• Using “gamification” to enable students to explore library services at their own pace with a digital escape room
• Creating low-stress activities with applications like Slido
• Providing in-class opportunities for students to work through activities and challenges with peers in small groups
• Using keyword identification tools and collaborative worksheets/activities for narrowing and revising broad topics
• Providing prompts for research “dead-ends”

1. Feelings: comments that note a change in feelings, such as “less worried,” “reassured,” and “less overwhelmed.” We also included general positive or negative feelings like “all good” or “you did great.” within this theme. We notably only received positive feeling statements for both.
2. Research strategy: comments that noted the use of Boolean operators, or other search strategies introduced in the session
3. Places to search: specific databases and research tools addressed by the student
4. Assignment: comments that clearly connect how library resources and search methods can be applied to the successful completion of their assignment(s)
5. Contact: comments that specifically address contacting a librarian, finding support, or using chat services
6. Citations: Specific comments relating to APA or MLA citation creation or generators

Pre-Session Survey Prior Experience:

Pre- and Post-Survey Research Experience Comparison

• Feelings: 14/55; 25.5%
• Research: 21/55; 38.2%
• Places to Search: 39/55; 71%
• Assignment: 8/55; 14.6%
• Contact: 7/55; 12.7%
• Citations: 4/55; 7.3%

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). ACRL framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Arch, X. & Gilman, I. (2019). First principles: Designing services for first-generation students. College & Research Libraries, 80(7), 996-1012.

Baida, G. (2016). Question formulation: A teachable art. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 23(2), 210-216.

Beghetto, R. (2021). My Favorite Failure: Using Digital Technology to Facilitate Creative Learning and Reconceptualize Failure. TechTrends, 65(4), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00607-7

Carlile, H. (2007). The implications of library anxiety for academic reference services: A review of the literature. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 38(2), 129-147.

Clark, M. (2017). Imposed-inquiry information-seeking self-efficacy and performance of college students: A review of the literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.05.001

Cooperstein, & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658

Elliott, C. & Movlai, L. (2022). Curiosity learning activities. Google Drive. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xQTZASvdbnPLucbV2MGrjBBfz3gZ6y4I?usp=share_link

Fister, B. (2022). Principled uncertainty: Why learning to ask good questions matters more than finding answers. Project Information Literacy (PIL) Provocation Series, 2(1), Project Information Literacy Research Institute. https://projectinfolit.org/pubs/provocation-series/essays/principled-uncertainty.html

Fraser, K.-L., & Bartlett, J. C. (2018). Fear at First Sight: Library Anxiety, Race, and Nova Scotia. Partnership, 13(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v13i2.4366

Henriksen, Mishra, P., Creely, E., & Henderson, M. (2021). The Role of Creative Risk Taking and Productive Failure in Education and Technology Futures. TechTrends, 65(4), 602–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00622-8

Hodge, M. (2022). First-generation students and the first-year transition: State of the literature and implications for library researchers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102554

Jiao, Q. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (1997). Antecedents of library anxiety. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 67(4), 372-389.

Kocevar-Weidinger, Cox, E., Lenker, M., Pashkova-Balkenhol, T., & Kinman, V. (2019). On their own terms: First-year student interviews about everyday life research can help librarians flip the deficit script. Reference Services Review, 47(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-02-2019-0007

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6)m 1121-1134.

Lemire, S., et al. (2021). Similarly different: Finding the nuances in first year students’ library perceptions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102352

Scharf, D., & Dera J. (2021). Question formulation for information literacy: Theory and practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102365

Taylor, R. (1962). The process of asking questions. American Documentation, 13(4), 391-396.

Teagarden, Commer, C., Cooke, A., & Mando, J. (2018). Intellectual Risk in the Writing Classroom: Navigating Tensions in Educational Values and Classroom Practice. Composition Studies, 46(2), 116–238.

Van Der Meij, H. (1994). Student questioning: A componential analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(2), 137-161.

Wallin, S., & Diller, K. R. (2022). The scholar’s journey; Transforming the maze into the labyrinth. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102561

Introduction

First-Year Experience Librarian

First-Year Research and Artistry Experience

Conclusion

References

Arellano Douglas, V., & Gadsby, J. (2022). The power of presence: One-shots, relational teaching, and instruction librarianship. College & Research Libraries, 83(5), 807–818. doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.807

Grazer, B., & Fishman, C. (2015). A curious mind: The secret to a bigger life. Simon & Schuster.

Knecht, M. K. (2022). Investigating nontraditional first-year students’ epistemic curiosity during the research process: An exploratory, mixed-methods study. College & Research Libraries, 83(6), 874–886. doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.6.874

Appendices

Introduction

Literature Review

An Introduction to Ungrading

Understanding Specifications Grading

Ungrading and Intellectual Curiosity

Library Instruction and Grading

LIB 150: Search Strategies for the Information Age at the University of Rhode Island

Background

1. Students will be able to navigate print and digital information research tools and use them for both college-level research and lifelong learning.
2. Students will be able to differentiate information formats and quality and be able to apply these to college-level information research assignments.
3. Students will be able to communicate their findings effectively to specific audiences.

Prior Assessment

• Five skills-based exercises: These exercises help students begin building their information literacy and research skills by developing research questions, evaluating sources, citing sources, using the library catalog and databases, and writing annotations for sources.
• The Database Information Solutions Project: This group project requires students to develop a presentation and model how to use library databases to meet the specific information needs of a provided scenario.  Students develop a group annotated bibliography using sources from their databases.
• The Beyond the News Project: This multi-pronged individual project requires students to create a research proposal, develop an annotated bibliography, present their findings, evaluate peers’ presentations, and compose a reflective journal.

Assignment	Percentage of Grade
Skills Exercises (5)	25%
Database Information Solutions Group Project	20%
Beyond the News Project (topic proposal, annotated bibliography, peer evaluations, and reflective journal)	35%
Attendance & Participation	20%

Like most instructors who choose to engage in a time-intensive overhaul of a major aspect of a course like assessment, my changes stemmed from dissatisfaction with my current practices.  While I considered my grading to be a reliable assessment of student learning, I was worried that it missed the mark in both providing assessment for student learning and helping students develop a growth mindset. Students who had more extensive experience with libraries and academic research often easily met course objectives, while those who had less experience, often coming from marginalized communities or low-income high schools, struggled to master critical skills.  Additionally, concerns over the disruptions wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic deepened my interest in a grading system that offered greater flexibility and support for students who might be struggling from anxiety, stress, and isolation.  Four years of experience in teaching LIB 150 to students from diverse backgrounds and major areas of studies left me well-situated to consider major adaptations to the course.  This experience was essential because, as Streifer and Palmer (2021) have explained in regard to specifications grading, “Layering a complex assessment approach on top of the process of developing fundamental teaching skills could overwhelm novice instructors and lead to low-quality implementation” (p. 5).  In Fall 2021, specifications grading became one of many course changes, which also included adopting a flipped instruction model, allowing student choice in selecting in-class activities from a menu of options, and updating assignments to draw more directly on real-world problems.  However, because grades are so deeply ingrained as extrinsic motivation for learning, I found that the adoption of specifications grading had the most significant impact on student learning and achievement in my course.  It was also the most challenging change to explain to students, who were usually new to specifications grading and other ungrading methods and practices.

