4. Information Creation as a Process Discussion of the process of digitizing and describing digital sources; social media
metadata worksheet assigned
5. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual Guest lecture: Historian of African-American Women’s history discussed her work with
primary source analysis, with emphasis on understanding authority; students responded
to specific questions about an assigned primary source
6. Primary Source Workshop Visit Special Collections, analyze physical primary sources in groups; assigned primary
source analysis of Special Collections’ digitized content
7. Research as Inquiry Discussion about the questions primary sources prompt and how to answer them;
assignment required students to identify research questions and strategy for final
8. Scholarship As Conversation Discussion of an article that incorporated diverse sources with a focus on the variety
of purposes citations serve; essay analysis of students’ own interaction with published
sources in their own prior work
9. Information Has Value Guest lecture: Copyright expert discussed protections for digital surrogates and
copyright alternatives in digital settings
252 Reference & User Services Quarterly
FEATURE
encouraged to think of information not as isolated but rather
in the broader context of a conversation. One of the ways
the authors modeled this was by thinking out loud about the
impetus for the given letter, broadcast transcript, poster, or
other primary source we evaluated as a group in the begin-
ning of the class session.
The least amount of growth was tied to the question for
Research as Inquiry. The posttest data reflects that some
frames saw negative growth between the pre- and the post-
test. Negative growth was scattered throughout all of the
frames except for the frame Information has Value. The
low score for Research as Inquiry is worth mentioning. The
assessment for this frame asked students to formulate ques-
tions using primary sources and consider how they might
answer those questions. Students ref lected on this frame
by submitting final project proposals that required them to
select and cite a primary source in special collections, iden-
tify a few questions that the item prompted, and then identify
secondary sources that would help them answer the research
questions they posed. Inquiry is driven by individual curi-
osity, and the authors struggled to devise an appropriate
measure to assess this frame in this particular context. The
importance of this frame was discussed throughout the
semester, and the markedly lower score for this particular
frame suggests that it was improperly measured.
In their classroom instruction for Searching as a Strategic
Exploration, the authors introduced students to a variety of
information platforms and asked them to consider why all
information is not equally accessible. This led to a discussion
about the variety of information formats, digital organization
methods, and information description available online. The
students completed a reflection essay which asked them to
select a topic related to the history of the University of Mem-
phis and then search and compare results from Google, the
library’s website, and the Internet Archive, on which the uni-
versity has digital surrogates of primary sources. This was
the only frame that was not assessed in the study.
The authors made several observations as they jointly
analyzed the pre- and posttests. For example, some answers
fell somewhere between the rubric options of “emerging,”
“developing,” or “integrating.” The score was typically
rounded down, but the authors rounded up if the answer to
the question ref lected deeper meaning and understanding.
The authors considered that adding a variable, potentially
a zero or lowest value, would allow more granularity in the
evaluation instrument. The authors also came to see that
their personal understandings and articulations of primary
source research differed slightly from and among some stu-
dents’ equally valid articulations. This recognition ties into
an important premise of SoTL, namely teachers must be
more than domain experts. Instead, “they need to know the
ways it [their subject] can come to be understood, the ways
it can be misunderstood, what counts as understanding:
they need to know how individuals experience the subject.”
23 The authors found the Framework to be an appropriately
flexible structure to support curricular learning while still
allowing individual students to experience concepts and
processes differently.
CONCLUSION
This exploratory study investigated whether ACRL’s Frame-
work can be used successfully to support undergraduate
primary source research. The Framework enables academic
librarians of any specialty to theorize information literacy,
but the authors propose that it can also be applied practically
in undergraduate settings to teach students to find, under-
stand, and critically evaluate primary sources. Librarians
may choose from diverse guidelines and frameworks when
teaching various components of primary source research;
organizations from the Library of Congress and Society of
American Archivists to the Modern Languages Association
all provide useful information to librarians assisting under-
graduate users with primary source research.
