381

Revising the “One-Shot” through 
Lesson Study: Collaborating with 
Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library 
Instruction Session

Shevaun E. Watson, Cathy Rex, Jill Markgraf, Hans 
Kishel, Eric Jennings, and Kate Hinnant

Shevaun E. Watson is Assistant Professor of English and Composition Director, Cathy Rex is Assistant 
Professor of English, Jill Markgraf is Associate Professor and Head of Research & Instruction, Hans Kishel 
is Assistant Professor and Research & Instruction Librarian, Eric Jennings is Assistant Professor and 
Instruction & Outreach Librarian, and Kate Hinnant Associate Lecturer of English, all at University of 
Wisconsin-Eau Claire; e-mails: watsonse@uwec.edu, rexcj@uwec.edu, markgrjs@uwec.edu, kishelhf@uwec.
edu, jenninge@uwec.edu, hinnanks@uwec.edu. © 2013 Shevaun E. Watson, Cathy Rex, Jill Markgraf, 
Hans Kishel, Eric Jennings, and Kate Hinnant, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC.

The one-shot library instruction session has long been a mainstay for 
many information literacy programs. Identifying realistic learning goals, 
integrating active learning techniques, and conducting meaningful as-
sessment for a single lesson all present challenges. Librarians and 
English faculty at one college campus confronted these challenges by 
participating in a year-long lesson study, a process of collaboratively plan-
ning, observing, and assessing a single lesson. By collectively identifying 
goals and priorities, designing and redesigning the lesson, and assessing 
outcomes through observation, surveys, and focus groups, librarians 
and teaching faculty negotiated varying expectations and demands for 
providing one-shot library instruction.

he one-shot library instruc-
tion session is a routine oc-
currence at many academic 
libraries. Librarians strive 

to teach some basic research skills with 
the awareness that the one-shot instruc-
tion session is not ideal for meaningful 
retention or transfer of this knowledge 
to students’ actual research experiences. 
These one-time, librarian-led presenta-
tions, which are developed to meet the 
needs of the first-year composition or 
other introductory-level course, are ex-

pected to both acquaint students with 
library services and teach them “how 
to research,” including everything from 
searching the library catalog to using 
various databases to discerning types 
and quality of sources. Not surprisingly, 
such instruction sessions can easily over-
whelm students with their jam-packed, 
whirlwind dispersal of information, and 
they can frustrate and overburden the 
librarians tasked with teaching them. 
Additionally, such instruction sessions 
are often unable to incorporate active 

crl12-255



382  College & Research Libraries July 2013

learning techniques to accommodate 
the various learning styles of students, 
or to foster any sort of collaborative 
environment.

In 2010 and 2011 faculty from both 
McIntyre Library and the English Depart-
ment at the University of Wisconsin-Eau 
Claire worked to alleviate this two-
pronged dilemma of one-shot library 
instruction—the overstuffed nature of 
the lessons and the lack of collaborative, 
interdisciplinary input in designing and 
running them—through a relatively new 
mode of inquiry in American education: 
the lesson study.

Literature Review
One-Shot Library Instruction Sessions
While there has been some research 
and discussion about the pedagogical 
underpinnings and structure of such 
one-shot instruction sessions, there has 
not been much discussion about the col-
laborative, interdisciplinary opportunity 
the reexamination and reformulation 
of these one-shot instruction sessions 
could provide. Though there have been 
examples of innovation with one-shot 
library instruction sessions, they do not 
always fully challenge the orthodoxies 
of library instruction. The University of 
Minnesota, for example, has expanded 
the one-shot instruction session to a 
highly successful series of workshops 
called Unravel the Library that has been 
quite well received on the campus.1 
These three discrete instruction sessions 
that cover orientation to the library, find-
ing books and articles, and advanced 
searching each run for approximately 
seventy-five minutes and teach library 
and information literacy skills in man-
ageable chunks that contain information 
“students ‘need to know’ rather than 
simply [skills that are] ‘nice to know.’”2 
This strategy, while successful, did 
not incorporate collaboration with the 
various disciplines that use and depend 
upon the library instruction sessions or 
actively engage students in collaborative 
learning at the level that we sought; it is 

a singular response based on librarians’ 
perceptions, expectations, and assess-
ments of the instruction’s success. 