Implementing Specifications Grading in LIB 150

Overhauling a grading system is daunting, so I began by examining the larger pieces of LIB 150 before moving to revise individual assignments and rubrics.  This approach helped me maintain a comprehensive overview of how the pieces of the course aligned to ensure that students met course objectives.

Aligning Learning Outcomes Across Assignments & Projects

I began my implementation of specifications grading by mapping which course learning objectives were demonstrated in each assignment and at what level of sophistication.  For example, while both Skills Exercise 3: Finding & Evaluating Books and the Beyond the News: Annotated Bibliography align with the first course objective by requiring students to find, evaluate, and annotate a book, the latter assignment requires students to demonstrate more advanced skills in locating books, articles, and other sources and using them to identify the scholarly conversation surrounding their research topic. After reviewing the course assignments, I discovered that students could meet all required course objectives, student learning outcomes, and general education learning outcomes at their most basic level by completing the five skills exercises and the group project.  These assignments, then, became my first grade bundle that determined what must be accomplished to achieve a D in the course.  I then spread the remaining assignments across the other grade bundles with the most complex assignments as part of the work for an A or B.  Each grade bundle required students to submit all the assignments of the prior grade bundle to ensure that the development of research skills was amply supported and scaffolded.  Figure 1 details the grade bundles constructed for Fall 2021. Figure 1  Specifications Grading Chart–Fall 2021 

Because my course is capped at 24 students and I was minimally concerned with the additional time required to assess revised work, I allowed resubmissions on all assignments. One substantial change that occurred as I moved to specifications grading was the role of attendance and participation.  While ungrading does not require eliminating attendance and participation from student grades, those who practice ungrading are more likely to question the role of attendance and participation in assessment (Schulz-Bergin, 2020).  Susan Blum (2020) has highlighted that the inclusion of attendance and participation in students’ grades tends to favor students who are extroverted, and it can also become a problem of equity as it benefits students “who are fortunate enough to avoid serious illness, financial challenges, and family responsibilities” (pp. 10-11).  The pandemic reinforced my concerns regarding the meaningful and equitable grading of attendance and participation, so I experimented with eliminating both from my specifications grading beyond a baseline expectation that students would have no more than five unexcused absences.  Given the unequal burden of COVID-19 on marginalized communities, I felt that I could better support my students from these communities by dropping a standard that I already felt was challenging to uphold fairly.

Formatting Assignments & Rubrics

My goal in switching to specifications grading was to offer students greater agency in their learning process.  As the specifications grading chart took shape, I made further adjustments to assignments, recentering them on real-world situations and providing opportunities for student choice.  I did this to encourage students to experiment and follow their curiosity.  The Database Information Solutions project became the Database Teach-In, which shifted to requiring students to work in groups to explore a United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of their choice.  The Beyond the News Project, which had always allowed students to select a topic of interest but required a live presentation in the classroom, evolved to allow students to replace the live presentation with a final product that they felt best shared their research findings.  While a live presentation remained an option, students could instead submit a recorded or poster presentation, extended annotated bibliography, or an alternative option developed in conjunction with me.  The research journal that had initially been a key piece of the Beyond the News project also underwent substantial revisions to become the Myself, the Research Essay.  This assignment now asked students to reflect upon their growth as a researcher over the entire semester.  Students could select which assignments, projects, and activities to highlight as evidence of their learning. All assignment guidelines were updated to include specifications of what students must accomplish to pass.  For example, while assignment directions might tell students to provide a ~100 word evaluation of a source using criteria from the CRAAP test, the specifications would establish that students needed to compose an evaluation of at least 85 words that used no less than three criteria from the CRAAP test to pass the assignment.  While these specifications set more rigid expectations, they also provided clear guidelines to students.  The specifications also transformed my rubrics to holistic rubrics with just three rating scales: accepted, indicating that all specifications had been met; revise, indicating that the work needed to be revised in order to meet missing specifications; and not submitted.

Takeaways & Next Steps

Encouraging Curiosity & Experimentation

Using specifications grading in my course yielded key benefits, particularly in encouraging students to experiment and take risks in their work.  For students who learn better through trial and error, ample opportunities were provided to test out their own methods for meeting specifications.  If initial methods fell short, students were able to adjust their approach with no penalty to their grade.  This experimentation deepened the learning process as students reflected upon why their initial methods failed and reoriented their approach.  Embedding opportunities for revision also mitigated some of the stress of assignments.  This helped support the mental health and diverse needs of many students who were struggling during the pandemic.  For students who were still figuring out how to balance academic work with other responsibilities, specifications grading provided the opportunity to review feedback, identify errors, and revise work if specifications were not initially met.  This process was particularly helpful for students who had less experience with college-level research. However, specifications grading did pose challenges.  Many students had no prior experience with specifications grading or other ungrading strategies and practices.  Over the semester, I had to repeatedly explain not only how their work was being assessed but also why it was being assessed that way.  For students to take advantage of the opportunities for experimentation that are so central to specifications grading, they had to be aware of those opportunities and what they offered. Additionally, students sometimes rushed to resubmit work and failed to reflect and ask questions that would deepen their learning.  This often resulted in unproductive experimentation that was frustrating and time-consuming to both the student and myself as the instructor.

Quality of Work: Feedback as Conversation

One goal of specifications grading is the restoration of academic rigor, and I was pleased to see the quality of student work improve over the course of the semester.  I set assignment specifications at what I would have expected to see students accomplish to receive a B or B+ in my prior grading system.  Many students went beyond the specifications in their initial or revised work. One critical factor that contributed to the higher quality of work was the reframing of feedback as a conversation between student and instructor.  In previous semesters, when course assignments and associated grades were final, many students focused exclusively on their grade, ignoring the feedback that I provided to help them in future assignments and research.  When I began to allow for the revision of failed assignments, students were incentivized to carefully review my feedback and enter into a conversation about how to strengthen their work.  This process also provided me with opportunities to learn more about what interested and motivated my students, which allowed me to draw connections and contextualize learning with greater nuance.

Moving Forward

Since Fall 2021, I have continued to experiment with specifications grading.  Responding to student feedback from Fall 2021, I explored blending pass/fail grading on lower-level assignments (like the skills exercises) with traditional grading on higher-level projects.  While this provided opportunities to revise the early skill-building exercises, I was quickly dissatisfied with loss of the grade bundles and the lack of opportunities for revisions on more advanced work, particularly for students struggling with course content.  The quality of the work once again slipped as students endeavored to just turn in “something” for each assignment rather than following their curiosity to complete assignments that were of greater interest to them.  I considered this a failed experiment and returned to the specifications grading system I initially used, although I now use tokens to limit the number of resubmissions allowed for all work beyond achieving a D in hopes of encouraging earlier questions and conversations about assignments and the research process. To better align assignments with course objectives and learning outcomes, I again tweaked the final piece of the Beyond the News project.  In drafting the specifications for the assignment in Fall 2021, it was challenging to set specifications because students were permitted to submit a wide range of final products.  To resolve this problem, I limited the options to submitting a live, recorded, or poster presentation. This change provided students with agency while maintaining more equitable standards for determining when student work met specifications. Moving forward, I hope to implement specifications grading in the 5-week summer sessions and 3-week winter terms of LIB 150.  This implementation has been more challenging since the course is already condensed to enable students to meet the same objectives and learning outcomes of the typically 13-week course.  Figuring out how to provide opportunities for revisions that will still allow students to stay on track to complete the course is a hurdle that I am still seeking a way to overcome.

