Untitled-7 Applying Active Learning Methods 299 299 ccording to numerous studies, for-credit freshman seminars are a positive influence on stu- dent retention; academic per- formance, knowledge, and utilization of student services and activities; and per- sonality development, as well as on fresh- man subpopulations.1 Today, approxi- mately 67 percent of American colleges and universities offer some type of fresh- man seminar, providing librarians with increased opportunities to enhance the library skills of first-year students.2,3 The Freshman Seminar Concept Emerging out of the higher education counseling movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, freshman ori- entation was designed to help students make the transition from high school to college.4 The terms freshman orientation and freshman seminar have some distinc- tions regarding intellectual content. Freshman orientation �courses,� in con- trast to one-day or weeklong freshman orientation activities, generally offer ex- tended instruction on college �survival skills� such as note-taking, testing, and time and money management. They also provide a forum for group discussions on social issues. In contrast, freshman seminars are often subject specific, with the goal of introducing students to a par- ticular academic program. However, both terms are generally subsumed un- der the umbrella phrase freshman semi- nar.5 Freshman seminars are generally for- credit, one- to three-semester-hour (or equivalent quarter-hour) courses, taught by a team of faculty, student affairs per- sonnel, academic administrators, and often librarians. Some colleges and uni- versities require the course of all fresh- Applying Active Learning Methods to the Design of Library Instruction for a Freshman Seminar Katherine Strober Dabbour Active learning methods were employed in designing library instruction for an experimental freshman seminar at California State University- San Bernardino. Rather than rely on the traditional lecture/demonstra- tion format, the centerpiece of the ninety-minute “one-shot” sessions was a small-group, self-guided exercise focusing on the library’s online system. As a prelude to the hands-on exercise, students participated in class discussions on the importance of information literacy. Opportuni- ties for individual instruction also were provided. Student, librarian, and faculty evaluations of the sessions were favorable. Katherine Strober Dabbour is Associate Librarian in the Reference Division of the Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library at the University of California-Los Angeles; e-mail: kdabbour@library.ucla.edu. 300 College & Research Libraries July 1997 man students, whereas others keep it elective; they can be either pass/fail or letter graded.6 The Freshman Student and Library Instruction Bibliographic instruction programs for first-year students traditionally focus on the freshman composition, or English 101, course, wherein students research and write term papers. Librarians offer course- integrated instruction on model search strategies, relevant reference materials, and use of the library�s catalog and peri- odical indexes. It is called �course-inte- grated� instruction because it relates to a specific course assignment. The library lit- erature abounds with examples of fresh- man course-integrated library instruction, which generally is in the form of lecture/ discussion, demonstration with hands-on practice, workbooks, treasure hunts, and term paper clinics.7 However, although conventional wis- dom and research support the concept of course-integrated or �just in time� in- struction for specific library assignments, what about library instruction for classes that do not include a term paper or any other opportunities for course-integrated library instruction? Will students still benefit from the �just in case,� or non- course-integrated approach to library instruction that goes beyond the tradi- tional overview of library organization and services offered during freshman orientation? At least two previous stud- ies support this approach.8 In the case of the freshman seminar, this study asserts that it is not only possible, but necessary. The Case for Active Learning According to numerous research reports and professional educators� associations, active learning methods of instruction are preferable to the more traditional, pas- sive lecture approach.9 Although one could argue that, by its very nature, learn- ing is an active process, there is a grow- ing distinction being made in the higher education literature between active and passive learning. Passive learning generally is defined as the traditional approach to instruction; the teacher presents information during a lecture, and students listen and take notes. In contrast, active learning involves the student in talking and listening, read- ing, writing, and reflecting; activities that can be performed alone or in combina- tion. According to Meyers and Jones, these activities allow students to clarify, question, consolidate, and appropriate new knowledge.10 Although the lecture can meet the needs of highly self-directed individuals, active learning methods pro- vide more opportunities to meet the needs of a variety of learning styles.11 Strategies that promote active learning have the following characteristics: 1. Students are involved in more than listening. 