Preliminary findings suggest Framework-based instruc-
tion can indeed promote learning with primary sources in
undergraduate settings. Analysis of qualitative data reveals
moderate growth from the pre- and posttest; five out of
seven data points fell into this range. Only one of seven data
points did not measure moderate or significant growth. The
remaining data point fell into the significant growth cat-
egory. Although the findings cannot be generalized due to
the small class size, SoTL encourages teachers to cultivate
their teaching by opening up their practice to the scrutiny
and input of their peers. The authors found that Framework-
based instruction is a useful pedagogical intervention for this
particular class. Instructors and librarians are most familiar
with their own institutional contexts and may find that they
need other or additional support to teach undergraduate stu-
dents how best to find, understand, and make use of primary
sources in their research.
As faculty and librarians continue to promote undergrad-
uate engagement with primary sources, academic librarians
must continue to develop appropriate methods to facilitate
this work. As the literature review indicates, there are a
wide variety of theoretical frameworks and standards docu-
ments from which a librarian may choose when designing or
assessing primary source instruction. The Framework is one
of many options, and although it does not speak specifically
and solely to the evaluation or use of primary sources, nei-
ther does it exclude them. Undergraduate research projects
challenge students to evaluate and understand information
in a variety formats and generated by diverse processes; the
authors can recommend the Framework as providing suf-
ficient support to assist these learners as they grapple with
complex notions of authorship, authority, format, prov-
enance, and attribution. Academic librarians interested in
a theoretical approach to information literacy should feel
confident in considering how the Framework can be applied
outside of the one-shot or credit-bearing course and with a
variety of formats, including primary sources.
volume 58, issue 4 | Summer 2019 253
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research
References
1. “Primar y Source Analysis Tool,” Library of Congress, accessed
December 11, 2018, http://ww w.loc.gov/teachers/primary
-source-analysis-tool/.
2. ACRL RBMS-SAA Joint Task Force, “Guidelines for Primary
Source Literacy,” Society of American Archivists, July 9, 2018,
https://www2.archivists.org/news/2018/acrlrbms-saa-release
-guidelines-for-primar y-source-literacy; Reference and User Ser-
vices A ssociation, History Section, Instruction and Research
Serv ices Committee, “Information Literacy Guidelines and
Competencies for Undergraduate History Students,” approved
by the RUSA Board of Directors, May 28, 2013, http://www.ala
.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/infoliteracy.
3. Association of College and Research Libraries, Framework
for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Chicago: Ameri-
can Library Association, adopted January 16, 2016), http://
www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework; Association of Col-
lege and Research Librar ies, Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education (Chicago: American Library
Association, approved January 18, 2000), https://alair.ala.org
/handle/11213/7668.
4. Doris Malkmus, “Teaching History to Undergraduates w ith Pri-
mary Sources: Survey of Current Practices,” Archival Issues 31,
no. 2 (2007): 41–80.
5. Doris Malkmus, “‘Old Stuff’ for New Teaching Methods: Out-
reach to History Faculty Teaching with Primar y Sources,” portal:
Libraries and the Academy 10, no. 4 (2010): 413–435, https://doi
.org/10.1353/pla.2010.0008.
6. Sammie Morris, Lawrence Mykytiuk, and Sharon Weiner,
“Archival Literacy for History Students: Identifying Fac-
ulty Expectations of Archival Research Skills,” The American
Archivist 77, no. 2 (2014): 394–424, https://doi.org/10.17723
/aarc.77.2.j270637g8q11p460.
7. Elizabeth Yakel and Deborah Torres, “AI: Archival Intelligence
and User Expertise,” The American Archivist 66, no. 1 (2003): 53.
8. Elizabeth Yakel, “Information Literacy for Primary Sources:
Creating a New Paradigm for Archival Researcher Education,”
OCLC Systems & Services: Inter national Digital Library Perspectives
20, no. 2 (2004): 63.
9. Elizabeth Yakel, Aprille McKay, Wendy Duff, Joan Cherry, and
Helen Tibbo, “The Archival Metrics Toolkit: Development and
Implementation,” Proceedings of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 45, no. 1 (2008): 1–2.
10. Peter Carini, “Archivists as Educators: Integrating Primary
Sources i nto the Cur riculum,” Journa l of Archival Organization 7, no.
1 (2009): 41–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332740902892619.
