College and Research Libraries Information Access Instruction (IAI4): Design Principles Zorana Ercegovac This article proposes four design principles-The User, Active Learning, Con- ceptual Model of Teaching, and Modularity-as a conceptual framework of an Information Access Instruction (IAI4 ). These principles, when put in practice as specific guidelines, seamlessly link information sources together, regardless of their implementation medium, information structure, or interface style. Examples are drawn from a section of a four-unit elective undergraduate course taught in the Department of Library and Information Science, University of California at Los Angeles. II earrling to use and teach In- creasingly complex informa- tion sources and systems presents numerous challenges both to learners and educators. When the learner is a college student in a large re- search academic setting, it is crucial to teach the student how to access local and distributed information sources regard- less of their format and structure. UCLA's Department of Library and Information Science (LIS) has developed an elective four-unit undergraduate course, Information Sources and Libraries, LIS 110. The forty-hour course is offered during each of three academic quarters with two sections per quarter. Two forty- five-minute classes meet two times a week for ten weeks. The course is currently be- ing taught by three instructors with about thirty-five students per section. There is no prerequisite for enrolling in the course other than general college requirements. This means that students bring to the class different academic and cultural back- grounds, different experiences and atti- tudes toward libraries, and different levels of technical competence in the use of information technologies. Since its inception in 1970s, the LIS 110 material (e.g., syllabi, assignments, lec- ture notes) has been shaped by varied instructional viewpoints, experiences, technologies and administrative con- texts. During the early era the course emphasized the use of printed bibli- ographic sources, card catalogs, and cor- responding filing techniques. At that time online searching of multidatabase retrieval systems was reserved for graduate library students who would be doing online searching, typically on Texas Instrument terminals at 300 bauds. During the middle era the ma- terial was still organized around printed bibliographic sources, but in- struction shifted away from card cata- logs and filing techniques toward searching online public access catalogs, OPACs. Most recently, I have covered both electronic (e.g., OPACs, databases on CD-ROMs, information accessible through Internet/ gophers) and printed sources regardless of their format (e.g., Zorana Ercegovac ·is with the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. The author may be contacted at GSLIS Building, 300 North Circle Drive, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1520; telephone: (310) 206-9361; fax (310) 206-4460; or e-mail: zorana@cs.ucla.edu. 249 250 College & Research Libraries reference books, audiovisual sources, manuscripts, government documents). · Is there a way that librarians can inte- grate information sources regardless of their medium (e.g., printed, electronic, distributed, and multimedia) into a sin- gle information access instruction pro- gram? Is there a metaphor that can aid us in teaching information structures regardless of the implementation me- dium (e.g., Wilson's printed Art Index and its online and CD-ROM products)? How conceptually different are, for ex- ample, printed Wilson's indexes from their electronic versions with regard to general makeup and structure of their files and records, display features, ease of use, time necessary to locate a rele- vant citation, or learning curve? We need a conceptual framework that would be user-sensitive, information-rich, and sufficiently flexible in order to assist designers of bibliographic instruction (BI) programs to integrate sources re- gardless of their implementation me- dium and information structure. Such a framework would provide both uni- formity with regard to teaching style and flexibility to include/ exclude emerging or obsolete information technologies and sources as appropriate. The pro- posed framework, based on four design principles, supports these requirements. It also applies to varying lengths of in- structional units. In order to educate a population of self-sustained researchers, we need to consider the entire informa- tion space rather than arbitrary sources that happen to be conveniently accessi- ble at a given time and place. After a brief review of BI literature, I will de- scribe four design principles that are ap- plied in my section of LIS 110, and report some of the preliminary results. PRIOR WORK The reviewed literature for this paper suggests two main forms of training end- users: (1) software search aid programs, and (2) bibliographic instruction programs. Software Search Aid Programs Known as front-ends, gateways, inter- mediary systems, and computer-assisted May1995 instruction (CAl), software search aid pro- grams are designed to assist the online searcher in many different ways. Some offer simplified, and often compro- mised, views of native systems or virtual interfaces to several related systems; others, to a limited extent, provide spe- cial features in response to charac- teristics of a certain professional user group (e.g., Biosis B-1-T-S, BRS Col- league, GratefulMed, MicroDisclosure). The literature focuses on OPACs, remote online databases, and CAl programs. 