Other studies have tackled the chal-
lenge presented by incorporating collab-
orative student learning into a one-shot 
library instruction session. The University 
of Wisconsin-La Crosse has had much 
success with restructuring library class-
rooms and the instructors’ conceptions of 
how a library instruction session should 
look to create sessions that encourage 
collaborative, experiential learning. These 
instruction sessions direct “students to 
construct their own paths to knowledge 
through socially-relevant, peer-based 
learning experiences” rather than de-
pending on instruction sessions in which 
the librarian demonstrates an activity and 
students attempt to replicate it.3 Again, 
UW-La Crosse has seen marked success 
with such instruction sessions that prove 
to be “effective, positive experiences in 
which students learned well together 
and met classroom objectives.”4 These 
one-shot instruction sessions focused on 
increasing the involvement and active 
learning of the participants, but they did 
not have as their purpose the revamping 
of content and structure of the one-shot 
library instruction session or inviting 
interdisciplinary collaboration of faculty 
to do so.

In discussions about rethinking li-
brary instruction models, including the 
one-shot library session, assessment has 
become a key component. While some 
studies describe discrete assessment 
exercises, such as preassessments and 
in-class assessments,5 others take a more 
holistic approach. SUNY Geneseo librar-
ians incorporated pre- and post-lesson 
assessments into a robust process, “clos-
ing the assessment loop” by using their 
analysis to change both their goals and 
instruction.6 Similarly, the Information 
Literacy Instruction Assessment Cycle 
(ILIAC), as outlined by Megan Oakleaf, 
provides a seven-stage plan for collecting 
and interpreting assessment data and 
enacting changes.7



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  383

Understanding Lesson Study 
Lesson study is done by collaborative 
groups of teachers who begin by exam-
ining textbooks, standards, and current 
methods for conveying essential concepts 
to students in a single lesson. Teachers 
then “plan, observe, and analyze actual 
classroom lessons, drawing out implica-
tions both for the design of specific les-
sons and for teaching and learning more 
broadly.”8 Specifically, lesson study is an 
examination of practice that challenges 
teachers to examine their goals for a les-
son as well as student response to them. 
Lesson study is “inherently collabora-
tive, since teachers work together with 
a common purpose and draw from one 
another ’s experience and expertise.”9 
The process of lesson study involves col-
laborating with fellow teachers to identify 
goals, plan the lesson, teach and observe 
the lesson, discuss findings, and revise the 
lesson (see figure 1). The traits of lesson 
study—intense investigation of the effi-
cacy of a single lesson and the collabora-
tion of multiple teachers to do so—make 
it especially useful for surmounting the 
difficulties posed by a particular lesson, 
such as the one-shot library session. 

Lesson study is a professional learning 
approach that was developed in Japan 
and has been used there for decades 
as a method to move from the idea of 
“‘teaching as telling to teaching for un-
derstanding’.”10 It gained the attention of 
educators across the globe in 1999 when 
it was commended as “a way to build a 
professional knowledge base for teaching 
and to improve teaching and learning” 
by researchers on the Third International 
Math and Science Study.11 Currently, 
most lesson studies are conducted by 
teachers in elementary, middle, and sec-
ondary schools, with some of the most 
notable and consistent activity occurring 
in California in the San Mateo-Foster City 
School district elementary schools under 
the direction of Catherine C. Lewis, a 
specialist in lesson study pedagogy and 
development in the United States.12 Un-
fortunately, lesson study at the postsec-
ondary level has yet to catch on the way 
it has with primary school educators. As 
a whole, the idea of lesson study has not 
made its way into college-level teach-
ing practices in any significant manner, 
although the University of Wisconsin 
(UW) System has embraced this method 

figure 1
The Lesson Study Cycle 

Adapted from Lewis (2002, fig. 1)