2. Less emphasis is placed on trans- mitting information and more on devel- oping students� skills. 3. Students are involved in higher-or- der thinking (i.e., analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). 4. Students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussing, writing). 5. Greater emphasis is placed on stu- dents� exploration of their attitudes and values.12 In concrete terms, teachers can employ activities such as informal, in-class, small-group work; cooperative student projects; simulations, such as role-play- ing and computer modeling; and case studies to promote active learning.13 Allen summarized six specific activities that encourage student participation in the learning process, including the modi- fied lecture, brainstorming, small-group work, cooperative projects, peer teach- ing and partnering, and writing.14 As is the case in the college classroom, traditional bibliographic or library in- struction often has been a passive expe- rience for students, with emphasis placed on the librarian�s lecture and students Applying Active Learning Methods 301 expected to listen and learn. According to a survey conducted by Barclay and Barclay, 68 percent of college students receive library instruction via the lecture/ demonstration approach.15 At the conclu- sion of the lecture, students are expected to translate the lecture or demonstration into the active process of locating infor- mation in the library, most likely several hours or even days later. However, there is increasing evidence in the library lit- erature that an active learning environ- ment is preferable. According to Drueke, hands-on materials such as �worksheets, instructional packets, and self-guided tours have become popular and effective methods� for promoting active library in- struction.16 She goes on to outline the positive experience of redesigning a tra- ditional bibliographic lecture to include a small-group, hands-on component that encourages student participation in class discussions. Other uses of the active learning ap- proach to library instruction are found in the literature. A case study approach was used to teach freshman writing com- position students the steps to a model search strategy.17 Jacobson and Mark re- late several small-group exercises that can be used in the process of teaching electronic resources, such as the scope and coverage of periodical indexes, Bool- ean logic, and search vocabulary choice.18 Ragains described the use of Aronson�s �jigsaw� method: Small groups of stu- dents are asked to examine various titles and figure out what type of information they present, how they would be used, and any limitations. Then, each small group would report its findings to the entire class.19 One way to encourage active learning is to incorporate cooperative or collabo- rative instructional techniques into the lesson. Cooperative learning is the instruc- tional use of small groups of students working on an assignment until each group member successfully understands and completes it. Many researchers have found that cooperative learning tech- niques are �extremely effective� and pref- erable to competitive or individualistic methods.20 In addition to pedagogical reasons, collaborative learning methods can satisfy the increasing demands of larger classes and rapidly decreasing li- brary resources. For example, Hanson cites the inevitability of students having to �share computer terminals, print in- dexes, and the librarians� time and effort� as a motive for adopting collaborative learning methods in library instruction.21 As the following study illustrates, active, collaborative learning methods are pref- erable to the traditional passive ap- proach, particularly when focused on the library instruction needs of freshman seminar students. Background and Development of University Studies 100 California State University-San Bernar- dino (CSUSB) is a comprehensive public university, part of the 22-campus Califor- nia State University system. Located near the foot of the San Bernardino Moun- tains, CSUSB is approximately sixty miles east of downtown Los Angeles, in the area known as the Inland Empire. CSUSB grants bachelor �s and master �s degrees, teaching credentials, and com- petency certificates. As of the fall of 1992, its total student population was approxi- mately 12,000. The average student at CSUSB was in his or her mid-twenties, a first-generation college student, em- ployed full- or part-time, and living off- campus. The impetus for developing a fresh- man seminar at CSUSB was its histori- cally low retention rate for undergradu- Active learning involves the student in talking and listening, reading, writing, and reflecting; activities that can be performed alone or in combination. 