1 As electronic sources grow, it becomes difficult even for the trained intermedi- aries to maintain their searching skills. Thus, while we can argue that front-end interfaces can be useful to anyone who searches today' s numerous databases, we might question their training useful- ness especially for end-users, if the front-ends oversimplify native features, inhibit overall process of learning, or hide other potentially useful sources. Bibliographic Instruction Programs The reviewed literature reveals a multi- plicity of viewpoints with regard to teach- ing model and structure, confusion as to how we should name Bl, and disagree- ment over the information instruction/ consultation versus information deliv- ery debate. Case studies are prevalent. The studies are typically in the pattern BI + X, where X ranges from collection development, interlibrary loan, elec- tronic sources, critical thinking, or a spe- cific population of end-users such as sophomore-level biology majors or the health care community.2- 7 As expected, BI seems to be largely unregulated in terms of library policy and professional training. 8 The reviewed literature is somewhat lacking in the areas of applied BI models and performance evaluation studies. There are exceptions. The Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic Ins-truction reflects the current trend in library education away from tool-based instruction and toward concept-based instruction; it rec- ognizes the importance of studying user groups to be served and concerns itself with the ways information is defined, structured, organized, and accessed. 9 The model has been applied at several major academic libraries. Nancy O'Hanlon describes a "flexible BI model" for developing library re- search skills based on an analysis of a relevant text, for instance, a term paper.10 The model builds on the assumption that, to use the library resources effec- tively, an instructional designer needs to account for affective, cognitive, and psycho- motor components of human behavior. O'Hanlon's paper describes ways these three components are integrated in her BI course and suggests various possibilities to incorporate these into computer-as- sisted instruction-based modules. Ruth Curtis and Herbert Carson iso- late and analyze motivational strategies developed in the ARCS model of moti- vational design (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction). Unfortunately, no empirical data support the proposed model and evaluate its intuitively sound recipe.U While most of the evaluative stud- ies are quantitative, Elizabeth Frick sug- gests that qualitative approaches may be more appropriate for library user educa- tion programs under certain circum- stances than quantitative approaches. 12 DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY This section introduces four design principles of Information Access In- struction (IAI4) and describes how these are implemented in my section of LIS 110. These principles are: (1) The User; (2) Active Learning; (3) Conceptual Model of Teaching; and (4) Modularity. Design principles are based on the literature in individual differences research, applied cognitive psychology, information seek- ing, and information retrieval, as well as my own teaching experience. Design Principle #1: Know The User If we agree that the main goal of BI is to produce users who can view informa- tion as a unique resource and effectively access, evaluate, manage, and communi- cate information regardless of its struc- ture and medium, then we need first to understand characteristics of the in- Information Access Instruction 251 creasingly heterogeneous group of stu- dents we intend to educate in these non- trivial tasks. Background. There is an uneven dis- tribution of research on how different types of searchers (e.g., library-trained intermediaries, information brokers with varied backgrounds, and end-users, in- cluding domain specialists, college stu- dents, and the general public) use different types of information technolo- gies (e.g., printed, online remote data- bases, OPACs, Internet sources). For example, we know relatively more about the information-seeking behavior and success/ failure rates of college students as searchers of OPACs than we do about how they fare as searchers of un- abridged online databases on com- mercial retrieval systems and native interfaces, or how well they navigate through large Internet spaces. Success rates of professional end-users who search health or legal databases and Internet sources have just begun to emergeP-16 Investigators sought to identify po- tential predictors on search process and information retrieval performance. The studied variables thought to contribute to performance differences have included academic major, Graduate Record Exam (GRE) quantitative scores, database expe- rience, frequency of use, age, and gender, among other factors. 