This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 13 November 2014, At: 20:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Reference LibrarianPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wref20

A Purposeful Collaboration: Using aLibrary Course Enhancement GrantProgram to Enrich ESL InstructionDeidra N. Herringa

a Thompson Library, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OHPublished online: 04 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Deidra N. Herring (2014) A Purposeful Collaboration: Using a Library CourseEnhancement Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction, The Reference Librarian, 55:2, 128-143, DOI:10.1080/02763877.2014.880317

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2014.880317

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Reference Librarian, 55:128–143, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 0276-3877 print/1541-1117 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02763877.2014.880317

A Purposeful Collaboration: Using a LibraryCourse Enhancement Grant Program to Enrich

ESL Instruction

DEIDRA N. HERRINGThompson Library, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Developing a meaningful collaboration with teaching faculty toenhance courses can be a challenge for information professionalsas they struggle to move away from the one-shot classroom lecturemodel. The Association of College & Research Libraries encour-ages the use of mini grants for this purpose. These incentives canjump-start partnerships in a needed area, such as English as aSecond Language (ESL) instruction. The article describes The OhioState University Libraries Course Enhancement Grant Programand its positive impact on a subject librarian and ESL instructorteaching collaboratively in a composition course, with an analysisof students’ assessment of course objectives and outcomes.

KEYWORDS assessment, collaboration, course enhancement,English composition, ESL students, library instruction, mini grants,plagiarism, teaching faculty

INTRODUCTION

As a part of The Ohio State University Libraries (OSUL) Course EnhancementGrant Program (CEGP), an English as a Second Language (ESL) instructorand subject librarian were brought together with the purpose of strength-ening an established ESL composition course. To encourage participation inthe program, OSUL offers a monetary incentive each spring for teaching fac-ulty who are interested in applying for a mini grant to work with a library

© Deidra N. HerringAddress correspondence to Deidra N. Herring, Thompson Library, The Ohio State

University, 222C, 1858 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1286. E-mail: herring.44@osu.edu

128

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 129

subject specialist. The CEGP has worked well and continues to be a success-ful approach for the Libraries. This article examines a collaboration of thistype, including the application process, course enhancement strategies, col-lection of student assessments of the program, and analysis of data collectedon course objectives and outcomes.

The development of similar programs that promote teaching faculty andlibrarian collaborations is not a new concept nor is the practice of seekingexternal funding to support them. However, not much attention has beendirected toward the impact and advantages of using internally funded grants(Gordon, 2010) to create new programs in an effort to move away from the“one shot” library instruction model.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature recognizes a need for librarians to continue to discover newapproaches to partnering with teaching faculty, especially in ESL depart-ments. In the article by Martin, Reaume, Reeves, and Wright (2012), acommon theme emerges related to the importance of presenting ESL studentswith a clearer understanding of the library system as a whole. Although thereare a limited number of publications that discuss institutional grant creationfor ESL programs, Vohra and Chou (2011) fully described the InternationalIncentive Grant (IIG) and provided a program assessment.

With a significant increase in international student enrollment at aca-demic institutions across the United States, it has become a priority forlibrarians to help ESL students understand many aspects of the researchprocess (Chen & Van Ullen, 2011). Many students enter the classroom withsteep learning curves related to their written and oral skills, not to men-tion a lack of exposure to concepts of intellectual property, copyright, andacademic plagiarism. Given the opportunity to spend additional time in theclassroom, subject librarians can provide better support for specific writingassignments and introduce students to the importance of academic honestyin scholarship. Gibson and Chester-Fangman (2011) addressed the absenceof literature evaluating the “current practices of librarians in the United Statesregarding their role in combating plagiarism” (p. 132). This is another reasonwhy a closer look into creating various types of collaborative programmingis needed.