302 College & Research Libraries July 1997 ate students. More than 60 percent of the undergraduates left the university with- out graduating, which ranked CSUSB nineteenth out of the then twenty Cali- fornia State University campuses. After a couple of experimental classes with limited success rates, a formal two-year pilot program was funded. The objectives of University Studies (USTD) 100, as outlined in the CSUSB 1992�93 college catalog, were in keeping with a for-credit freshman orientation �course�: An introduction to the academic and practical skills necessary to succeed at the university. Use of library (emphasis added), computer facilities, academic procedures, time management and study skills, responsible academic and personal attitudes. Introduces student to the university in a positive and sup- portive manner that increases oppor- tunities for success and enhances their academic experience.22 Also, the pilot program objectives were to enhance the retention and continua- tion rates of freshman students who en- rolled at the university. In that first quar- ter, 216 freshman students completed ten sections of USTD 100. Representing 28 percent of the 1992 freshman class of 767 students, they were recruited from the Educational Opportunity Program, hon- ors, and traditional admissions. Library Involvement in USTD 100 The CSUSB library had a general collec- tion of more than 560,000 books and bound periodicals, and subscribed to approximately 2,800 serials. Mounted on a KeyNotis integrated online system, the library�s OPAC and five Wilson periodi- cal indexes were available on approxi- mately eighteen public terminals in the library, as well as through dial-up access. In addition, various CD-ROM databases and online systems were available from dedicated workstations. Six full-time ref- erence librarians provided �one-shot� li- brary instruction along with reference desk service. The goals of library instruction for USTD 100 were in keeping with overall course objectives: Students will accept, prefer, and be committed to the value of using library resources for academic in- quiry, and will know how to and will use those resources. Specifically, students would accept, prefer, and be committed to the value of becoming information lit- erate and understand how basic library research skills related to achieving this goal. Furthermore, students would accept, prefer, and be committed to the value of learning how use the library�s OPAC, and the Readers� Guide to Periodical Literature and the Social Sciences Index online. Fi- nally, students would be less anxious about their abilities to use the library ef- fectively, knowing that a variety of library resources and staff, particularly reference librarians, were available to help. Designing Library Instruction with Active Learning Methods Given the shortage of reference staffing, the lack of an electronic classroom, and the absence of a specific library assign- ment, the goals of library instruction for USTD 100 would have to be modest. Al- though not in keeping with the library�s policy of giving priority to course-inte- grated instruction, the overall goals of the USTD 100 class deserved special atten- tion. Moreover, it was an opportunity to study a fairly homogenous group of stu- dents and their reactions to particular methods of library instruction. Therefore, the reference department decided to of- fer instruction based on active/collabo- rative learning techniques. The impetus for developing a freshman seminar at CSUSB was its historically low retention rate for undergraduate students. Applying Active Learning Methods 303 The focus of the USTD 100 library in- struction session was a self-guided, hands-on worksheet exercise. Working in small groups, students performed searches on the library�s online system to locate citations to books and articles on predefined topics. Prior to the in-li- brary session, students were required to read their textbook�s chapter on library skills.23 Librarians hoped that this assign- ment would inspire students to partici- pate in discussions on the value of infor- mation literacy. Students also were asked to individually take the CSUSB Library Walking Tour (a self-guided, four-page handout) so that more time would be available for the hands-on exercise. Hav- ing students read materials and perform an activity individually, although not a cooperative learning experience, was in keeping with the characteristics of active learning. Methodology There were ten sections of USTD 100, with an average of twenty-two students enrolled in each. The librarians were al- lotted one ninety-minute session per sec- tion. One librarian conducted each �one- shot� session in the library�s classroom and at