17- 23 A nationwide study of online library catalogs found that people had serious conceptual difficulties, especially with the selection of terms and search modification.24 These findings, and my own experience, have suggested that, in order to design a BI course that would be user-sensitive, we need to begin with the user. Implementation in 110. Two types of questionnaires are administered in the beginning of each term in addition to an informal introduction of students to the class. The students' background charac- teristics questionnaire (Ql) is designed to gather data on academic major, status (e.g., freshmen, sophomores, juniors, sen- iors), level of perceived technical compe- tency (e.g., use of computers, frequency of using library catalogs), students' aspira- 252 College & Research Libraries tions (e.g., intention to enter graduate and professional schools), past experiences with BI programs, general attitude toward the library, and past and anticipated fre- quency of writing term papers. The students' level of information lit- eracy or knowledge content question- naire (Q2) is organized around three main groups of questions: the extent to which students are aware of tools such as Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Library of Congress Classi- fication System (e.g., main purposes and uses in printed indexes and electronic reference sources); students' ability to interpret data elements in bibliog- raphies, indexes, and library catalogs (e.g., to interpret subject headings in dif- ferent bibliographic settings, holding in- formation about serials, and data elements for different library formats); and students' ability to apply basic search strategy techniques when using OPACs and other reference sources. Part of students' future scholarly competence is their ability to seek employment opportunities through formal and informal channels, to locate funding sources for potential research activities, and, in general, to have lifelong survival information skills. Students are told that the question- naires serve three purposes: to make them comfortable with basic library vocabulary and concepts, to provide a model for sub- sequent tests, and to customize the content of the course, as much as it is possible, to students' academic orientation and their level of competency. The answers to the questions pertain- ing to students' background charac- teristics (Ql) were examined so that students' capabilities could be incorpo- rated into the design of the course. The answers to the questions in the knowl- edge content pretest (Q2) were reviewed in the class and returned to students. Data on students' age, gender, ethnic- ity, and SAT scores are not gathered. Most May1995 students are between eighteen and twenty-two, about equally distributed by gender, increasingly culturally diverse, and have all satisfied general admission college standard tests (e.g., SAT, the Test of English as a Foreign Language [TOEFL]). These data have important implications in designing the content, pace, and structure of the BI course. Design Principle #2: Apply Active Learning Active learning, also known as partici- patory or collaboratory learning, is ex- tensively discussed in the areas of cognitive and education psychology. Background. In contrast to the stimu- lus-response paradigm which was ad- hered to in the early days of cognitive psychology and which emphasizes pas- sive learning and memorization, active learning of real and complex tasks, such as learning to search databases or to use word processors, is driven by the initia- tives of the learners, their background knowledge, skills, and experience.25-3° Some of the findings from studies on active learning and information seeking influenced a number of guidelines incor- porated into the course (e.g., what the goals are; what the precisely measurable achievement outcomes are; what solv- ing-based take-home or in-class assign- ments are used, and what class discussion covers). Implementation in 110. Special atten- tion is given to shaping term project top- ics that students select and subsequently report their search process and research findings to the class. Since students se- lect their own topics, motivational and relevance components are used to guide them throughout the process of prepar- ing a term project, a bibliographic essay. Students receive a three-page handout of specific instructions to aid them in the preparation of the term project. Samples of topics are listed along with examples showing annotated entries for reference sources and topical works. In addition, a series of eight take- home hands-on assignments are de- signed to aid the student progressively in the use of