Much has been written about cultural differences and language barriersthat frequently hinder international students from excelling in their course-work. Amsberry (2008) provided an overview of second language acquisitiontheory and how speech modification or “teacher talk” can be used effectivelyin the classroom. She provides several approaches that should be consideredby librarians, depending on how English-proficient students are. Amsberry(2009) adds to the literature by outlining several factors librarians shouldconsider as a listener:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

130 D. N. Herring

1. “Personal attitude and approach to foreign accents.2. Experience with accents to improve comprehension.3. Applying context and prior knowledge.” (pp. 12–13)

If mindful in their approach, librarians can learn from their experiencesand consciously improve their personal communication skills to alleviatestress for students when coping with language barriers and other challenges.Conteh-Morgan (2001, 2002) also adds to the research by providing a theo-retical and practical foundation for the collaborative process. For librarians,Course Enhancement Grants (CEGs) can be a first step toward building arapport with students by spending more time in the classroom with theinstructor to gain student trust and familiarity. With invested time using aCEG, the librarian’s listening and speaking skills can be strengthened toimprove communication with nonnative English speakers.

A CASE FOR USING INTERNAL GRANTS

Smaller grants, such as the CEG, typically take less time to obtain andthe application process for librarians and teaching faculty is less rigorouscompared with the time and energy it takes to apply for external fund-ing. Although this option is not unique to libraries, the Association ofCollege & Research Libraries recommends this method on The Advocatefor Information Literacy Web site at http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/professactivity/advocate. The article by Gordon (2010) provides a rareexample of using internal grants for programming.

Like OSUL, other university and college libraries have worked to estab-lish internally funded programs with the intention of partnering with facultyto improve information literacy skills across the curriculum. Increasingly,it has become a priority for many institutions to produce strategic plansthat emphasize globalization. Vohra and Chou (2011) discussed the impor-tance of creating educational environments that support diverse populationson campuses such as New Jersey City University (NJCU) and noted that itsuccessfully implemented the IIG for this purpose.

Other successful programs include the Information LiteracyCollaborations Grant created by Landman Library at Arcadia University, andthe Information Literacy Grant established by the Lafayette College Library.Further information about the applications can be found on the followingWeb sites:

1. New Jersey City University: http://www.njcu.edu/aa/faculty-resources/2. Arcadia University (Landman Library): http://search.arcadia.edu/content/

information-literacy-faculty-connections3. Lafayette College Library: https://library.lafayette.edu/instruction/

infolitgrants

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 131

According to Getty and Moore (2009), Glendale Community Collegeuses a similar approach to create the Information Competency Program usingthe Funded Student Success Grant. The grant was funded by the CaliforniaCommunity Colleges Chancellor’s Office. The funds resulted in nine work-shops highlighting core information literacy competency programmingtargeting English and ESL courses (Getty & Moore, 2009). Many of thesegrant-funded programs provide background and planning information thatcan be tailored to fit the needs of most institutions.

ADVANTAGES OF USING A COURSE ENHANCEMENT GRANTPROGRAM

The OSUL CEGP requires both participants to work together to define theirroles and determine what modifications are needed. The changes are basedon the subject and purpose of the class already established in the coursesyllabus. This opportunity creates several advantages for both the teachingfaculty member and subject librarian compared to the “one-shot” approachwidely used in library instruction. One advantage the program offers is theopportunity to engage and interact with other teaching faculty face-to-face.This provides on-going communication, allowing both participants to makedecisions mutually about parts of the course to be modified. Collaboratingprovides a way for the subject librarian and ESL instructor to help studentsrealize that library collections and public service personnel can be an active,integrated part of their classroom education. Mutual engagement betweentheir library and classroom instructors also helps students understand therole of librarians and how they contribute to their success in the classroom.

Walker and Click (2011) explicitly stated that “ESL students sometimesdo not know what to make of the librarians especially since the status androle of librarians varies so greatly from country to country throughout theworld. International students can be particularly unprepared to make thebest use of librarians’ expertise to enhance their learning. ‘Is the man behindthe reference desk a faculty member or clerk?’” (p. 21). Although the courseinstructor remains the primary contact for students, the subject librarian alsohas a greater chance of building a rapport with students during the semesterand even after the course has ended.