the online terminals in the refer- ence room, along with the assistance of the instructor and other reference librar- ians, according to availability. Sessions were staggered over a week to accom- modate the librarians� instruction sched- ules and to prevent one class from domi- nating the library�s scarce computer resources. Signs were placed on most of the public terminals in the reference room to reserve them for one-hour time blocks on each day that instruction was held. At the start of the twenty-minute dis- cussion in the library�s classroom, stu- dents were asked to disclose the stereo- types they held of librarians and librar- ies as an icebreaker. Humorous examples as well as the disclosure of anxieties were encouraged. A discussion of the impor- tance of information literacy or manage- ment, as defined in the Curran chapter of the USTD 100 textbook, followed.24 In keeping with one of the characteristics of active learning, the goal of this activ- ity was to engage students in a discus- sion that emphasized exploration of their attitudes.25 Next, the goals and objectives of the worksheet exercise were outlined. Librar- ians encouraged students to complete the worksheet by tying it to the discussion of information literacy. Indeed, by learning how to use the OPAC and some key peri- odical indexes, students would possess basic information-management skills to use in their other classes and, hopefully, throughout their lives. Each group of three or four students received one worksheet and had one ter- minal reserved for them in the reference room. Librarians asked each group to assign one member to fill in answers on the worksheet, another to do the typing, and a third member to read the questions out loud. Although not an optimal situ- ation, groups having four members usu- ally ended up with an additional student �observer.� Group members were in- structed to switch duties every ten to fif- teen minutes to allow each student time for hands-on practice. Librarians and the instructor circulated among the students to answer questions, keep things mov- ing, and remind students to switch du- ties. The self-guided, hands-on worksheet exercise was designed to promote stu- dent involvement. Students had to read the worksheet instructions and online help screens to answer questions. The cooperative, small-group environment required members to explain their an- swers to one another. Open-ended ques- Students would possess basic information-management skills to use in their other classes and, hopefully, throughout their lives. 304 College & Research Libraries July 1997 Besides answering open-ended ques- tions, students evaluated six instructional activities: reading the library chapter in their textbook, taking a self-guided walk- ing tour of the library, using the OPAC, completing the worksheet exercise, working in small groups, and participat- ing in a class discussion. Respondents rated these components of the session on a four-point scale, from very valuable to not valuable (see table 1). Fifty-one percent reported that read- ing a chapter on library research in their textbook was somewhat or not valuable, whereas 48 percent considered it valuable or very valuable. Some of the USTD 100 instructors did not make it an explicit re- quirement, which might explain the even split. Another factor could be that stu- dents, knowing in advance that the text- book exercises were not required, did not bother to read the chapter. A self-guided walking tour of the li- brary, which used a four-page written guide, was deemed very valuable or valuable by an astounding 76 percent of the students; 25 percent reported it as somewhat or not valuable.26 This is sus- picious given that none of the librarians could recall seeing anyone, much less 185 freshman students, wandering around the reference room intently studying a library handout. More than likely, stu- dents confused taking the elevator from TABLE 1 Summary Evaluation of Library Instruction Methods for USTD 100 Very Somewhat Not Valuable Valuable Valuable Valuable Method N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Read chapter 26 14% 63 34% 81 44% 13 7% Walking tour 54 30 83 46 34 19 11 6 Computer use 154 84 26 14 3 1.6 1 0.5 Worksheet 68 37 90 49 26 14 0 0 Small group 82 44 75 41 24 13 4 2 Discussion 36 19 83 45 58 31 8 4 Percentages do not always add up to 100 due to rounding, blank answers, or both. tions asked students to analyze or evalu- ate a certain search strategy; for ex- ample, students were asked how know- ing the subject headings for a certain title would help them locate additional ma- terials. At the end of the 45-minute worksheet exercise, a twenty-minute follow-up lec- ture was held in the library�s classroom. Librarians attempted to explain the dif- ferences between scholarly and popular periodicals, presented examples of other subject indexes, and demonstrated Bool- ean logic. In addition, librarians stressed the importance of