Innovations in Practice: Drop-In Clinics for Environmental Studies Students

Abstract The delivery of library instruction to students in those areas of the sciences and the social sciences dealing with biology and the environment has a long history (Bowden & Di Benedetto 2001; Kutner 2000; Kutner & Danks 2007; Sapp 2006; Sinn 1998). Often these instruction sessions take the form of a one hour lecture or workshop at the start of a semester before the students have begun their projects or papers. This one-shot approach, though popular, has its limitations. It may not be offered at a time when the students will actually start making use of library resources, it may not be tied very specifically to a particular assignment, or it may be too general in nature to be of much use to students later on when they need to look at particular topics in much more depth than can be addressed in one such session. The following article describes another approach: the strategic use of drop-in clinics as a method of instruction in which the students themselves determine how the instruction proceeds. Keywords Faculty-Librarian Collaboration; Information Literacy; Research Skills; Self-Directed Learning; Drop-In Clinics Introduction The drop-in clinic model has been discussed in the library literature as a way to support students outside the physical classroom (Bergen & MacAdam 1985; Christensen 1994; Debreczeny 1985). Earlier views described it as a method to help students improve their writing in tandem with their library skills. Rather than focusing on improvement in writing skills, the practice described in this article uses the drop-in clinic as a way to improve student learning. The new model of the drop-in clinic is grounded in ideas of scaffolding and constructivism. Scaffolding is a method of acquiring knowledge, and constructivism is a theory of how knowledge grows. The ERIC Thesaurus defines scaffolding as: Temporary support or assistance, provided by a teacher, peer, parent, or computer, that permits a learner to perform a complex task or process that he or she would be unable to do alone-the technique builds knowledge/skills until learners can stand on their own, similar to scaffolding on a building (ERIC Thesaurus 2003). In library terms, scaffolding refers to assistance received from student peers, classmates, the professor, the librarian or others in completing library tasks (Bordonaro 2004). Constructivism is a learning theory that proposes that new knowledge is constructed through building connections between what is known and unknown (Fosnet 2005). Constructivism in library contexts occurs when students add new knowledge to their prior existing knowledge base about how to efficiently find and use appropriate library resources. In the drop-in model discussed in this article, the focus is on the building of student selfknowledge in the subject area of environmental studies. The librarian in this new model is a facilitator helping students acquire new subject knowledge rather than a mentor helping students improve their generic writing skills. Background This article describes the use of drop-in clinics as an instructional tool at the James A. Gibson Library, Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. Brock University is a midsize university in southern Ontario that offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees in the arts and sciences. This university is currently undergoing a transformation to become a more research focused graduate institution. It is in light of this transformation that this new approach to library instruction has been tested. A stronger pedagogical emphasis on enabling students to become more self-directed learners provided a good opportunity to test this new form of instruction. The drop-in clinic approach was conducted with undergraduate environmental studies students in a course called TREN 1F90, Sustainability, Environment and Tourism. This course, aimed at first year students, is offered every fall, and it generally enrolls about 300 students. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.