basic research tools (e.g., concepts of citation and its role in schol- arly communication cycle, controlled vocabulary such as LCSH and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), factual sources (e.g., Internet-based cluster of sources, printed and electronic diction- aries and encyclopedias), and bibliog- raphic sources, including library catalogs and indexing and abstracting services on different media. Students obtain feed- back on these assignments from the in- structor and may, with appropriate modifications, incorporate them into their term projects. Part of students' future scholarly com- petence is their ability to seek employ- ment opportunities through formal and informal channels, to locate funding sources for potential research activities, and, in general, to have lifelong survival information skills (e.g., to know where to look up for health, legal, educational, community-related, business and finan- cial programs, organizations, and ex- perts). Students earn 10 percent of their final grade based on active participation, which involves small-group class projects, discussion in the class based on assigned readings, and presentation of the term project findings to the class. Design Principle #3: Use Conceptual Model of Teaching Background. Christine Borgman trained college students on a fifty-record prototype online catalog using two teaching methods: a conceptual method which induces a mental model of the target system, and a procedural method which uses a step-by-step approach typically used to train students to search online databases.31 The study found that those trained by the conceptual method performed better on complex tasks while the two groups performed equally well on simple tasks. Since most of the required searching tasks in the 110 course are complex, the conceptual method has been adopted whenever possible. Implementation in 110. The concept of data structure is introduced and illus- trated with examples from printed and electronic sources, regardless of their structure or format (e.g., parallel struc- Information Access Instruction 253 ture of files, records, and data elements in bibliographic Wilson Indexes-both printed and electronic; directories such as the yellow pages and other phone books; and geospatial sources such as Geographic Information Systems, GISs). As a result, the concept of a record is de- fined and shown in many different con- texts and display arrangements. Students learn important concepts of retrieval systems in a simple in-class ex- ercise. They read a two-page journal ar- ticle and then assign both key words and concept words representing the subject matter of the article. Students also create other data elements for author(s), title, source, and any other descriptive infor- mation they would find useful for the purposes of organization and retrieval. The exercise reveals principal library functions of collecting, organizing, and retrieving library documents, ,and in- creases the students' level of apprecia- tion for intellectual library activities. It also explains a number of important puzzles: why many government docu- ments may not be searchable by subject words, why we need to search by title words as well as by subject headings, if available, and why the same article may often be represented in a variety of ways in different types of catalogs (e.g., li- brary and trade), indexing and abstract- ing sources (e.g., with different levels of detail), and bibliographies. Similarly, the notion of information qualities is introduced early on in the course and applied to narrow down a term paper topic, to modify a student's search on OPACs, or to ask a specific reference question. By limiting the topic of alcohol drinking by any or all of pa- rameters (e.g., time, place, perspective, agent, language, document type, coun- try of publication), the term paper topic is focused to its working title, "Impact of Alcohol Drinking Legislation on Traffic Accidents among Youth in California in the Recent Literature." Students learn to plan their searching before they "go online." Specifically, they learn where to start, and how to determine first best sources based on types of information they need; students 254 College & Research Libraries also learn various search approaches such as known-item search, subject search, specific versus comprehensive search, and factual versus bibliographic search. Since searching, displaying, and print- ing features are not yet standardized across different databases even on a sin- gle system, students learn to use help features and to draw their own com- parative charts of database features. In addition, some of the universal system features, such as Boolean and proximity operators, truncation, and ranking ca- pability, are explained in the context of broadening or narrowing one's search (e.g., ORION, MELVYL, VERONICA, WAIS). Design Principle #4: Use Modularity Background. The design principle of modularity attempts to deal with an is- sue of chunking. The concept of chunk- ing has been studied extensively in the