11. Peter Carini, “Information Literacy for Archives and Spe-
cial Collections: Defining Outcomes,” portal: Libraries and the
Academy 16, no. 1 (2016): 191–206, https://doi.org/10.1353/
pla.2016.0006.
12. Sarah M. Horowitz, “Hands-On Learning in Special Collections:
A Pilot Assessment Project,” Journal of Archival Organization 12,
no. 3-4 (2014): 216–229, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.201
5.1118948.
13. Magia G. Krause, “Learning in the Archives: A Report on
Instructional Practices,” Journal of Archival Organization 6, no. 4
(2008): 233–268, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332740802533263.
14. Magia Krause, “Undergraduates in the Archives: Using an
Assessment Rubric to Measure L earning,” The American Archi-
vist 73, no. 2 (2010): 515, http://americanarchivist.org/doi/pdf
/10.17723/aarc.73.2.72176h742v20l115?code=same-site.
15. Anne Bahde and Heather Smedberg, “Measuring the Magic:
Assessment in the Special Collections and Archives Classroom,”
RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage
13, no. 2 (2012): 153, http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern
/defaults/wh246t08w.
16. Eleanor Mitchell, Pegg y Seiden, and Suzy Taraba, Past or Portal?:
Enhancing Undergraduate Learning Through Special Collections and
Archives (Chicago: Association of College and Research Librar-
ie s, 201 2).
17. Todd Samuelson and Cait Coker, “Mind the Gap: Integrating
Special Collections Teaching,” portal: Libraries and the Academy
14, no. 1 (2014): 51–66, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0041.
18. Merinda Kaye Hensley, Benjamin P. Murphy, and Ellen D. Swain,
“Analyzing Archival Intelligence: A Collaboration between
Librar y Instruction and Archives,” Communications in Information
Literacy 8, no. 1 (2014): 99, https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfo
lit.2014.8.1.155.
19. Elizabeth Yakel and Doris Malkmus, “Contextualizing Archival
Literacy” in Teaching with Primary Sources, ed. Christopher J.
Prom and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe (Chicago: Society of American
Archivists, 2016), 8– 67.
20. Ellen D. Swain, “Best Practices for Teaching w ith Primary
Sources,” in The New Information Literacy Instruction: Best Prac-
tices, ed. Patrick Ragains and Sandra Wood (Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield, 2015), 189–204.
21. Lee. S. Shulman, “Foreword,” Into the Classroom: Developing the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, by Thomas Hatch (San Fran-
cisco: Jossey Bass, 2006), ix.
22. Pat Hutchings, “Approaching the Scholarship of Teaching and
Lear ning,” introduction to Opening Lines: Approaches to the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie
Publications, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 2000), 1.
23. Diana Laurillard, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for
the Effective Use of Educational Technology (London: Routledge,
1993), 6.
254 Reference & User Services Quarterly
FEATURE
APPENDIX A. PRETEST / PRESEMESTER QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Have you ever visited an archive or special collections
library? Y___ N___
2. Are you familiar with primary resources?
Y___ N___
3. In your own words, define what a primary resource is
(Please indicate if you are unable to provide a definition.):
4. Have you ever used a primary resource in a presenta-
tion or a paper? (This can be a digital resource or a physical
resource) Y___ N___
5. Please mark the college/school from which you hope to
earn a degree:
___ College of Arts and Sciences
___ College of Communication and Fine Arts
___ College of Education
___ Fogelman College of Business and Economics
___ Herff College of Engineering
___ Kemmons Wilson School of Hospitality and Resort
Management
___ Loewenberg College of Nursing
___ School of Communication Sciences and Disorders
___ School of Health Studies
___ School of Public Health
___ University College
Please respond to the assigned primary source by answering
the following six questions:
a. What kind of item (newspaper article, diary, yearbook
entry, advertisement, etc.) is this? Can you name the col-
lection that the object came from? How does the format
type influence how you can use it?
b. When and why was this item created? Please explain
how you came to both conclusions.
c. Who is responsible for this? Provide a few reasons that
the author is an authoritative source.
d. Provide a citation for this primary source as if you were
using it in a presentation or paper.
e. Would you cite this (or other primary sources) in your
research? Please provide a few reasons you would or
would not.
f. After examining the object, what questions can you
identify? Please explain or map how you might research
one question.