Conclusion

While transitioning to specifications grading takes time, reflection, and effort, it may be a good fit for library instructors seeking new approaches to support student learning, encourage intellectual curiosity and experimentation, and implement more equitable grading practices.  As part of a broader movement to use assessment for learning, specifications grading provides increased opportunities for library instructors to engage students in conversations about their research and work and tailor support to meet the individual needs and abilities of each student.  These efforts are crucial to helping students hone their critical information literacy skills, experience authentic learning, and become informed lifelong learners.

References

Auer, N.J., & Krupar, E.M. (2005). Librarians grading: Giving A's, B's, C's, D's, and F's. The Reference Librarian, 89-90, 39–61.

Beck, H.P., Rorrer-Woody, S., & Pierce, L.G. (1991). The relations of learning and grade orientations to academic performance. Teaching of Psychology, 18(1), 35–37. https://doi-org.uri.idm.oclc.org/10.1207/s15328023top1801_10

Choi, J.H., Payne, A., Hart, P., & Brown, A. (2019). Creative risk‐taking: Developing strategies for first year university students in the creative industries. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12169

Dressel, P. (1968). College and university curriculum.  Michigan State University. https://archive.org/details/collegeuniversit0000unse_h6y5

Earl, D. (2022). Two years of specifications grading in philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 45(1), 23–64. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20211118154

Elbow, P. (1997). Grading student writing: Making it simpler, fairer, clearer. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(69): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.6911

Eyler, J.R. (2018). How humans learn: The science and stories behind effective college teaching. West Virginia University Press.

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.

Gibbs, L. (2020). Let’s talk about grading. In S.D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 91–104). West Virginia University Press.

Gorichanaz, T. (2022). “It made me feel like it was okay to be wrong”: Student experiences with ungrading. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi-org.uri.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/14697874221093640

Greenberg, K.H., Sohn, B.K., & Moret, L. (2022). Life in an ungraded course. College Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2046998

Gruber, M.J., Gelman, B., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

Harland, T., McLean, A., Wass, R., Miller, E., & Sim, K.N. (2015). An assessment arms race and its fallout: High-stakes grading and the case for slow scholarship. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.931927

Jones, M.K., Leath, S., Latimer, K., Lawson, E., & Briones, M. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on Black college students’ mental health. Journal of College Student Development, 63(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2022.0021

Leslie, P., & Lundblom, E. (2020). Specifications grading: What it is and lessons learned. Seminars in Speech and Language, 41(4), 298–309. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/33352/

Nilson, L.B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing.

Prasad, P.V. (2020) Using revision and specifications grading to develop students’ mathematical habits of mind. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 30(8–10), 908–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1709589

Pulfrey, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2011). Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023911

Rojstaczer, S., & Healy, C. (2012). Where A is ordinary: The evolution of American college and university grading, 1940-2009. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211400707

Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A-F marking scheme.  Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.790480

Schulz-Bergin, M. (2020). Grade anarchy in the philosophy classroom. In S.D. Blum (Ed.), Ungrading: Why rating students undermines learning (and what to do instead) (pp. 173-187). West Virginia University Press.

Stommel, J. (2021, June 11). Ungrading: An introduction. https://www.jessestommel.com/ungrading-an-introduction/

Streifer, A.C., & Palmer, M.S. (2021). Is specifications grading right for me?: A readiness assessment to help instructors decide. College Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.2018396

Supiano, B. (2019, July 19). Grades can hinder learning. What should professors use instead? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/grades-can-hinder-learning-what-should-professors-use-instead/

Vitale, S.E., & Concepción, D.W. (2021). Improving student learning with aspects of specifications grading. Teaching Philosophy, 44(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil2020121133

White, H.A. (2022). Need for cognitive closure predicts stress and anxiety of college students during COVID-19 pandemic. Personality & Individual Differences, 187, Article 111393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111393

Wilson, O.W.A., Holland, K.E., Elliott, L.D., Duffey, M., & Bopp, M. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US college students' physical activity and mental health. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 18(3), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2020-0325

Introduction

Space Renovation

Welcoming Students

Student-Librarian relationships

Programming, Workshops and Events

Students’ Responses to the Space and Intellectual Curiosity

Abbasi, N., Tucker, R., Fisher, K., & Gerrity, R. (2014). Library spaces designed with students in mind: an evaluation study of University of Queensland libraries at St Lucia campus. Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, Paper 3. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/libraryspace/3/

Association of College and Research Libraries (2016). Framework for information literacy in higher education. American Library Association.  https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2021). Update on the ACRL Academic Library Trends and Statistics Survey. 2021 ALA Midwinter Meeting and Exhibits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0t5zsDt5M

De Groote S., Scoulas, J. M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the use of the academic library. Reference Services Review, 49(3/4), 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-07-2021-0043

Fagan, J. C., Ostermiller, H., Price, E., & Sapp, L. (2021). Librarian, faculty, and student perceptions of academic librarians: Study introduction and literature review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 38-75.

Hensley, R. B. (2004). Curiosity and creativity as attributes of information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(1), 31–36.

Jones, D., & Grote, A. (2018). The library as learning commons. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 46(3), 1-9. https://www.acentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PHEV46N3_PlanningStory_Library_As_Learning_Commons_Jones-Grote.pdf

McClellan, S., & Beggan, J. K. (2019). Addressing the dilemma of the ironic librarian: Self-reported strategies librarians use to enhance approachability. The Library Quarterly, 89(3), 254-273.

Reale, M. (2018). The indispensable academic librarian. American Library Association.

Russell, B. H. (2013). Intellectual curiosity: A principle-based concept analysis. Advances in Nursing Science, 36(2), 94-105. https//doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0b013e3182901f74

Von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204

Yu, S. H. (2017). Just Curious: How can academic libraries incite curiosity to promote science literacy? Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i1.3954

Introduction

Browsing, Intellectual Curiosity, and Information Discovery

Figure 1. [caption id="attachment_91" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Primo VE’s Citation Trail feature.[/caption]

Challenges to Traditional Browsing

Curated Collections at University at Albany Libraries

Facilitating Browsing of Online and Physical Resources

Figure 2. [caption id="attachment_92" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Collection Discovery Collection Lobby landing page.[/caption]

Figure 3. [caption id="attachment_93" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Collection Discovery in-collection browsing interface.[/caption]

Art Crime: Heists, Forgeries, and Cons

Figure 4. [caption id="attachment_94" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Art Crime: Heists, Forgeries, and Cons Curated Collection in the Collection Lobby.[/caption]

Leisure Reading

Writing Strategies for Undergraduates

Children and Young Adult Collection

Faculty Compilations

Graphic Novels

Impact of Virtual Browsing through Curated Collections

Benefits for Students

Additional Benefits of Virtual Browsable Collections

Student Response & Feedback

Avrich, B., Cheddie, C., Fischer, S., Hennick, J., & Hood, M. (Producer), & Avrich, B. (Director). (2020). Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/title/81406333