THE CALL FOR COURSE ENHANCEMENT GRANT PROPOSALS ANDTHE APPLICATION PROCESS

A call for new CEG proposals is announced annually each spring at OSUL.As an incentive to apply, the subject librarian is offered an award of $1,000,to be placed in his or her individual travel or research fund. The teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

132 D. N. Herring

faculty member receives $2,000, to be directly deposited in his or her payrollaccount after the proposal acceptance. The application and guidelines areavailable via the Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC) Web site.

The teaching faculty member is required to meet with a librarian toprovide specific information about the goals and objectives for the estab-lished course and discuss the changes to be made. The following is a sampleof the application form, which emphasizes the desirability of clear goals andsolicits information to help evaluate whether the grant will provide highimpact for the greatest potential number of students.

To gauge what to include in the proposal, evaluation criteria and a rubricare provided for participants on the OSUL TLC Web site at http://library.osu.edu/documents/teaching-and-learning/CEG_Rubric_public.pdf. The Website covers a variety of aspects which the proposal must address:

1. The introduction of library materials and services will enhance the successof the course.

2. New or innovative use of library materials, a variety of formats, orinformation literacy instruction in included.

3. Potential for broad impact on students is possible. This might beindicated by high enrollment, prerequisite status, frequent offering,multiple sections, and a discussion of how course material will be sharedwith colleagues.

4. The proposal shows evidence of collaboration with a librarian.5. Metrics for assessing the changes have been articulated and will provide

useful information regarding student success.

The TLC also provides guidelines for what is expected of participants.Instructors are required to do the following:

1. Collaborate with a librarian to identify resources and library servicesappropriate for class assignments.

2. Use appropriate technology for delivery of library content in the course.3. Teach the course, including continuous development as needed.4. Provide outcome data following the program.5. Write a blog post about the experience for the Information

Literacy Toolkit (InfoLit Toolkit) blog (http://library.osu.edu/news/grants-190awards/course-enhancement/).

Subject specialists are required to do the following:

1. Collaborate with the instructor to identify and/or acquire resources andlibrary services as appropriate to enhance the course.

2. Provide instructional services and student research support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 133

3. Use appropriate technology for delivery of library content in the course.4. Complete an evaluation following the program.5. Write a blog post about the experience for the Information Literacy Toolkit

(InfoLit Toolkit) blog (http://library.osu.edu/news/grants-awards/course-enhancement/).

The application form can be found in Appendix A.

THE CEGP INITIAL MEETING AND PLANNING

Before collaboration begins, an open forum is held by OSUL. Subject librari-ans and instructors across campus with interest in applying to the CEGP areinvited to attend. The purpose of the 1-hour meeting is to address questionsand concerns about the program and to make new connections in person.Brief testimonials from past recipients are shared to serve as examples ofthe variations in partnerships and the impact of the courses taught. As aresult of this meeting, the subject librarian and ESL instructor are paired inthe meet-and-greet portion of the program to begin immediate plannig forimplementing improvements in the three sections of the ESL course to betaught with a total of 45 students.

The collaboration between the subject librarian and ESL instructor was anatural fit due to the source-based research assignments and academic essayrequirements. The EDTL 1902 advanced writing course equips students withthe skills to further improve their academic writing. The ESL instructor’sgoal was to learn about research techniques and strategies suitable forundergraduate students that could be implemented in the course in general(Stefano, 2013).

For additional information, the instructor’s blog can be foundat http://library.osu.edu/toolkit/blog/2013/2/28/esl-composition-edtl-1902-course-enhancement-grant.