Identify
Goals

Revise the 
Lesson

Discuss
Findings

Plan the 
Lesson

Teach and 
Observe the 

Lesson



384  College & Research Libraries July 2013

of pedagogical reflection and revision. 
One of the first college-level lesson stud-
ies was conducted by the Department of 
Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sci-
ence at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, 
and several other UW campuses have 
undertaken similar lesson study cycles.13 
The lack of attention to lesson studies at 
the college level is especially surprising, 
because this methodology helps teachers 
refocus on assessing the effectiveness of 
instruction rather than the performance 
of the teacher.14 Typically, librarians must 
rely on student feedback that ultimately 
pertains more to librarian performance 
than to any meaningful learning. Lesson 
study is a powerful tool that allows the 
librarian to focus on the process of teach-
ing and learning rather than on how well 
he or she engaged with the audience. 
Moreover, because of the collaborative 
nature of lesson study, it allows librarians 
to work closely with faculty as partners 
in teaching.

Lesson Study in Academic Libraries
To date, the only documented uses of 
lesson study in academic libraries were at 
the University of Michigan and at UW-La 
Crosse. At Michigan, librarians focused 
their lesson study on teaching “Search 
Tools,” an implementation of the MetaLib 
federated search software from ExLibris.15 
Lesson study participants were librarians 
from four different libraries whose goal 
was to create a flexible, thirty-minute les-
son teaching “Search Tools” that could be 
used for different audiences. Librarians 
ran the lesson study three times and, 
through the process of revision that is 
essential to lesson study, developed hand-
outs and an animated PowerPoint presen-
tation to help define “Search Tools.” At 
UW-La Crosse, librarians recognized the 
potential value of lesson study assessment 
for the one-shot library instruction session 
and worked with their Communications 
Studies faculty to conduct a lesson study 
of library instruction.16 Students worked 
in groups to research a topic provided by 
the librarian. Each student was assigned 

a role in the group, and each group com-
pleted a research log with prescribed 
steps. The lesson included many steps, 
such as introducing students to the library 
website and the library catalog, teaching 
students to choose and search appropriate 
library databases, providing strategies for 
evaluative thinking, introducing sources 
for statistics and quotations, and defining 
scholarly publications. Through both of 
these lesson studies, librarians were able 
to observe student behavior, measure 
learning outcomes, and identify areas for 
future modification.

Methodology
At UW-Eau Claire, we conducted a 
lesson study starting in 2010 with the 
goals of overhauling the content of our 
one-shot library instruction sessions and 
collaborating as cross-disciplinary faculty 
in the process. Like the UW-La Crosse 
faculty, we aimed to develop a lesson that 
was interactive and customized; unlike 
the UW-La Crosse lesson study, where 
students worked with sample topics as-
signed by the librarian, our study worked 
with students who had already selected 
individual research topics for their first-
year composition course, English 110. 
We, UW-Eau Claire library and English 
110 faculty, undertook a lesson study to 
design a single fifty-minute session aimed 
to teach specific, identified research skills. 
Our goal was to create a template that 
could be modified for varying research 
topics and class needs, accompanied by 
a detailed description to give English 
110 instructors a realistic sense of what 
is achievable in a one-shot instruction 
session.

Goal Setting
We formed a lesson study group in 
January 2010, composed of three English 
faculty and four library faculty. After fa-
miliarizing ourselves with lesson studies, 
we sought to identify the main goals of 
this session. Using the Association of Col-
lege and Research Libraries’ Information 
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher 



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  385

Education for guidance,17 the group iso-
lated nine desired goals on which to focus: 

• an awareness of hierarchies of 
information

• an understanding of differences 
between key word and subject 
heading searching

• the ability to refine searches on 
basis of results

• an understanding of citation 
chasing

• an understanding of where to go 
for different types of sources

• the ability to recognize and dem-
onstrate transferability of search 
skills

• the ability to replicate searches
• the ability to document successful 

results
• the ability to access the actual 

source
In a process that spanned several 

weekly meetings, we discussed what 
these goals meant, how they might be 
demonstrated, and what could be ac-
complished in a fifty-minute instructional 
session. Coming to the realization that the 
initial list of goals was too ambitious for 
such a short class period, we narrowed 
our goals. We identified as the overarch-
ing outcome that “students will be able 
to construct and implement effective 
search strategies with an awareness of a 
variety of search systems.” From there, 
we selected two goals for the lesson study 
session: 1) students will be able to deter-
mine where to go to search for different 
types of resources; and 2) students will 
be able to recognize and demonstrate 
transferability of search skills. Other 
goals, we decided, should be subsumed 
in these goals or addressed in “prereq-
uisite” activities preceding the library 
instruction session. We recommended 
that two class periods of English 110 be 
devoted to meeting these prerequisites: 
evaluating sources, narrowing topics, 
and conducting background research. 
The lesson study group used several 
meetings to plan the prerequisite activi-
ties and to design the session itself. 