Collection discovery. Ex Libris Knowledge Center. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/Primo/Back_Office_Guide/060Configuring_Primo%E2%80%99s_Front_End/050Collection_Discovery#  archived at https://perma.cc/2ZV5-FJBV

Cook, M. (2018). Virtual Serendipity: Preserving Embodied Browsing Activity in the 21st Century Research Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 145-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.003

Fogelman, A., Rosenthal, J., Babbit, J., Martin, S., Short, M., Gomez, S., Hoffman, J., Banks, T., Raab., J., Pavonetti, N., & Bernstein, K. (Producers). (2022). Only Murders in the Building [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.hulu.com/series/ef31c7e1-cd0f-4e07-848d-1cbfedb50ddf

Foster, A. & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310472518

Hoeber, O., & Shukla, S. (2022). A study of visually linked keywords to support exploratory browsing in academic search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(8), 1171-1191. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24623

International Reading Association (2014). Leisure reading [Position statement]. Newark, DE. https://web.archive.org/web/20140724082701/http://reading.org/Libraries/position-statements-and-resolutions/ps1082_leisure_reading.pdf

Lederman, D. (2021, September 16). Detailing last fall’s online enrollment surge. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/16/new-data-offer-sense-how-covid-expanded-online-learning archived at https://perma.cc/77FW-MA36

Massis, B. E. (2011). Serendipitous browsing versus library space. New Library World, 112(3-4), 178-182. https://10.1108/03074801111117078

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, May). Undergraduate enrollment. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cha#:~:text=Between%20fall%202009%20and%202020,percent%20to%2017.1%20million%20students archived at https://perma.cc/6TLL-5UER

Nutefall, J.E. & Ryder, P.M. (2010). The serendipitous research process. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 228-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.005

Siegel, J., Koteen, R., O’Brien, B, & Ambramson, M. (Producers), & Barnicle, C. (Director). (2021). This Is a Robbery: The World's Biggest Art Heist [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/title/81032570

University at Albany Libraries. Art crime: Heists, forgeries, and cons. Search. https://search.library.albany.edu/permalink/01SUNY_ALB/rv9srv/alma9932351923704808

White, R. W., & Roth, R. A. (2009). Exploratory search: Beyond the query-response paradigm. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00174ED1V01Y200901ICR003

Introduction

Figure 1. [caption id="attachment_106" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Elements of the research process as mapped to the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.[/caption]

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2007). Putting the horse back in front of the cart: Using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017

Anderson, M. (2016). Rethinking assessment: Information literacy instruction and the ACRL Framework. School of Information Student Research Journal, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.050203

Attridge Bufton, M., & Samokishyn, M. (2022). Critical foundations in undergraduate research. A reading guide. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/undergradresearchreadingguide/

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015, February 9). Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Bastone, Z., & Clement, K. (2022). Serving everyone or serving no one? Examining the faux-equity of the one-shot. College & Research Libraries, 83(5). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.780

Buchanan, S. M. C., Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C., & Edwards, S. (2016). Inquiry-based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 23–39.

Carson, P., Colosimo, A. L., Lake, M., & McMillan, B. (2014). A "partnership" for the professional development of librarian researchers. Partnership : The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 9(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v9i2.3037

Clark, M. (2017). Imposed-inquiry information-seeking self-efficacy and performance of college students: A review of the literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.05.001

Conklin, T. A., & Boulamatsi, A. (2020). Decision-making: The process is the content in an experience-based classroom. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 18(4), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12224

Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., & Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring relations between formative and summative assessment. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy (pp. 53–80). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_3

Dubicki, E. (2019). Mapping curriculum learning outcomes to ACRL’s Framework threshold concepts: A syllabus study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.04.003

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences an integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.

Frail, K., & Severson, S. (2022). 2021 Summary of instruction activities at selected [Text Wrapping Break]Canadian University Libraries. Report for the University of Alberta Library Teaching & Learning Strategy Working Group. University of Alberta. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/ab25dca0-750b-4ec3-8bf6-8a7e08f09900

Gatzka, T., & Hell, B. (2018). Openness and postsecondary academic performance: A meta-analysis of facet-, aspect-, and dimension-level correlations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000194

Grayson, J. P., Côté, J., Chen, L., Kenedy, R., & Roberts, S. (2019). Academic skill deficiencies in four Ontario universities. York University. https://skillsforuniversitysuccess.info.yorku.ca/files/2019/04/04-26-2019-AcademicSkills.pdf

Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

Hepworth, M., & Walton, G. (2009). Teaching information literacy for inquiry-based learning. Elsevier.

Hosier, Allison (2022). Using context in Information Literacy instruction: Beyond basic skills. ALA Editions.

Instructional Skills Workshop Network. (2018). Instructional Skills Workshop Handbook. https://www.iswnetwork.ca/resources/isw-and-fdw-handbooks/

Junisbai, B. (2014). The promise and potential pitfalls of a “learning-centered” approach to creative social inquiry: Lessons learned from an undergraduate seminar on authoritarianism through literature and film. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.922029

Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 547-558.

Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. American Psychologist, 55(5), 373-74.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and Its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McKinney, P. (2014). Information literacy and inquiry-based learning: Evaluation of a five-year programme of curriculum development. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 46(2), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613477677

McKinney, P., & Levy, P. (2006). Inquiry-based learning and information literacy development: A CETL approach. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05020007

McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). (2007). Formative classroom assessment. Teachers College Press.

Mery, Y., Newby, J., & Peng, K. (2012). Why one-shot information literacy sessions are not the future of instruction: A case for online credit courses. College & Research Libraries, 73(4), 366-377.

Mills, J., Wiley, C., & Williams, J. (2019). “This Is what learning looks like!”: Backward design and the framework in first year writing. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 19(1), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0008

Nicholson, K. (2016). “Taking back” information literacy: Time and the one-shot in the neoliberal university. In N. Pagowsky, & K. McElroy (Eds.). Critical library pedagogy handbook: Essays and workbook activities, Vol. 1. (pp. 25-39). Association of College and Research Libraries. 

Oakleaf, M. (2009). Writing information literacy assessment plans: A guide to best practice. Communications in Information Literacy, 3(2), 80–89.

Pagowsky, N. (2021). The contested one-shot: Deconstructing power structures to imagine new futures. College & Research Libraries, 82(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.3.300

Pagowsky, N. & McElroy, K. (2016). Critical library pedagogy handbook: Essays and workbook activities. (Vol. 1). Association of College and Research Libraries. 

Pagowsky, N., & McElroy, K. (2016). Critical library pedagogy handbook: Lesson plans. (Vol. 2). Association of College and Research Libraries.

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Reale, M. (2019). Inquiry and research: A relational approach in the classroom. ALA Editions.

Sobel, K. , Ramsey, P., & Jones, G. (2018). The professor-librarian: Academic librarians teaching credit-bearing courses. Public Services Quarterly, 14(1), 1–21.

von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zion, M., & Sadeh, I. (2007). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656092

Appendix

Introduction

Literature Review

Physical Library Orientation Programs

Virtual Library Orientation Programs

Benefits of Gamification Held Within Virtual Library Orientations

Case Study: "Choosing Your Own Adventure in Learning"- Orientation Library Guide

Background Information

Beginning Steps of the Project: Creating Learning Objectives for Library Orientation

• Each participant will identify the library and related services through the digital library website, such as collections and circulating materials in physical and digital accessible formats.
• Each participant will recognize how to locate their subject librarian for which to learn to ask for assistance with the research process
• Each participant will choose and complete the modular activities for which to further construct information literacy skills to apply in their academic careers.