APPENDIX B. POST-TEST
1.
On a scale from 1 to 5, please rate your satisfaction with
your visits to the Special Collections Department at the
McWherter Library.
Not satisfied Extremely satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
2. Based on what you learned during your orientation to
the Special Collections Department at the McWherter
Library, how confident are you that you can locate and
use a primary resource for research?
Not confident Extremely confident
1 2 3 4 5
Please elaborate on your degree of confidence below.
3. In your own words, define what a primary resource is
(Please indicate if you are unable to provide a definition.)
4. What did you find most useful about your orientation
to the Special Collections Department at the McWherter
Library? Please select one option:
___ Learning about special collection’s holdings/collec-
tions
___ Viewing and/or handling items from archival col-
lections
__ _ Learning about special collection’s policies; i.e., how
to request or duplicate items
__ _ Instruction on how to use special collection’s access
tools
___ Other:
Please respond to the assigned primary source by answering
the following six questions.
a. What kind of item (newspaper article, diary, yearbook
entry, advertisement, etc.) is this? Can you name the col-
lection that the object came from? How does the format
type influence how you can use it?
b. When and why was this item created? Please explain
how you came to both conclusions.
c. Who is responsible for this? Provide a few reasons that
the author is an authoritative source.
d. Provide a citation for this primary source as if you were
using it in a presentation or paper.
e. Would you cite this (or other primary sources) in your
research? Please provide a few reasons you would or
would not.
f. After examining the object, what questions can you
identify? Please explain or map how you might research
one question.
volume 58, issue 4 | Summer 2019 255
Leveraging Existing Frameworks to Support Undergraduate Primary Source Research
APPENDIX C. RUBRIC
Code Criteria & Related Frames Emerging - 1 Developing - 2 Integrating - 3
Def Primary Source Definition Struggles to explain or define
primary resources.
Provides a basic definition. Articulates a definition
which demonstrates deep
understanding.
A Recognize differences in
information formats and
their utility.
Information Creation as a
Process
Struggles to correctly identify
format and cannot identify
format implications.
Identifies item format but
does not communicate
implications of the format.
Identifies item format and
communicates implications
of the format.
B Understands and articulates
the context of the primary
source.
Scholarship as Conversation
Does not provide
explanations for when/why
the item was created.
Attempts to explain when/
why an item was created.
Articulates the proposed
origination by pointing to
textual evidence.
C Evaluates the authority of the
author and/or source.
Authority Is Constructed and
Contextual
Struggles to identify specific
information about the author
or source.
Identifies information about
the author or source but does
not explore the implications
of authority.
Engages with the concept of
authority.
D Uses and cites the resource
appropriately.
Information Has Value
Omits citation elements and
makes several citation errors.
Includes most citation
elements and makes citation
errors.
Includes all citation elements
and makes few citation
errors.
E Appreciates the value and
importance of the primary
sources.
Information Has Value
Little or no understanding of
how or why primary sources
should be used.
Articulates basic appreciation
of how primary sources can
be used.
Clearly articulates how and
why primary sources enrich
research.
F Develops inquiry-driven
research strategy
Research as Inquiry
Struggles to identify valid
questions. Unable to explain
research strategy.
Identifies potential research
questions but does not
attempt to explain strategy.
Successfully identifies one or
more questions and attempts
to explain or map strategy.