areas of cognitive and educational psy- chology. Herbert A. Simon's article, "How Big Is a Chunk?" examines earlier studies on human memory, extracts esti- mates of parameters that appear to be crucial to performance in complex tasks, and illustrates how these parameter val- ues predict behavior in a range of labo- ratory situations.32 Accordingly, a chunk of any kind of stimulus, including geo- metrical designs, concrete words, or sen- tences, is the quantity of five items that short-term memory will hold. The findings from this study and others have consistently indicated that chunking is an efficient learning strat- egy in helping reduce completion time of performance measures, and that text material presented in chunks signifi- cantly improves reading comprehension of good as well as poor readers.33-34 The chunking idea has been well-studied and confirmed in laboratory experi- ments and field situations. Implementation in 110. Chunking concerns itself with some of the related questions just mentioned: what and how much material should we include in a forty-five-minute chunk of time at dif- ferent levels of BI (e.g., not-for-credit course, abridged two-unit course, four- May 1995 unit breadth requirement course). Se- quencing and linking units together deserve our attention as well. What are the most important concepts or tools we want to convey, so that our students can be self-reliant, confident, and motivated users of information sources and serv- ices? How do we rank order the impor- tance of information concepts and sources? How do we deal with issues such as learners' attention span, infor- mation overload, feature shock syn- drome, and other competing campuswide activities, programs, and attractions. At the level of interfaces, we need to find a common thread in teaching command-driven, menu-based, direct manipulation, and navigational interfaces without creating an information overload in a given chunk of time. The related principle of scalability concerns itself with issues of extension and transportability across varied for- mats and different platforms. With re- gard to extension, if a ten-hour BI course is to be scaled up to a twenty-hour course, what should we add? Similarly, where should we cut if we have to scale down a course to a four- or five-hour BI unit? Is there a common denominator among varying lengths of instructional units? In the context of BI instruction, we need to consider problems of compati- bility at multiple levels. At the level of interfaces, we need to find a common thread in teaching command-driven, menu-based, direct manipulation, and navigational interfaces without creating an information overload in a given chunk of time. At another level, we need to consider a variety of database protocols, including indexing policies, tools, and special features to go with each database. At the level of teaching information sources, we need to inte- grate sources coherently and dynami- cally with local, regional, and virtual significance. By that I mean we must treat both "local significance" sources (e.g., UCLA libraries, labs, campus back- bone network, human networks of free consultants and experts, computing fa- cilities) and virtual digital libraries on the same plane. Conclusions and Preliminary Findings I believe that the design principles just presented are sufficiently flexible to be replicable in similar settings, including classroom instruction or informal BI multimodular unit programs. The prin- ciples could be also applied to different instructional media, including network- based or computer-assisted instruction. Additional details of my work on which this paper is based can be found in the technical report by Zorana Ercegovac.35 Who Are the Students? While 80 per- cent of my students have remained in the social-sciences and humanities, more re- cently I have seen a shift from predomi- nantly upper-division to lower-division college status. Perhaps students are starting to notice the applicability of the course content to their professional ca- reers and take the course early on "so that they can apply to other courses" rather than just to "fill-in breadth re- quirements." Most of the students wish to pursue graduate studies and antici- pate doing more researching and writ- ing in future. Students' self-reported and perceived level of competence obtained from Ql is higher than their actual com- petence as measured by the pretest knowledge content scores from Q2. Stu- dents are predominantly self-trained, with little or no library experience from former schools. How Do Students Fare? Preliminary findings are obtained on the impact of the Information Access Instruction, IAI4, as measured by three different instru- ments: a campuswide questionnaire on evaluation of the instruction program that is administered at the end of each quarter, two written tests on knowledge content, and the quality of the term pa- per, a bibliographic essay. A one-group pretest-posttest design (n = 216) has been used in this preliminary study to provide insights for more controlled