Given the course objectives, a strong emphasis needed to be placedon intellectual property and the appropriate use of citing sources to avoidplagiarism. This was a natural fit for the librarian and a chance to inte-grate content into the course that would target these universal problems.With this in mind, the librarian would need to understand that these issuesstem from cultural differences with international students. Chen and VanUllen (2011) strongly support this idea, along with much of the litera-ture regarding the confusion of and inexperience with intellectual propertyand plagiarism. Much of the discussion between the ESL instructor andsubject librarian focused on requiring students to understand the researchprocess, getting them to think critically about topic development and theuse of appropriate resources to support their research. Nine objectives arelisted:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

134 D. N. Herring

1. Take an analytical and evaluative approach to selected text.2. Articulate personal ideas using appropriate sources for support.3. Summarize, paraphrase, and quote in context of writing from sources.4. Choose and evaluate sources based on credibility and relevance.5. Brainstorm, plan, and write source-based research papers.6. Gain competence using American Psychological Association documenta-

tion conventions.7. Demonstrate an ability to edit for grammatical accuracy.8. Avoid plagiarism.9. Use the OSUL online system and other digital resources.

When writing the proposal, the subject librarian and ESL instructorwanted to address the needs of ESL students in a way that would extendbeyond the one-time CEG. Like many strategic plans at academic institutionsacross the country, a targeted goal has been to focus on and provide thebest support for global communities on campuses across the country. Theinternational component would prove to be a good fit for a CEG, with addedvalue for OSUL. After planning for the course, the application was submittedto the TLC to be reviewed and was eventually accepted.

ASSIGNMENTS IN THE CLASSROOM

Three sections for EDTL 1902 met twice a week for a 90-minute classroomperiod over the course of a semester. Students were also required to meetin the library at least five times for a 90-minute period in the computerlaboratory. It was a challenge for the librarian to frequently attend regularlyscheduled classroom periods due to travel time between classes and theamount of time it would take to set up wireless equipment for interactivetechnologies. An integration of the technology proved to be an essential partof the class to keep the material interesting and promote active learning.

Like most undergraduates, ESL students do not openly volunteer toparticipate in class. To lower student anxiety and increase student partici-pation, a variety of materials and technology were used to introduce libraryresources, including the Carmen online Course Content Manager, clickertechnology, net.TUTOR for online library tutorials, an open mind-mappingtool for brainstorming (WiseMapping), Academic Search Complete (anEBSCO product and for-purchase database), a streaming video presentationto help with plagiarism, and online templates for students to use for the peer-reviewed poster forum. An outline of class objectives and the tools weredistributed to students during library sessions. Materials were also placed inthe course content manager for ease of student access.

The first section of the presentation addressed Academic Misconductand Plagiarism using streaming video taken from the university’s open

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 135

repository. The video was based on the importance of citing referencesand the consequences of plagiarizing work at the university. The video por-trayed real experiences at the university and explained the significance ofcorrectly writing summaries, paraphrasing, and quoting. Specific exampleswere provided to complement the instructor’s assignments.

In addition to citation styles, students were provided specific print andelectronic examples of a variety of source types ranging from scholarly topopular materials. As an ice breaker, print material reflecting student interestwas distributed in class to initiate conversation. For practice, students usedanonymous clicker polling to identify popular magazines, trade publications,and scholarly articles. After polling, the librarian introduced the importanceof library tutorial resources found on the net.TUTOR Web site created bymembers of the Teaching and Learning Department at http://liblearn.osu.edu/tutor/.

METHODOLOGY

As a way to evaluate the library component of the ESL composition course,EDTL 1902, 45 international students, most from Japan and China, wererequired to submit a brief library reflective essay answering three to fouropen-ended questions. Forty-four essays provided answers to the followingquestions submitted through the course management system.

Brief Reflective Essay:

1. Based on your writing experiences using library resources, do you havea better understanding of what plagiarism is and how to avoid it? Pleaseexplain.

2. What was the most or least helpful approach in understanding how to usethe library research databases and resources?

3. What suggestions would you make on how to improve the librarycomponent of the class? (Is there something you specifically enjoyed?)