APPENDIX D. RUBRIC RESULTS (N = 13)
Student
Denition
Pre/Post/
Change
A. Pre/Post/
Change
B. Pre/Post/
Change
C. Pre/Post/
Change
D. Pre/Post/
Change
E. Pre/Post/
Change
F. Pre/Post/
Change
Student
Scores
1 2/2/0 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 3/na/na 1/na/na 3/na/na Plus 4
3 1/3/+2 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 Plus 9
4 1/3/+2 2/1/-1 3/2/-1 1/3/+2 1/3/+2 1/2/+1 3/2/-1 Plus 4
5 3/3/0 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 3/3/0 1/3/+2 1/3/+2 2/2/0 Plus 7
7 2/3/+1 3/3/0 2/3/+1 3/2/-1 2/3/+1 2/2/0 2/3/+1 Plus 3
8 2/2/0 3/3/0 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 Plus 6
9 2/2/0 2/3/+1 2/1/-1 2/2/0 1/1/0 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 Plus 3
10 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 2/2/0 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 2/2/0 Plus 5
11 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 2/3/+1 2/2/0 3/2/-1 3/3/0 Plus 4
12 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 2/2/0 1/1/0 1/3/+2 1/3/+2 3/2/-1 Plus 5
13 3/2/-1 2/3/+1 1/3/+2 2/2/0 1/2/+1 1/2/+1 1/1/0 Plus 4
14 2/2/0 1/2/+1 2/3/+1 1/3/+2 1/3/+2 2/3/+1 1/2/+1 Plus 8
15 1/2/+1 3/3/0 2/3/+1 2/3/+1 1/3/+2 3/2/-1 2/2/0 Plus 4
Totals/
change
24/33/
+9
24/35/
+11
28/33/
+9
25/33/
+8
19/31/
+15*
20/30/
+11*
28/28/
+3*
*Student 1 did not complete final three questions of the post-test.
Article
Full-text available
O presente artigo tem como objetivo mapear a produção acadêmico-científica em torno da Archival Literacy em âmbito internacional, visando apresentar elementos que contribuam para a compreensão do estado da arte desta temática. Para o alcance desse objetivo recorreu-se a Revisão Bibliográfica Sistemática como metodologia de pesquisa, este método, reconhecido por ser metódico, transparente e reaplicável, permite com que o pesquisador trabalhe um elevado número de dados e assim expor o estado da arte da temática em debate, devido seus procedimentos rígidos e sistemáticos divididos em três fases: Entrada, Processamento e Saída. Na primeira fase, elaborou-se o protocolo de pesquisa que orientou o processo de coleta de dados, realizado a partir de “buscas simples” sem a aplicação de qualquer tipo de filtros, visando recuperar o maior número possível de resultados, no Portal de periódicos da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior e na Library & Information Science Abstracts. Para a segunda fase, com a somatória dos dois resultados obteve-se 91 trabalhos, entre artigos e teses, para a análise aplicou-se os seguintes critérios de inclusão e exclusão: (1) acesso, (2) repetição e (3) aderência ao tema resultando um total de 9 trabalhos. Dessa forma, à partir da análise dos dados na terceira fase, observando um campo fértil, entretanto, com baixa incidência de pesquisas acadêmico-científicas voltadas à compreensão da relação existente entre a tríade Competência em Informação - Archival Literacy - Arquivologia.
Article
Full-text available
Although recent archival scholarship promotes the use of primary sources for developing students' analytical research skills, few studies focus on standards or protocols for teaching or assessing archival instruction. Librarians have designed and tested standards and learning assessment strategies for library instruction and archivists would do well to collaborate with and learn from their experience. This study examines lessons learned from one such collaboration between an instructional services librarian and archivist to evaluate and enhance archival instruction in the University Archives' Student Life and Culture Archival Program (SLC Archives) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library. Based on evaluative data from a student survey and in-depth interviews, the authors offer strategies for meeting and exceeding learning outcomes for archival intelligence more successfully.
Article
Full-text available
Those of us who teach in special collections and archives settings know that instruction using original materials can spark passion, transform understanding, and change students’ lives—but how can we show that those in-class experiences are meaningful in the right ways, to the right people? What are effective methods for measuring the success of our instructional work, and how do we translate the magic happening in our classrooms into a demonstration of learning impact that is useful to larger assessment endeavors? Although assessment was already a feature of the academic library environment before the “Great Recession,” the tough economic times . . .
Article
This study examined how hands-on work with original primary materials affects students' information literacy and critical thinking skills. The project team developed rubrics to evaluate document analyses from before and after student time in special collections. Most scores did not vary significantly between the pre- and posttests, although students' ability to analyze the materiality of documents did improve. They also examined papers from classes that had and had not used special collections against the Association of American Colleges and Universities' information literacy rubric and found no significant differences. The authors hope this project will serve as a pilot for future assessment of student learning in special collections.