knowing that a type of information resource exists rather than an exact title. This session was designed to reinforce the skills acquired during the hands-on exercise and encourage follow- up questions. A couple of minutes before the end of class, students filled out evalu- ation forms. Evaluation of USTD 100 Of the 216 students who completed USTD 100, 190 participated in a library instruction session. Of those 190 partici- pants, 185 completed evaluation forms, for a return rate of 97 percent. Fifty-five percent of the students reported previ- ous experience with library instruction in junior high or high school, and 43 per- cent reported having had no instruction and/or having been self-taught. Applying Active Learning Methods 305 the fourth-floor library classroom to the first-floor reference room as a �tour,� thereby rendering the question of lim- ited importance. Moreover, the teaching faculty did not uniformly require this component. However, this information could be used to justify revising the ses- sion to include a guided tour of the li- brary. Perhaps the least surprising, but cer- tainly most gratifying, findings were that 98 percent of the students rated learning how to use the library�s computer sys- tem as very valuable or valuable. Further- more, 86 percent found the companion worksheet equally valuable. Moreover, 85 percent had the same answer when asked to rate the value of working in small groups. This is consistent with the literature on active and/or collaborative learning.27 Students were somewhat less eager, but still positive, about the classroom discussion. Sixty-four percent found it valuable or very valuable, whereas 36 percent found it somewhat or not valu- able. Considering responses to the evalu- ation forms and informal discussions, the librarians were less enthusiastic about using a discussion method of instruction. Most had never conducted a brainstorm- ing-style session using flip charts and actively eliciting class participation. In- deed, they felt uneasy at the perceived lack of student interest or willingness to participate, or both. Perhaps this discrep- ancy could be attributed to the librarians� ability to hide their discomfort, or that although most students appeared not to participate in the discussion, they appre- ciated the efforts of their peers. Students listed the most important thing they learned about using the library in an open-ended question format. Forty- one percent focused on learning to use the computers only. Twenty-one percent mentioned learning about information sources (books, periodicals, libraries, li- brarians, or a combination) without spe- cifically mentioning computers, whereas 28 percent focused on a combination of using the computers and finding sources of information. Ten percent did not an- swer the question. An analysis of these open-ended comments could point out that the goals of the session were not stated clearly at the beginning or the methods used did not help students to reach them, or both. However, when asked to remark on the overall effectiveness of the session, a full 91 percent had only positive com- ments. This is consistent with an inde- pendent, comprehensive evaluation of the USTD 100 course by the CSUSB Un- dergraduate Studies program. Data from student open-ended evaluations were positive: 84.9 percent of students felt they benefited by participating in the USTD 100 course. Those students who did not felt that the session was a repeat of high school or that they expected more �hands-on� experiences. Eighty-nine per- cent of the students stated that they would make changes in the USTD 100 curriculum, among them: �Use the li- brary and computers more.�28 In a cam- pus report on the USTD 100 course by the Undergraduate Studies office, three out of the five instructors specifically mentioned the library in the context of evaluating the content of the course. Li- brary research skills were deemed �most important� along with study and time management skills. Furthermore, the administrator for the course noted that the library was �especially helpful in pre- paring materials and making presenta- tions.�29 According to a one-year follow-up study by the Undergraduate Studies of- fice, the 1992 freshman class had the highest return rate in the following fall of any freshman class in the nineteen years the university had been tracking these data. The overall 74.7 percent re- turn rate was 8.9 percent higher than the previous year. Of the 28 percent of the freshman students who completed USTD 100, the return rate was almost 81.5 per- 306 College & Research Libraries July 1997 cent, which was considered instrumen- tal in bringing the overall freshman re- turn rate to its highest level ever.30 Discussion Overall, active learning methods of li- brary instruction achieved a positive re- sponse from students. However, there is some variation with the types of experi- ences. Of the five active learning experi- ences, reading