Forty-four of 45 essays were analyzed to generate specific categories basedon the most emphasized responses. Several themes emerged from the44 responses submitted:

1. Materials used to teach plagiarism—Most helpful.2. Peer advising and group discussion (oral practice)—Most helpful.3. Search strategies using Academic Search Complete—Most helpful.4. One-on-one instruction with the librarian—Most helpful.5. Use of additional technologies (Wisemapping tool)—Most helpful.6. Hands-on practice—Most helpful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

136 D. N. Herring

7. Use of handouts/online guides—Somewhat helpful.8. Use of physical space in the library (computer lab)—Neutral.9. Class lectures—Least helpful.

Student responses were summarized to capture student feedback.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM ESL STUDENTS

Ninety-nine percent of respondents indicated that they had a much betterunderstanding of plagiarism after library instruction. Students’ responseswere supported by comments and explanations. Most students stated thatthey “didn’t realize that plagiarism was treated so seriously in the UnitedStates and now recognize that it is a moral and ethical issue.” Several stu-dents indicated that it was not a serious issue in their country and thatthe video called Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism had a strong impacton them (Ohio State University Staff and Advisory Committee, 2010). Onestudent commented, “I had plagiarized for years in high school in China.”Students also talked about summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting as a partof correctly citing sources.

The Reflective Essay responses relating to plagiarism were not surpris-ing because many studies consistently report that ESL learners struggle withacademic research and essay writing due to cultural differences regardingeducational practices and language barriers. Hayes and Introna (2005) sup-port why these issues are so common based on an in-depth survey focusingon post-graduate students of various nationalities.

Miriam Conteh-Morgan (2001) cited the importance of understandingstudent learning preferences to provide a low anxiety environment. Sheoffered additional insight on the librarian’s role and the need to providea variety of kinesthetic and tactile learning opportunities in the classroom.This makes the collaboration between the ESL instructor and librarian muchmore important to construct meaningful activities that will enhance studentlearning.

Eleven students identified the brainstorming activity using the freeonline Mind Map called WiseMapping as a way to “visualize thoughts, andorganize information. It helped me stay on topic and to fill in missing piecesrelated to my topic.” The tool can be found at http://www.wisemapping.com/. Easybib and database citation tools were also among the most helpfulsources.

The results from the questionnaire in Appendix A show that 29 respon-dents believed that conducting searches in Academic Search Complete, incombination with the writing assignments, was the best approach to provid-ing hands-on independent practice. Several students liked having “a moreformal way of doing searches” besides using search engines such as Google,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 137

Bing, Yahoo, or Wikipedia. Using the database cut down on the confusion offinding trustworthy, reliable sources to support their topics. However, it wassuggested that more time be spent on narrowing searches due to too manysearch results being retrieved. Sample screen shots and additional tutorialswere a priority as well. Although the majority of students appreciated theconvenience of using full-text articles, a few students indicated that moreemphasis should be placed on available print materials located in the libraryand more instruction on borrowing privileges would have been of use.

The second most helpful aspect of the library component was theavailability of the librarian and the one-on-one instruction students wereprovided. Although there were times when the librarian could not alwaysget to everyone in a session, 11 students stated that they “liked the face-to-face communication.” This information is invaluable to the librarian becauseit supports the need to help students on an individual level and to gain trust.Additional comments also addressed the librarian’s personality and approachto the class, indicating the thoughtfulness behind the content and havingpatience with students. Some students even indicated that they would ask alibrarian for help in the future. This is a positive break through and a wayto introduce the option of scheduling office appointments with librarians forfurther research assistance. Martin et al. (2012) documented several surveysthat reported the differences between a Western and Eastern society andstudent expectations of library services and staff.

Group discussions and peer reviews were also highly ranked activitiesfor students. Students reported that “this helped with practicing speakingskills and getting constructive feedback from peers.” The subject librarianalso used the student peer-review process as a way to introduce the conceptof peer-reviewed materials found in databases. A large number of studentssupported this approach versus the classroom lecture, which is not surpris-ing. Four respondents commented on how they enjoyed having classes inthe library and did not understand why all of their composition classes werenot held in the library computer laboratory. Another student felt that morecomputer laboratory time was needed.