studies in the future. Information Access Instruction 255 The campuswide questionnaire gath- ers data on students' views with regard to their subject interest before the course versus after the course; perceptions of the importance of the course relative to other courses they have taken; and writ- ten comments on the course. Two knowledge content posttests that are worth 20 and 30 percent of the final grade are organized around five groups of questions: use of controlled vocabu- laries and classification schemes in searching and browsing; characteristics of reference sources and literatures from different disciplines for factual and bib- liographic information; specific features of online library systems (e.g., OPACs, CD-ROMs); interpretation and specific features of certain indexing and ab- stracting sources; understanding the na- ture of information needs and locating the most suitable reference source(s) to meet one's needs. The term paper, which is worth 40 percent of the final grade, attempts to measure students' cumulative applied mastery of literatures pertinent to the topic of the paper, online searching skills, and general reference sources for factual and bibliographic information. Equally important are the students' at- tention to accuracy, organization, in- sight, and good writing style. Finally, students' active participation in in-class assignments and discussions is worth 10 percent of their final grade. CONCLUSIONS As the importance of bibliographic instruction becomes more critical, more systematic research is needed to investi- gate many open questions: the extent to which BI should be presented in dif- ferent settings, type of format and instructional techniques, standards and evaluation criteria (e.g., prerequisites of students if any, training of BI instruc- tors), to mention just few examples that await attention. We have the oppor- tunity and responsibility to design information access programs that will coherently integrate presentation of varied information tools and sources in an active and rich learning experience. 256 College & Research Libraries An annotated presentation program, IAI4, based on the four design principles, is developed in Microsoft's PowerPoint graphical presentation package. IAI4 consists of two parts as follows: part 1 is the instructor's presentation pro- gram. Each of the ten modules has about thirty color screens and corre- sponds to two forty-five-minute in- structional units. Each screen contains May1995 annotations describing the screen, a list of readings, and questions for class discussion. Part 2 is the student's Notebook. It contains copies of screens from the IAI4 modules with a listing of reference sources and in-class exer- cises. The program will be tested dur- ing the fall term 1994 and the per- formance results will be reported in the literature. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Michael V. Sullivan, Christine L. Borgman and Dorothy Wippern, "End-Users, Mediated Searches, and Front-End Assistance Programs on Dialog: A Comparison of Learning, Per- formance, and Satisfaction," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41 Oan. 1990): 27-42. 2. Lori Arp and Gerald Jay Schafer, "Connecting Bibliographic Instruction and Collection Development: A Management Plan," RQ 31 (Spring 1992): 398-406. 3. Gregory A. Crawford, "The Effects of Instruction in the Use of PsycLIT on Interlibrary Loan," RQ 31 (Spring 1992): 370-76. 4. Anita Kay Lowry, "Beyond BI: Information Literacy in the Electronic Age," Research Strate- gies 8 (Winter 1990): 22-27. 5. TrudiE. Jacobson and Lynne M. Martin, "Merging Critical Thinking and the Electronic Library: A Visionary Perspective of SuperPAC, an Enhanced OPAC," Research Strategies 11 (Summer 1993): 138-49. 6. John C. Stachacz and Thomas M. Brennan, "Bibliographic Instruction in an Undergraduate Biology Course," Research Strategies 8 (Winter 1990): 14-21. 7. Beryl Glitz, "The Role of Medical Libraries in End-User Searching: Teaching the MEDLINE Database to Health Care Professionals," Science and Technology Libraries 10 (Fall 1989): 47-54. 8. Roma M. Harris, "Bibliographic Instruction: The Views of Academic, Special, and Public Librarians," College & Research Libraries 53 (May 1992): 249-56. 9. READ THIS FIRST: An Owner's Guide to the New Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction, ed. Carolyn Dusenbury et al. (Washington, D.C.: Biblio- graphic Instruction Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, A Division of the American Library Association), 1991. 10. Nancy O'Hanlon, "Begin at the End: A Model for Research Skills Instruction,"Research Strategies 9 (Summer 1991): 116-23. 11. Ruth V. Curtis and Herbert C. Carson, "The Application . of Motivational Design to Biblio- graphic Instruction," Research Strategies 9 (Summer 1991): 130-38. 12. Elizabeth Frick, "Qualitative Evaluation of User Education Programs: The Best Choice?"Re- search Strategies 8 'Winter 1990): 4-13. 