Article
abstract: This article provides the framework for a set of standards and outcomes that would constitute information literacy with primary sources. Based on a working model used at Dartmouth College’s Rauner Special Collections Library in Hanover, New Hampshire, these concepts create a framework for teaching with primary source materials intended to produce expert users at the undergraduate level. At the same time, these concepts establish a structure for archivists and librarians to use in assessing their work with faculty and students.
Article
Prior to joining the Centre for Education, the full extent of my knowledge of hospitals came from the television series Scrubs. As I began my work, there were so many aspects of radiology education that I had never heard of before: objective structured clinical examination, CanMEDS, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). I initially found it to be overwhelming, but I developed some useful tools: first I developed an acronym dictionary to help me with the acronyms involved in my day-to-day work; I designed a comparative curriculum map that positioned our department's radiology curriculum alongside the Royal College's expectations and the curricula of other radiology departments across Canada. This gave me a better understanding of what radiology programs entail.
Article
Although finding, interpreting, and using archives is inherent in the study of history, no standard identifies the archival research competencies college history students should possess. The purpose of this study is to identify history faculty expectations of undergraduates regarding their archival research skills and, based on those expectations, to create a list of archival research competencies that could be incorporated into the history classroom or introduced by the archivist in archival literacy sessions. The study includes viewpoints of different stakeholders, a review of course syllabi, in-depth interviews with history department faculty at a large public research university, and comments from faculty and recent graduates on a draft list of archival competencies for history students. The practical recommendations encourage the implementation of the competencies for both history faculty as well as for archivists involved in teaching archival research skills to students. This article represents a preliminary report based on the authors' completion of the first phase of their research. In the second phase, currently underway, history faculty, university archivists, and selected academic librarians at a representative sample of other institutions will provide comments on the list of competencies developed in the first phase. These comments will be considered for a revised list of competencies that will be published at a later date.
Article
User studies in archives have long focused on researchers' satisfaction, behaviors, and use of primary sources. Yet, archivists have never defined what characteristics denote an expert user of archives. This article reports on a research study involving in-depth interviews with twenty-eight individuals. The analysis of these interviews led to the development of a model of researcher expertise that might be incorporated into archival user education to create information literacy for primary sources. The authors assert that there are three distinct forms of knowledge required to work effectively with primary sources: domain (subject) knowledge, artifactual literacy, and the authors' own concept of archival intelligence. Archival intelligence is a researcher's knowledge of archival principles, practices, and institutions, such as the reason underlying archival rules and procedures, the means for developing search strategies to explore research questions, and an understanding of the relationship between primary sources and their surrogates. This is separate from domain or subject knowledge and artifactual literacy, or the ability to interpret and analyze primary sources. Archival intelligence encompasses three dimensions: 1) knowledge of archival theory, practices, and procedures; 2) strategies for reducing uncertainty and ambiguity when unstructured problems and ill-defined solutions are the norm; 3) and intellective skills.
Article
Instruction is a vital part of the academic librarian’s public services mission, but the teaching efforts of special collections librarians can be overlooked due to the culture and particularities of teaching in an archival setting. This article documents the challenges special collections librarians face in integrating their teaching program into that of general library instruction, and details several approaches taken at our institution to achieve effective collaboration while retaining the value of our individual strengths and differences.
Article
This article reports on the results of a survey of instructional practices in a variety of archival and manuscript repositories. The results of the survey suggest that archives professionals devote a significant amount of time and energy to instructing users of primary sources. However, a relatively small number of respondents conduct formal evaluations of their instruction. This lack of assessment results in a lack of information about the effectiveness of instruction and its impact on users.
Article
New approaches to undergraduate history education rely on primary sources. This study, based on a 2008-2009 online survey of 627 academic historians and 25 follow-up interviews, captures a snapshot of the current use of online, published, and archival primary sources used in new teaching methods. It identifies three distinct ways faculty utilize primary sources—analyzing documents in freshman courses, building research skills in historical methods classes, and doing research in upper division courses. Librarians can respond to these teaching innovations and provide leadership in their institutions by building their capacity to provide outreach and reference for primary sources.