Overall, students believed that more library instruction should beembedded in more courses. Other suggestions for improvement focusedon incorporating additional active learning activities, using downtime moreeffectively to keep students on task, providing more hard copies of hand-outs for instruction, having more flexibility when choosing topics, and seeingmore activities focusing on college life to make the course more interesting.

BLOGS FROM THE ESL INSTRUCTOR AND LIBRARIAN

To fulfill the requirements for the CEGP, the ESL instructor and librarianelaborated on their co-teaching experiences working with the students. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

138 D. N. Herring

blogs were posted in the InfoLit Toolkit, which was created by OSU librariansto serve as a platform to share resources, ideas, and discussions to improvethe teaching of information literacy on campus and to support faculty efforts.

The ESL instructor provided a detailed account of the planning periodwith the librarian, and how their ideas were implemented in the classroom.The collaboration exceeded the expectations of the instructor and found thatit would benefit other ESL instructors and students to continue to create moreopportunities to work with the librarian in other ESL courses. The librarianwas equally pleased with the outcome of the collaboration and talked abouthow the CEGP helped to break down barriers across departments to engageat a deeper level with students and instructors who need additional supportfor their courses. provide the complete blog entries.

CONCLUSION

The OSUL has a successful CEGP to encourage collaboration betweenclassroom faculty and librarians. The CEGP, and other model programs likeit, can help both librarians and instructors move beyond the one-shot lecturemodel of library instruction to a true collaboration between library and class-room. This was particularly successful when applied to an ESL course, wheremost international students had previously not been exposed to importantconcepts relating to copyright, use of citations, and academic plagiarism. TheCEG mini grant allowed the librarian and instructor to identify goals, useinnovative technologies and teaching techniques to transmit course content,and collect assessments from all involved as to the efficacy of the program.

This proven model for strategic programming may be applied to a vari-ety of course content and student populations. Key components includea motivated, purposeful collaboration between a classroom instructor andsubject librarian, clear-cut objectives co-created by them, and ongoing assess-ment to allow for adjustments in presenting course content to best meetstudents’ needs and learning styles. The partnership was an all-aroundenriching experience.

REFERENCES

Amsberry, D. (2008). Talking the talk: Library classroom communication andinternational students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 354–357.doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.05.007

Amsberry, D. (2009). Using effective listening skills with international patrons.Reference Services Review, 37 , 10–19. doi:10.1108/00907320910934959

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2013). Advocate for information liter-acy. Grant Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/professactivity/advocate#grant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 139

Chen, Y., & Van Ullen, M. K. (2011). Helping international students succeed academ-ically through research process and plagiarism workshops. College & ResearchLibraries, 72, 209–235.

Conteh-Morgan, M. (2001). Empowering ESL students: A new model for infor-mation literacy instruction. Research Strategies, 18, 29–38. doi:10.1016/S0734-3310(02)00064-2

Conteh-Morgan, M. (2002). Connecting the dots: Limited English proficiency, sec-ond language learning theories, and information literacy instruction. Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 28, 191–196. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00282-3

Getty, N., & Moore, D. (2009, July). LOEX Conference Proceedings 2007. CampusCollaboration to Build a Series of Information Competency Workshops. Paper 35.Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/loexconf2007/35

Gibson, N., S., & Chester-Fangman, C. (2011). The librarian’s role in com-bating plagiarism. Reference Services Review, 39, 132–150. doi:10.1108/

00907321111108169Gordon, L. (2010). Partnering for success: Using mini grants to foster faculty/librarian

collaborations. College & Research Libraries News, 71, 152–155.Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When

plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 213–231.Herring, D. N. (2013, March 1). Course enhancement grants lead to true engagement:

EDTL 1902. Retrieved from http://library.osu.edu/toolkit/blog/2013/3/1/course-enhancement-grants-lead-to-true-engagement-edtl-1902