13. V. L. Glasgow and G. Foreman, "U-Search: A Program to Teach End User Searching at an Academic Health Sciences Library," in M. S. Wood, E. B. Horak and B. Snow, eds. End User Searching in the Health Sciences. (Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth, 1986). 14. Winifred Sewell and Sandra Teitelbaum, "Observations of End-User Online Searching Behavior over Eleven Years," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 37 Ouly 1986): 234-45. 15. David D. Blair and M. E. Maron, "An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for a Full-Text Document-Retrieval System," Communications of the ACM 28 (Mar. 1985): 289-99. 16. Bradford W. Hesse, LeeS. Sproull, Sara B. Kiesler, and John P. Walsh, "Returns to Science: Computer Networks in Oceanography," Communications of the ACM 36 (Aug.1993): 90-101. 17. Trudi Bellardo, "An Investigation of Online Searchers Traits and Their Relationship to Search Outcome," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 36 Ouly 1985): 241-50. Information Access Instruction 257 18. Christine L. Borgman, "All Users of Information Retrieval Systems Are Not Created Equal: An Exploration into Individual Differences," Information Processing & Management 25 (1989): 337-51. 19. Elizabeth R. Cardman, "Gender Gap in Computer Use: Implications for Bibliographic Instruction," Research Strategies 8 (Summer 1990): 116-28. 20. Dennis E. Egan, "Individual Differences in Human Computer Interaction," in M. Helander, ed. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (New York: Elsevier, 1988). 21. Carol H. Fenichel, "Online Searching: Measures That Discriminate among Users with Different Types of Experiences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32 (Jan. 1981): 23-32 . 22. J. E. Tolle, "Understanding Patrons Use of Online Catalogs: Transaction Log Analysis of the Search Method," in R. F. Vodran, ed. Proceedings of the 46th Annual ASIS Meeting, Oct. 2-6, 1983; Washington, D.C. (White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry, 20: 167-71, 1983). 23. Nancy N. Woelfl, "Individual Differences in Online Search Behavior: The Effect of Learning Styles and Cognitive Abilities on Process and Outcome," (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Univer- sity, 1984). Available from Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 07 A (Ann Arbor, Mich.). 24. Joseph R. Matthews, Gary S. Lawrence, and Douglas K. Ferguson, Using Online Catalogs: A Nationwide Survey, A Report of a Study Sponsored by the Council on Library Resources (New York: Neal-Schuman, 1983). 25. John M. Carroll, "Learning, Using, and Designing Command Paradigms," Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research and Application 1 (Oct. 1982): 31-62. 26. John M. Carroll and Robert L. Mack, "Actively Learning to Use a Word Processor," in: W. Cooper, ed. Cognitive Aspects of Skilled Typewriting (New York: Springer Pub., 1983), 259-81. 27. John M. Carroll and Robert L. Mack, "Metaphor, Computing Systems, and Active Learning," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 22 (Jan. 1985): 39-57. 28. Jean Piaget, Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood (New York: Norton, 1951). 29. Jeanetta Drueke, "Active Learning in the University Library Instruction Classroom," Re- search Strategies 10 (Spring 1992): 77-83. , 30. Barbara Leigh Smith and Hean T. MacGregor, "What Is Collaborative Learning?" in Collabo- rative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, ed. Anne Goodsell et al. (Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1992), 9-22. 31. Christine L. Borgman, "The User's Mental Model of an Information Retrieval System: An Experiment on a Prototype Online Catalog," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24 (Jan. 1986): 47-64. 32. Herbert A. Simon, "How Big Is a Chunk?" Science 183 (Feb. 8, 1974): 482-88. 33. Herman Buschke, "Learning Is Organized by Chunking," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15 (June 1976): 313-24. 34. Craig Graci et al., "Children, Chunking, and Computing," Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 3 (Spring 1992): 247-58. 35. Zorana Ercegovac, "Information Access Instruction (IAI4): A Study of Design Principles," Technical Report No.4 Los Angeles: InfoEN Associates, May 1994 . •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• INFORMATION ACCESS INSTRUCTION (/AI) PROGRAM • Ten modules for Bl ranging from basic information access concepts and search strategies to learning how to effectively use ready reference, bibliographic, CD-ROM, and Internet sources • Microsoft® PowerPoint presentation program for Apple Macintosh® (System PM or later) and PCs with Microsoft Windows® • Manual with over 300 annotated viewgraphs • Assignments • Extensive references to information sources • Index. Developed specifically for instructional librarians in college, research, and public libraries. Well suited for self-paced learning in the use of information technologies and resources. Low price $66.00. Manual only: $45.00 (+shipping and tax). 30% off for 20 or more copies. lnfoEN Associates • P.O.Box 66276 • Los Angeles, CA 90066 • Voice/Fax 310/391-3923.