Beginning Steps: Creating Pre- and Post-Assessments for the Virtual Library Orientation Experience

1. Please describe your past exposure to using libraries (for example, school, public, or community college). For example, was the process easy or hard to locate the resources needed to complete any previous library research projects?
2. How do you currently feel about using an academic library based on your previous experiences?

Beginning Steps of the Project: Exploring Technological Products

Creating and Implementing the "Choose Your Adventure in Learning" Game

Ready… Set… Go: Game Layout and Directional Information

Digital Scavenger Hunt Reflection

Conclusion and Future Casting

References

Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35 (1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT02-2017-0009

Association of College and Research Libraries (2006, September 1). Standards for Distance Learning Library Services. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesdistancelearning

Baglier, T., & Caswell, T. (2016). Destroy your classroom! Re-conceptualizing the instructor/student model in academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105023

Baker, O. J., & Dobson, A. (1948). The teacher's part in fostering the student's use of the library. The Journal of Higher Education, 19(6), 307-312.

Boff, C., & Johnson, K. (2002). The library and first‐year experience courses: a nationwide study. Reference Services Review, 30 (4), 277-287, https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210451268

Boss, K., Angell, K., & Tewell, E. (2015). The Amazing Library Race: tracking student engagement and learning comprehension in library orientations. Journal of Information Literacy, 9(1), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.11645/9.1.1885

Bracke, P. J., & Dickstein, R. (2002). Web tutorials and scalable instruction: testing the waters. Reference Services Review, 30 (4), 330-337, https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210451321

Broussard, M. J. S. (2012). Digital games in academic libraries: a review of games and suggested best practices. Reference Services Review, 40(1),75-89, https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321211203649

Brown, A. G., Weingart, S., Johnson, J. R., & Dance, B. (2004). Librarians don't bite: Assessing library orientation for freshmen. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410569752

Burke, A., Lai, A., & Rogers, A. (2014). iPod Apps, Mobile Learning and Game Dynamics: This Ain't Your Typical Library Orientation. [Paper Presentation]. LOEX 2012. https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=loexconf2012

Cahoy, E. S., & Bichel, R. M. (2004). A luau in the library? A new model of library orientation. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 11(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v11n01_06

Cook, L., Cully, B. R., & Huftalin, D. (2003). The connecting point: Orientation at community colleges. In J. A. Ward-Roof and C. Hatch (Eds.), Designing Successful Transitions: A Guide for Orienting Students to College (2nd ed.., pp. 125-135). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition. University of South Carolina.

Cordova, M. (2011). The Quick Response (QR) code: graphic potential for libraries. The Idaho Librarian: A Publication of the Idaho Library Association, 61(1). https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=lib_facpubs

Dennen, V. P., Hao, S., Lee, S., & Lim, T. (2015). Virtual Enhancement to Physical Spaces: A QR code-based orientation game. The Journal of Emerging Learning Design, 2(1), 7-14.

Dent, V. F. (2003). Innovation on a shoestring: an all-virtual model for self-paced library orientation on an urban campus. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 10(2), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v10n02_03

Dickinson, G. K. (2002). A new look at job satisfaction. Library Administration and Management, 16(1), 28-33.

Du Mont, M. J., & Schloman, B. F. (1995). The evolution and reaffirmation of a library orientation program in an academic research library. Reference Services Review, 23(1), 85-92.

EDUCAUSE (2022). 2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Report. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2022/4/2022-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition

Elsom, S., Westacott, M., Stieler-Hunt, C., Glencross, S., & Rutter, K. (2021). Finding resources, finding friends: using an alternate reality game for orientation and socialisation in a university enabling program. Interactive Learning Environments, 29 (1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1894181

Faulk, N., & Crist, E. (2020). A mixed-methods study of library communication with online students and faculty members. College & Research Libraries, 81(3), 361. https://doi.org/ 10.5860/crl.81.3.361

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(2), 77-83. https://doi.org/10.106/j.tics.2006.11.005

Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., & Wyeth, P. (2011, November). Orientation passport: using gamification to engage university students. Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer-human interaction conference. ACM Press:122-125.

Foley, M., & Bertel, K. (2015). Hands-on instruction: the iPad self-guided library tour. Reference Services Review, 43(2), 309-318,  https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2014-0021

Francis, M. (2012). Making embedded librarians a part of an online community of learners. Journal of Llibrary & Information Services In Distance Learning, 6(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.660879

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and Games, In K. Salen (Eds), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. ( pp.21-40). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.978026269346.021

Georgas, H. (2014). The implementation of an independent and self-paced online library orientation for freshman students and the use of Sakai as a quiz management system (QMS). College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10691316.2014.877737

Giles, K. (2015). No budget, no experience, no problem: creating a library orientation game for freshman engineering majors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(2), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.12.005

Goldman, C., Turnbow, D., Roth, A., Friedman, L., & Heskett, K. (2016). Creating an engaging library orientation: First-year experience courses at the University of California, San Diego. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/ 10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.1.16

Goldman, C., Turnbow, D., & Roth, A. (2018). Building Partnerships for Better Library Orientations. In Planning Library Orientations. In K. Bailin, B. Jahre, & S. Morris (Eds.), Planning Academic Library Orientations (pp.115-124). Chandos Publishing

Grandholm, K. (2007). Why online orientation? Transitions, 2(1), 5-9.

Griffey, J.(2008) "Alternative Reality Games." ALA Tech Source. https://www.ala.org/tools/publications/techsource/blog/2008/11/alternate-reality-games.html

Greiner, T. (2000). What I learned in a college library. Library Journal, 125(10), 88.

Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). "Achievement unlocked!"-The impact of digital achievements as a gamification element on motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 97(1), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.026

Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2007). Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 332-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.012

Hahn, J. (2009). On the remediation of Wikipedia to the iPod. Reference Services Review, 37(3),272-85, https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320910982767

Hamilton, C. (2009). Fusion Building: New trend with some old roots. Planning for Higher Education, 37(2), 44-51.

Hicks, A., & Sinkinson, C. (2011). Situated questions and answers: Responding to library users with QR codes. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 51(1), 60-69.

Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Is library anxiety important? Library Review, 48(6), 278-282, https://doi.org/10.1108/00242539910283732

Johnson, H. A., & Barrett, L. (2017). Your teaching strategy matters: how engagement impacts application in health information literacy instruction. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105(1), 44-48. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.8

Kaneko, K., Saito, Y., Nohara, Y., Kudo, E., & Yamada, M. (2018). Does physical activity enhance learning performance?: Learning effectiveness of game-based experiential learning for university library instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 569-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.002

Kasbohm, K. E., Schoen, D., & Dubaj, M. (2006). Launching the library mystery tour: A library component for the "first-year experience." College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(2), 35-46. https:// doi:10.1300/J106v13n02_03

Kasowitz-Scheer, A. (2006). Welcoming First-Year Students in Style. Educators' Spotlight Digest, 1(3).

Kim, B. (2015). Gamification in education and libraries. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 20-28.