a chapter in the textbook and class discussions garnered the least enthusiasm, whereas working in small groups on a worksheet exercise using computers was of greater interest. A self- guided walking tour is of questionable value for the reasons indicated above. Recommendations for improvements to the library instruction session came from students, instructional faculty, and librarian participants, both formally and informally. Many students expressed in- terest in more hands-on practice, includ- ing individual workstations, which was not an option at that time. Ideally, a class- room equipped with computers and paired work groups could have facili- tated the experience, as well as mitigated reserving public terminals in the refer- ence room. This highlights Hanson�s as- sertion that collaborative learning is in- evitable given that most libraries do not have the resources to offer formal, indi- vidualized instruction.31 A few students recommended that the hands-on exercise also require them to locate actual library materials. Further- more, informal discussions with instruc- tors and librarians alike revealed that most would have preferred to assign an actual research project to enhance the hands-on activities. Although in keeping with the conventional wisdom of course- integrated library instruction, this study certainly proved that non-course-inte- grated library instruction has some per- ceived benefit in a freshman seminar. Additional recommendations for future USTD 100 classes included giving stu- dents an actual tour of the library, and providing a summary lecture of library research strategies to reinforce the hands- on exercise. In terms of the research methodology used for this study, the author encoun- tered several problems that might have been avoided had circumstances al- lowed. First of all, there was no oppor- tunity to test the evaluation form before it was distributed. Thus, a few questions had to be discarded because the results indicated that the students misunder- stood their intent. Furthermore, the issue of previous experience with library in- struction was not adequately explored as a variable influencing the outcome of the study. Indeed, a pre-/post-test might have provided valuable information on the instructional effectiveness of the self- guided exercise. Rather, the evaluation form relied on students� opinions on the quality of the various active learning techniques employed. The questions of Did they learn anything? or Were the instructor �s efforts worthwhile? are still unanswered. However, future studies on the effectiveness of employing active learning methods in the delivery of li- brary instruction might benefit from the pre-/post-test method of evaluation. Conclusion Since this study was conducted, the au- thor revised the worksheet exercise sev- eral times based on librarian suggestions and an evaluation of students� answers. It also was adapted for other classes, in- cluding those with a specific library as- signment. A small-group, self-guided worksheet exercise focusing on the Gen- eral Science Index through the CSUSB library�s online system was created for a required sophomore-level biology course Many students expressed interest in more hands-on practice, including individual workstations, which was not an option at that time. Applying Active Learning Methods 307 with approximately 100 students. This exercise was in lieu of a lecture. Although not formally evaluated, students and the course instructor expressed enthusiasm for the approach. Furthermore, a senior-level psychology class also received its primary instruction on using PsycLIT on CD-ROM through the same type of self-guided exer- cise. The latter class was further challenged by the availability of only one workstation for PsycLIT access. In that situation, stu- dents had to work individually, outside class time, thereby lacking the benefit of working in small groups under librarian supervision. Currently, first-year medi- cal students at UCLA receive their pri- mary instruction on the use of MEDLINE by way of a self-guided worksheet exer- cise, after it was found that the lecture/ demonstration approach did not appeal to these students. This study demonstrated that the ap- plication of active learning techniques for freshman library instruction need not wait for ideal situations�either course-inte- grated opportunities or a computer train- ing facility. Further, this study confirmed that a small-group, self-guided exercise, under direct librarian supervision, is an attractive method of teaching basic li- brary skills. Indeed, it can be a welcome enhancement to the traditional lecture format as well as the centerpiece of an effective library instruction program. Notes 1. Paul P. Fidler and Mary Stuart Hunter, �How Seminars Enhance Student Success,� in The Freshman Year Experience: Helping Students Survive and Succeed in College, eds. M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner, and Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989), 217. 