Martin, J. A., Reaume, K. M., Reeves, E. M., & Wright, R. D. (2012).Relationship building with students and instructors of ESL: Bridging the gapfor library instruction and services. Reference Services Review, 40, 352–367.doi:10.1108/00907321211254634Ohio

Ohio State University Staff and Advisory Committee. (2010, August 25).Academic misconduct and plagiarism. Streaming video retrieved fromThe OSU Knowledge Bank. http://streaming.osu.edu/knowledgebank/usac10/PlagiarismInternational/flash/f.htm

Stefano, I. (2013, February 28). ESL Composition (EDTL 1902) course enhance-ment grant. Retrieved from http://library.osu.edu/toolkit/blog/2013/2/28/esl-composition-edtl-1902-course-enhancement-grant

Vohra, R., & Chou, M. (2011, May). Using internal grant to foster faculty-librariancollaboration. Chinese American Libraries Association Occasional Paper Series,No. 9, 1–6.

Walker, C., & Click, A. (2011). Meeting the reference expectations of ESL students:The challenges of culture. College & Research Libraries News, 72, 20–23.

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION INFORMATION SAMPLE

Applicant Information (name, department, campus, email address, name ofcollaborating librarian):

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

140 D. N. Herring

Information about the course:Typical Enrollment:Frequency of offering:Student Impact (circle correct option below):General Education Curriculum (GEC)? Yes No Prerequisite? Yes NoRequired for major? Yes No Critical writing course? Yes NoService learning? Yes No Graduate seminar? Yes NoOther factors?Nature of the change?Describe a problem you face with the course or a change you would like. Forinstance, is there a common trouble spot for students, especially in regardsto the research work required for this course? Are you trying to introducenew concepts or requirements?Nature of the collaboration?Discuss your goals with a collaborating librarian and complete this portiontogether. Describe how the librarian will collaborate with you to achieve thechanges described above. (Please see our FAQ on the grant Web page forideas from past recipients.)Library Materials/Services?What library materials and/or services do you expect to incorporate intoyour course?Outcomes?What will successful implementation of your course changes look like? Whatwill students do differently than before? What measurements or evidence willexist to consider the changes?Agreement and SignaturePlease initial each item as a sign of agreement to the following as stipulationsfor receiving this grant.____ This proposal has been done in consultation with my collaboratinglibrarian.____ I agree to write a blog post for the Information Literacy Toolkit eitherbefore, during, or after the term in which I am teaching this course.____ I agree to report back on the outcomes of this collaboration and allowthe Libraries to use this data in reports, announcements, and/or publication.(The library will contact you for this information after the term is over.)____ I will allow the collaborating librarian to survey students regarding thiscollaboration. (This will be done online and need not take class time.)____ I am submitting a current syllabus with this application.____ I am copying the collaborating librarian on the submission of thisapplication.If funded, would you prefer your award as a payroll supplement (tax-able)____ or in a university research fund (tax free)____

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 141

APPENDIX B

ESL INSTRUCTOR’S BLOG ABOUT THE CEG EXPERIENCE

Feedback was collected from the classroom instructor, Dr. Ivan Stefano, aswell as the students. His comments were made available on his blog, whichwas part of the grant requirement.

As the coordinator of the course, when applying for the grant, my goalwas to learn about research techniques and strategies suitable for under-graduate students that could be implemented in the course in general. To thisend, I was paired with Deidra Herring, the Education librarian. In the summerprior to the new academic year, as Deidra and I were planning the course, weworked together to add library components to the course. We collaborativelycreated assignments that would give our students hands-on experience withthe library. We also decided that the collaboration should include our co-teaching the course. In the beginning of the Autumn semester, Deidra cameto the classes to give an introduction about the library resources (includingdatabases such as WorldCat and Academic Search Complete) and gave a lec-ture about plagiarism. She then assigned a Focused Writing Task (one of oursmaller assignments) where the students were asked to find an article aboutplagiarism in the Academic Search Complete database and summarize it. Thetask was assigned immediately after her lecture so that the students could usewhat they had learned in class while it was still fresh in their minds. BecauseDeidra regularly co-taught the course with me, she became an integral partof my classes.