Klain Gabbay, L., & Shoham, S. (2019). The role of academic libraries in research and teaching. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 721-736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742462

Latham, D., & Gross, M. (2013). Instructional preferences of first-year college students with below-proficient information literacy skills: A focus group study. College & Research Libraries, 74(5), 430-449. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-343

Leach, G. J., & Sugarman, T. S. (2005). Play to win! Using games in library instruction to enhance student learning. Research Strategies, 20(3), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.05.002

Leenaraj, B., Arayaphan, W., Intawong, K., & Puritat, K. (2021). A gamified mobile application for first-year student orientation to promote library services. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211067273

Leibiger, C. A., & Aldrich, A. W. (2022). " Making It Happen": Building Relational Teaching into the Online World of COVID-19 Portal. Libraries and the Academy, 22(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2022.0008

Levitan, G., & Rosenstein, J. (2019). Sustainability in the first-year experience: Taking library orientation online. College & Research Libraries News, 80(6), 350. https://doi.org/ 10.5860/crln.80.6.350

Ly, P., & Carr, A. (2010, April). The library scavenger hunt strikes back: Teaching" library as place. (Conference Presentation) Annual California Academic and Research Libraries Conference, Sacramento, CA.

Marcus, S., & Beck, S. (2003). A library adventure: Comparing a treasure hunt with a traditional freshman orientation tour. College & Research Libraries, 64(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/ 10.5860/crl.64.1.23

McCain, C. (2007). Scavenger hunt assignments in academic libraries: Viewpoints versus reality. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14(1), 19-31. https://doi:10.1300/J106v14n01_02

Mellon, C. A. (1986). Library anxiety: A grounded theory and its development. College & Research Libraries, 47(1), 160-166.

Mikkelsen, S., & Davidson, S. (2011). Inside the iPod, outside the classroom. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 66-80.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111108123

Moizer, J., Lean, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2009). Simulations and games: Overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.117/1469787409343188

Moran, C., & Mulvihill, R. (2017). Finding the balance in online library instruction: Sustainable and personal. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(1-2), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1223964

Mussell, J., & Gordon, C. (2017). Uncovering the Evidence: Faculty Perceptions of Distance Library Services. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(3-4), 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2017.1347121

Muszkiewicz, R. (2017). Get to know your librarian: How a simple orientation program helped alleviate library anxiety. Public Services Quarterly, 13(4), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2017.1319780

Parks, C. (2019). Testing a warmth-based instruction intervention for reducing library anxiety in first-year undergraduate students. Evidence-Based Library and Information Practice, 14.2, 70-84. https://doi.org/ 10.18438/eblip29548

Pellegrino, C. (2012). Does telling them to ask for help work?: Investigating library help-seeking behaviors in college undergraduates. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 51(3), 272-277.

Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21. https://doi-org.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1145/950566.950596

Ray, D. (1989). The Meaningful and the Procedural: Dilemmas of the Community College Library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 15(3), 147-50.

Reed, K., & Miller, A. (2020). Applying gamification to the library orientation. Information Technology and Libraries, 39(3), 1-26,  https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v39i3.12209

Rice, J. (1981). Teaching Library Use: A Guide for Library Instruction. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Rodríguez, R. A. M., & Rivero, M. O. M. (2016). Information skills training through mobile devices: Practical applications of QR codes in academic libraries. The Electronic Library, 34(1),116-131.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-04-2014-0061

Sin, S. C. J. (2012). Modeling the impact of individuals' characteristics and library service levels on high school students' public library usage: A national analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 34(3), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.01.002

Snyder Broussard, M. J. (2010). Secret agents in the library: Integrating virtual and physical games in a small academic library. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10691310903584759

Stark, R. K., Opuda, E., McElfresh, J., & Kauffroath, K. (2021). Scavenging for evidence: A systematic review of scavenger hunts in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102345

Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in human behavior, 87, 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028

Tang, Y. (2021). Help first-year college students to learn their library through an augmented reality game. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102294

Texas Tech University (2022). Student Demographics. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/irim/Tableau/StudentDemographics.php

Texas Tech University Libraries (2022). Mission, Vision, and Values. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/library/about/admin/mission.php

Ury, C. J., & King, T. L. (1995). Reinforcement of Library Orientation Instruction for Freshman Seminar Students. Research Strategies, 13(3), 153-64.

Vance, J. M., Kirk, R., & Gardner, J. G. (2012). Measuring the impact of library instruction on freshmen success and persistence: A quantitative analysis. Communications in Information Literacy, 6(1), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2012.6.1.117

Van Scoyoc, A. M. (2003). Reducing library anxiety in first-year students: The impact of computer-assisted instruction and bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 42(4), 329-341.

Veach, C. C. (2019). Breaking out to break through: re-imagining first-year orientations. Reference Services Review, 47(4), 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-06-2019-0039

Walsh, A. (2014). The potential for using gamification in academic libraries in order to increase student engagement and achievement. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 6(1), 39-51.

Watts, M. M. (2005). The Place of the Library versus the Library as Place. In M.L. Upraft, J.N. Gardner, B.O Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college( 339-55). Jossey-Bass.

Westera, W. (2017). How people learn while playing serious games: A computational modeling approach. Journal of Computational Science, 18, 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2016.12.002

Whitchurch, M. J. (2011). QR codes and library engagement. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 14-17.

Woolwine, S., Romp, C. R., & Jackson, B. (2019). Game on: Evaluating the impact of gamification in nursing orientation on motivation and knowledge retention. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 35(5), 255-260. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/NND.0000000000000570 

Introduction

[caption id="attachment_264" align="aligncenter" width="469"] Themes of Writing & Rhetoric library sessions[/caption]

The following media clip provides insight into my efforts to engage one of my revered colleagues in Africana Studies, Dr. Bernard Forjwuor. Professor Forjwuor shares information about his pedagogical focus for students enrolled in the Introduction to Africana Studies course. One of the most invaluable insights he shared is archival materials and information resources that examine critically with voices representing the African, Black and diaspora communities in the Caribbean and throughout the world. [caption id="attachment_299" align="aligncenter" width="360"] Click to watch interview of Dr. Forjwuor.[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_267" align="aligncenter" width="470"] Hesburgh Libraries Library Research Award website[/caption]

Addy, T.M., Dube, D., Mitchell, K.A., & SoRelle, M.E. (2021). What inclusive instructors do. Stylus Publishing.

Mallon, M. (2020). Partners in teaching and learning: Coordinating a successful academic library instruction program. Rowman & Littlefield.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.

Svinicki, M.D., & McKeachie, W.J. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Tripp, L. O., & Collier, R. M. (2020). Culturally responsive teaching and learning in higher education. Information Science Reference.

Introduction

Literature on Intellectual Curiosity and Library Instruction

Library Instruction and Intellectual Curiosity

Compassionate Pedagogy

Librarian-Faculty Collaboration

Library Instruction and Podcast-Making

Librarian and Student Consultations

Final Podcast Series

• Episode 1: Dulcie Activism: A Transformation
• Episode 2: Dulcie and the Cold War Arms Trade
• Episode 3: Women Seeking Change
• Episode 4: Media Invisibility
• Episode 5: Un-Erasing Dulcie September

Conclusion

References

Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework. Document ID: b910a6c4-6c8a-0d44-7dbc-a5dcbd509e3f

Buchanan, H. E. (2017). The one-shot library instruction survival guide (Second edition.). ALA Editions, an imprint of the American Library Association.