2. Betsy Barefoot, �The Freshman Seminar: A Common Campus Response,� Keystone: News- letter of the Wadsworth College Success Series 1, no. 1 (fall 1992): 1. 3. John N. Gardner, Debra Decker, and Francine G. NcNairy, �Taking the Library to Freshman Students via the Freshman Seminar Concept,� in Advances in Library Administration and Organiza- tion, eds. Gerard B. McCabe and Bernard Kreissman (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Pr., 1986), 153�54. 4. Virginia P. Gordon, �Origins and Purposes of the Freshman Seminar,� in The Freshman Year Experience, 189. 5. Ibid., 193. 6. Gardner, Decker, and NcNairy, �Taking the Library,� 160�61. 7. Gemma S. DeVinney, �Systematic Literature Searching As a Conceptual Framework for Course-Related Bibliographic Instruction for College Freshmen,� in Conceptual Frameworks for Bib- liographic Education: Theory into Practice, eds. Pamela Kobelski and Mary Reichel (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1987), 13�23; Gordon B. Leighton and Marsha C. Markman, �Attitudes of College Freshmen toward Bibliographic Instruction,� College & Research Libraries News 52 (Jan. 1991): 36�38; Sheridan Stormes, �Butler Freshmen Hunt for Library Treasure,� College & Research Libraries News 54 (Jul./Aug. 1993): 382�83; Karen A. Becker, �Individual Library Research Clinics for College Freshmen,� Research Strategies 11 (fall 1993): 202�10; Joan Parks and Dana Hendrix, �Integrating Library Instruction into the Curriculum through Freshman Symposium,� Reference Services Review 24, no. 1 (spring 1996): 65�71. 8. David Lipschutz, �A Practical Approach to Teaching Library Skills to Freshmen,� Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (Nov. 1984): 560�61; Paul Coleman, �Give �Em the Big Picture: Bib- liographic Instruction for Freshman Orientation,� Research Strategies 4 (summer 1986): 132�35. 9. Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Class- room, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 1 (Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univer- sity, 1991), 3�4. 10. Chet Meyers and Thomas B. Jones, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Class- room (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), 21. 11. Eileen E. Allen, �Active Learning and Teaching: Improving Postsecondary Library Instruc- tion,� Reference Librarian 51�52 (1995): 92. 12. Bonwell and Eison, Active Learning, 2. 13. Meyers and Jones, Promoting Active Learning, 19. 14. Allen, �Active Learning and Teaching,� 96�98. 15. Donald A. Barclay and Darcie Reimann Barclay, �The Role of Freshman Writing in Aca- 308 College & Research Libraries July 1997 demic Bibliographic Instruction,� Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Sept. 1994): 216. 16. Jeanetta Drueke, �Active Learning in the University Library Instruction Classroom,� Re- search Strategies 10 (spring 1992): 77�83. 17. Karen Williams and Jennifer Cox, �Active Learning in Action,� RQ 31 (spring 1992): 326�31. 18. Trudi E. Jacobson and Beth L. Mark, �Teaching in the Information Age: Active Learning Techniques to Empower Students,� Reference Librarian 51�52 (1995): 105�20. 19. Patrick Ragains, �Four Variations on Drueke�s Active Learning Paradigm,� Research Strat- egies 13 (winter 1995): 40�50. 20. David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, �Research on Cooperative Learn- ing,� in Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 4 (Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, 1991), 27�55. 21. Michele G. Hanson, �Joining the Conversation: Collaborative Learning and Bibliographic Instruction,� Reference Librarian 51�52 (1995): 147�59. 22. California State University-San Bernardino, Bulletin, 1992�93 (San Bernardino: California State Univ., 1992). 23. Charles C. Curran, �Becoming an Information-Literate, Self-Reliant Learner,� in College Is Only the Beginning: A Student Guide to Higher Education, 2d ed., eds. John N. Gardner and A. Jerome Jewler (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1989): 76�91. 24. Ibid. 25. Bonwell and Eison, �Active Learning,� 2. 26. Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding off. 27. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, �Research on Cooperative Learning,� 27�55. 28. Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, �First-Year Seminar End of Term Survey: Focus on Student Perceptions� (California State University-San Bernardino, Jan. 1993, photocopy). 29. Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, �Report of the Campus: 1992 and 1993 Pilot Program, First-Year Seminar, University Studies 100, Part 1: Background and Review of the Pilot Program� (California State University-San Bernardino, Nov. 1993, photocopy). 30. Joel Nossoff, �Freshman Seminar Increases University Retention Rate,� Friday Bulletin, Cali- fornia State University-San Bernadino (Dec. 17, 1993): 1. 31. Hanson, �Joining the Conversation,� 147�48.