Until about the middle of the semester, Deidra and I prepared our stu-dents to write their first major assignment, which was to compose a synthesisessay using an article that we read together in class and new outside arti-cles from Academic Search Complete. Leading up to this assignment, Deidrashowed the students a mind mapping Web site for organizing their ideasand I taught them how to use Easybib for creating American PsychologicalAssociation style reference lists. By the time the students were ready to writethe first draft, they had already learned about a few useful tools from thelibrary.

After the synthesis essay, we continued to use the library resources forthe next major assignment. We called it the long research paper. This paperwas longer and could be a bit intimidating for our international students,many of whom were freshmen. For some, this may have been the first timethey wrote a source-based paper. The students were free to choose any topicthey liked as long as they could incorporate a couple of articles from ourreading list. Similar to what we asked them to do in the synthesis essay, forthis assignment, they were also required to use outside articles to support thechosen topic. Once again, they used Academic Search Complete to searchfor those articles. For this assignment, I taught the students how to finda suitable, interesting, and workable topic and Deidra taught the students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

142 D. N. Herring

how to use keywords to find relevant articles in the databases and howto evaluate the sources. To complement the lectures, we took the studentsto the computer laboratory in the library multiple times (from pre- to post-writing stages) so that they could learn by doing and ask questions to eitherof us. In the laboratory sessions, we were able to help those who struggledwith their topics or help with finding good articles to support their ideas. Thisactivity worked extremely well. From the feedback I received from students,they appreciated the opportunity to work one-on-one with us and enjoyedcoming to the library physically, not just digitally through the Web site. At theend of the semester, the students proudly presented their research papers asposters.

Both Deidra and I were impressed by the quality of paper presentationsthey produced. As an instructor and the course coordinator of EDTL 1902,I was extremely pleased with the results of our collaborative work throughthe Course Enhancement Grant. As I stated in the beginning of my blogpost, I aimed to learn techniques and strategies from the library. But, whatI received was more than I had expected. My collaboration with Deidragave me fresh ideas about what the Library has to offer and will hopefullyopen doors to new opportunities and future collaborations between the ESLComposition Program and the University Libraries (Stefano, 2013).

APPENDIX C

BLOG POST FROM THE SUBJECT SPECIALIST

The library subject specialist also created a blog as part of the grantrequirements.

To complement Dr. Ivan Stefano’s description of the ESL compositioncourse and details of the collaboration, I would like to emphasize the valueof the partnership and the true meaning of engagement. First and foremost,it was a privilege and enlightening experience to work with Ivan and thestudents in the College of Education and Human Ecology. From the begin-ning, we were excited about the idea of creating an environment wherestudents could actively participate and share research ideas to enhancetheir classroom experience. Integrating key library resources and technologywas a natural fit that complemented the course objectives well and rein-forced the peer evaluation process, creating opportunities for discussion andfeedback.

Unlike the one-shot library approach to research instruction, the CourseEnhancement Grant (CEG) provided more time to work with students one-on-one and in groups to gauge interests and encourage critical thinking.I found that it was extremely important for me, as an instructor, to recognizeand really understand the cultural differences in the research and writingprocess for English as a Second Language (ESL) students. Once realized, I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Using a Grant Program to Enrich ESL Instruction 143

began rethinking my approach by addressing their specific research needs ina way that would break down barriers. My teaching experiences with Ivanwere exceedingly positive and successful because we were able to openlyshare new ideas and co-teach in a cohesive manner. Most importantly, thecollaboration has generated multiple discussions in the University Librariesabout how to create a more diversified learning environment for nonnativeEnglish speakers. In addition, the CEG created new relationships within theESL department of instructors who were, in the end, eager to work with meto help their students as well. This is truly the best of both worlds (Herring,2013).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

59 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014