Dickson, L., & Summerville, T. (2018). The Truth About Stories: Coming to Compassionate Pedagogy in a First-Year Program. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(3), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i3.378

Dobozy, E., & Gross, J. (2010). Pushing Library Information to First-Year Students: An   Exploratory Study of Faculty/Library Collaboration. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41(2), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2010.10721447

Donham, J., & Green, C. W. (2004). Developing a Culture of Collaboration: Librarian as Consultant. 30(4), 8.

Evans, R. S. (2018). Tech, Tips, and Ideas for Podcasting with or Without a Studio. 38(6), 4–7.

Hao, R. N. (2011). Critical Compassionate Pedagogy and the Teacher’s Role in First-Generation Student Success. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(127), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.460

Hauke, E. (2019). Understanding the World Today: The Roles of Knowledge and Knowing in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(3), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1544122

Hensley, R. B., Arp, L., & Woodard, B. S. (2004). Curiosity and Creativity as Attributes of Information Literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(1), 31–36. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A125065489/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=1be1822b

Reichel, M. (1994). Library Literacy. RQ, 33(4), 471–475. https://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/stable/20862525

Rosso, J. D. (2021). How Loss Teaches: Beyond “Pandemic Pedagogy.” Humanity & Society, 45(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597620987008

Scharf, D., & Dera, J. (2021). Question Formulation for Information Literacy: Theory and Practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 102365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102365

Stahura, D. (2018). Act up for Evaluating Sources: Pushing Against Privilege | Stahura | College & Research Libraries News. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.10.551

Whitver, S. M., & Riesen, K. K. (2019). Reiterative Reflection in the Library Instruction Classroom. Reference Services Review, 47(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-04-2019-0023

Wong, G. K. W. (2010). Facilitating Students’ Intellectual Growth in Information Literacy Teaching. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(2), 114–118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20865377

Introduction

Identifying barriers between first-year students and librarians

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Baer, A. P. (2016-a). Grounding Habits of Mind and conceptual understandings in disciplinary practices: Putting the frameworks and Decoding the Disciplines in conversation. In R. McClure, & J. P. Purdy (Eds.), The future scholar: Researching and teaching the frameworks for writing and information literacy (pp. 3–18). Association for Information Science and Technology.

Baer, A. P. (2016-b). Information literacy and writing studies in conversation: Re-envisioning library-writing program connections. Library Juice Press.

Brower, M. (2014). A recent history of embedded librarianship: Collaboration and partnership building with academics in learning and research environments. In Kvenild, C., & Calkins, K. (Eds.), Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot instruction (pp. 3–16). Association of College & Research Libraries.

Bush, L. & Mason, J. (2016). Infusing the inquiry cycle with continuous curiosity. In R. McClure, & J. P. Purdy (Eds.), The future scholar: Researching and teaching the frameworks for writing and information literacy (pp. 23–43). Association for Information Science and Technology.

California State University, Stanislaus. (2017). Stanislaus State Graduation Initiative 2025 Student Success Plan - revised. https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Graduation%20Rate%20Excellence%20and%20Assessment%20Team%20%28GREAT%29/documents/stanislaus_state_graduation_initiative_2025_student_success_plan_revised_4-28-17_0.pdf

Carlson, J. & Kneale, R. (2011). Embedded librarianship in the research context: Navigating new waters. College & Research Libraries News, 72(3), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.72.3.8530

Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, & National Writing Project. (2011). Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516360.pdf

D'Angelo, B. J., Jamieson, S., Maid, B., & Walker, J. R. (Eds.). (2016). Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines. WAC Clearinghouse. https://doi.org/ 10.37514/PER-B.2016.0834.1.3

DeSanto, D., Harrington, S. (2017). Harnessing the intersections of writing and information literacy [Paper presentation]. ACRL 18th National Conference, “At the Helm,” Baltimore, MD, United States. http://hdl.handle.net/11213/17743

Fain, M. (2011). Assessing information literacy skills development in first year students: A multi-year study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(2), 109–119.

Flaspohler, M. R. (2012). Engaging first-year students in meaningful library research: A practical guide for teaching faculty. Chandos Publishing.

Fisher, R. & Heaney, A. (2011). A faculty perspective: Strengthening at-risk students’ transition to academic research through embedded librarianship. In C. Kvenild., & K. Calkins (Eds.), Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot instruction (pp. 35–45). Association of College & Research Libraries.

Fister, B. (2021, February 3). Lizard people in the library. Project Information Literacy Provocation Series. https://projectinfolit.org/pubs/provocation-series/essays/lizard-people-in-the-library.html

Folk, A. (2021). Exploring the development of undergraduate students’ information literacy through their experiences with research assignments. College & Research Libraries, 82(7), 1035. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.7.1035

Head, A. J. (2013). Project information literacy: What can be learned about the information-seeking behavior of today's college students? Association of College and Research Librarians Conference. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281511

Head, A. J., Bull, A. C., & MacMillan, M. (2021). Asking the right questions: Bridging gaps between information literacy assessment approaches. Against the Grain, 31(4), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.8408

Information Literacy Faculty Learning Community. (2018). Progress report and recommendations from the Information Literacy Faculty Learning Community. California State University, Stanislaus. https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/u2956/progress_report_recommendations_from_the_information_literacy_faculty_learning_community.pdf

Institutional Effectiveness & Analytics. (n.d.-a). Enrollment. California State University, Stanislaus. https://www.csustan.edu/iea/institutional-data/faculty-and-staff

Institutional Effectiveness & Analytics. (n.d.-b). Quick facts - fall 2021. California State University, Stanislaus. https://www.csustan.edu/iea/institutional-data/quick-facts

Jacobs, H. L., & Jacobs, D. (2009). Transforming the one-shot library session into pedagogical collaboration: Information literacy and the English composition class. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 49(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n1.72

Johnson, K., & Kolk, S. (2016). Frameworks in conversation: Habits of mind, curriculum, and assessment. In R. McClure, & J. P. Purdy (Eds.), The future scholar: Researching and teaching the frameworks for writing and information literacy (pp. 3–18). Association for Information Science and Technology.

Newberry, S. (2017). The cooperation of many minds: Cultivating the undergraduate researcher in the humanities and social sciences through team-based curricular design. In R. Fisher & M. K. Hensley (Eds.), Undergraduate research and the academic librarian: Case studies and best practices (pp. 19–29). Association of College & Research Libraries.

Nicholson, K. P. (2019). "Being in time": New public management, academic librarians, and the temporal labor of pink-collar public service work. Library Trends, 68(2), 130–152.

Norgaard, R. (2003). Writing information literacy: Contributions to a concept. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(2), 124–130.

Refaei, B., & Wahman, M. L. (2016). The art of conversation: Dialog between a librarian and a writing program administrator. In R. McClure (Ed.),  Rewired: Research-writing partnerships within the frameworks (pp. 3–19). Association of College and Research Libraries.

Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Harvard Education Press.

Sullivan, P. (2015). The UnEssay: Making Room for Creativity in the Composition Classroom. College Composition and Communication, 67(1), 6–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24633867

Schulte, S. J. (2012). Embedded academic librarianship: A review of the literature. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 122–138. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/17466/14483

Introduction

Pomerantz and Marchionini state many students’ most frequent library exposure is through its virtual space. Unfortunately, not only is it difficult to replicate the browsing experience virtually, it is also a challenge help patrons visualize and comprehend “the collection” virtually (McKay et al., 2017). Bates’s seminal work on browsing (2007), frames why: Browsing involves “glimpsing” a “scene” and selecting an item from that scene to examine more closely with more sophistication—a cognitively demanding process. Virtual library spaces struggle to facilitate such serendipitous glimpses. Huurdeman et al. (2018) claim digital libraries lack the “distinct qualities of exploring and handling materials in physical library spaces” (p. 219) and brainstormed ways to bring the virtual library exploration process closer to the physical library exploration process.

Arnone, M. P., Small, R. V., Chauncey, S. A., & McKenna, H. P. (2011). Curiosity, interest, and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 181-190.

Bates, M. J. (2007). What is browsing – really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Information Research, 12(4), Article 330. http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper330.html

Bennett, S. (2011). Learning behaviors and learning spaces. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(3), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0033 

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill.

Björneborn, L. (2008). Serendipity dimensions and users’ information behaviour in the physical library interface. Information Research, 13(4), Article 370.

Buhler, A. G., & Davis, V. (2010). Elegance of science: Coordinating an annual scientific art contest at the library. College & Research Libraries News, 71(5), 248-251.

Carlin, J., & Varady, A. (1999). “Snow globes, valentines, mail art, oh my!”: Weird and wonderful art library collections. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 18(1), 46–49.

Cirasella, J., & Deutch, M. B. (2012). From art on the wall to something for all: How an academic library turned its art collection into a campus attraction. Journal of Library Innovation, 3(1), 1–19. https://academicworks.cuny.edu

Dan, O., Leshkowitz, M., & Hassin, R. R. (2020). On clickbaits and evolution: Curiosity from urge and interest. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.09.009 

Deitering, A.-M., & Rempel, H. G. (2017). Sparking curiosity – Librarians’ role in encouraging exploration. In The Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2017/sparking-curiosity/ 

Drake, A., Doré, B. P., Falk, E. B., Zurn, P., Bassett, D. S., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2022). Daily stressor-related negative mood and its associations with flourishing and daily curiosity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(2), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00404-2

Goldstein, A. (1980). Thrills in response to music and other stimuli. Physiological Psychology, 8(1), 126-129.

Gómez-Maureira, M. A., & Kniestedt, I. (2019). Exploring video games that invoke curiosity. Entertainment Computing, 32, Article 100320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2019.100320

Gómez-Maureira, M. A., Kniestedt, I., van Duijn, M., Rieffe, C., & Plaat, A. (2021). Level design patterns that invoke curiosity-driven exploration: An empirical study across multiple conditions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CHI PLAY), Article 271. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474698

Grossnickle, E. M. (2016). Disentangling curiosity: Dimensionality, definitions, and distinctions from interest in educational contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9294-y

Homes, H. A. (1881). Libraries with museums. Library Journal, 6, 81-86.

Huang, J., & Vedantham, A. (2019). Cabot Science Library: Creating transformative learning environments in library spaces. In A. D. Singh, S. Raghunathan, E. Robeck, & B. Sharma (Eds.), Cases on Smart Learning Environments (pp. 284–298). IGI Global.

Huurdeman, H., Aamodt, M., Låberg, K. T., & Heggø, D. M. (2018). The collection in a new light–Towards visual exploration and navigation of academic library resources. International Information and Library Review, 50(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2018.1491704

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harper & Row.

Kleiner, E., Rädle, R., & Reiterer, H. (2013). Blended Shelf: Reality-based presentation and exploration of library collections. In W. Mackay, S. Brewster, & S. Bødker (Eds.), CHI EA ’13: CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. S277–S282). ACM.

Lacy, M., Dewan, P., Fister, B., Miller, W., & Brookbank, E. (2015). Sustaining curiosity: Programs for developing lifelong readers. Panel presentation at ACRL 2015 Conference, Portland, Oregon. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/nc_pubs/1/

Lawton, M., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619–674). American Psychological Association.

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.

McKay, D., Buchanan, G., & Chang, S. (2015, September). Tyranny of distance: Understanding academic library browsing by refining the neighbour effect. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, Poznan, Poland.

McKay, D., Chang, S., & Smith, W. (2017). Manoeuvres in the dark: Design implications of the physical mechanics of library shelf browsing. CHIIR 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020179 

McPhetres, J. (2019). Oh, the things you don’t know: Awe promotes awareness of knowledge gaps and science interest. Cognition and Emotion, 33(8), 1599-1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1585331

Mikos, I., Horne, B. R., & Weaver, K. D. (2015). Library display 2.0: Evolving from monologue to dialogue. Library Philosophy & Practice, Article 1283. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1283 

Peterson, E. G., & Hidi, S. (2019). Curiosity and interest: Current perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 781–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09513-0

Phillips, R., Evans, B., & Muirhead, S. (2015). Curiosity, place and wellbeing: Encouraging place-specific curiosity as a ‘way to wellbeing.’ Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(11), 2339–2354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15599290

Pomerantz, J., & Marchionini, G. (2007). The digital library as place. Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 505–533. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710758995

Price, C. A., Greenslit, J. N., Applebaum, L., Harris, N., Segovia, G., Quinn, K. A., & Krogh-Jespersen, S. (2021). Awe & memories of learning in science and art museums. Visitor Studies, 24(2), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2021.1907152

Raskin, H. (2009). Can an art gallery thrive in a science library? College & Research Libraries News, 70(4), 226-229.

Rauser, C. (2015). Library discovery tools: A case for curiosity and perseverance. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2931394 

Roberts, L. W., Rain Keller, C., & Welsh, M. E. (2022). Spark: Students describe curiosity and passion for learning. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 22(3), 613–630.

Rollins, J. A. (2011). Arousing curiosity: When hospital art transcends. Health Environments Research & Design, 4(3), 72–94.

Shin, D. D., & Kim, S.-I. (2019). Homo curious: Curious or interested? Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 853-874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09497-x

Shiota, M. L. (2016, May). How awe sharpens our brain. Greater Good Magazine. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_awe_sharpens_our_brains

Simor, S. (1991). Art exhibitions in academic libraries: A necessary (?) luxury (?). Art Librarianship, 10(3), 137-139.

Terrile, V. C. (2021). The display’s the thing: A successful interactive, analog community college library display. College & Research Libraries News, 82(2), 80–83, 86. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.2.80 

Ulrich, R. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In C. Marcus & M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (pp. 27-86). Wiley.

Ulrich, R., & Gilpin, L. (2003). Healing arts: Nutrition for the soul. In S. Frampton, L. Gilpin, & P. Charmel (Eds.), Putting patients first: Designing and practicing patient-centered care (pp. 117-146). Jossey-Bass.

Valdesolo, P., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Science is awe-some: The emotional antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review, 9(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916673212

Wade, S., & Kidd, C. (2019). The role of prior knowledge and curiosity in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1377–1387.

Yu, S. H. (2017). Just curious: How can academic libraries incite curiosity to promote science literacy? Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 12(1), 1–8.