Planning the Initial Lesson
We selected an English 110 section and a 
librarian for the lesson study session, and 
in keeping with the lesson study model, 
other members of the group observed. 
We opted for a section that included a 
two-hour class period, as this provided 
adequate time for the fifty-minute lesson 
and follow-up assessment. In designing 
the lesson, we focused on tying instruc-
tion to the stated goals, incorporating in-
teractivity and exploration, and providing 
effective and concise search examples for 
demonstration. The lesson plan (see ap-
pendix A) began with a brief welcome to 
the library. Then, using the sample topic 
of bullying on the Internet, the librarian 
would demonstrate a catalog search, fol-
lowed by a search in a multidisciplinary 
database. This portion of the lesson would 
last fifteen to twenty minutes. The next 
fifteen to twenty minutes would be de-
voted to a collaborative activity in which 
students would be assigned partners and 
given worksheets (see appendix B) to 
complete. Students would then interview 
their partners about their topics, jotting 
down keywords as they listened. After 
both partners shared their topics, students 
would search on their partners’ topics 
within the catalog and article databases 
to find one relevant resource for their 
partner and record enough information 
about the source so that the partner would 
be able to locate it. By searching their 
partners’ topics rather than their own, we 
believed that students would remain on 
task because they would be accountable to 
their partners. We also hoped they would 
be more cognizant of the research process 
itself rather than get caught up in their 
own topics. Our aim in having students 
document the sources they found for their 
partners was to encourage them to record 
information necessary for replicating the 
search. During this activity, the librarian 
would observe the students to gather 
examples for the discussion that would 
make up the final ten minutes of the ses-
sion. For the discussion, the entire class 
would come together to talk about their 



386  College & Research Libraries July 2013

search experiences, successes, challenges, 
and possible solutions. This discussion 
portion was a crucial element of the lesson 
plan because it would allow the librarian 
to present other research strategies and 
concepts not previously demonstrated.

Teaching and Observing the Lesson
The session was executed as planned 
in spring 2010. A unique feature of the 
lesson study assessment technique is the 
presence of several observers during the 
session. In lesson studies, observers are 
directed to focus on and record the activi-
ties of the students as the lesson unfolds. 
Several observers are placed throughout 
the classroom, where they can hear stu-
dent discussions, see computer screens, 
note activity, and offer a closer look at 
student behaviors than what can typically 
be noticed by the librarian. For our initial 
lesson study, five observers from the 
group were placed strategically around 
the room, joined by two guest observers 
from another UW university. 

 Discussing the Lesson Findings 
After the lesson study was delivered for 
the first time, we gathered to discuss our 
observation notes. At that time, we also 
reviewed the data collected from students 
after the lesson, including feedback forms, 
student worksheets, and focus group com-
ments. There were three major findings 
that emerged from this process. One of 
the chief insights from the initial run of 
the lesson study session was that it was 
too top-heavy with librarian presentation. 
Our goal of providing an active learning 
experience was ultimately thwarted by 
nearly twenty minutes of lecture and dem-
onstration. A second problem that became 
apparent to us was that our instructions 
to the students were unclear. Observers 
noticed that students were unsure of when 
to follow along on the computer and when 
to watch during the presentation. Finally, 
the students were unconvinced about the 
value of searching for information for their 
partner when all they wanted to do was 
search for their own topic. 

Revising the Lesson
To ameliorate these problems, we revised 
the lesson study plan in the summer and 
fall of 2010. We improved the lesson in 
multiple and significant ways. First, we 
clarified instructions for students and 
explicitly verbalized the rationale for 
searching on their partner’s topic. Second, 
the librarian-led section was split into two 
parts, thus breaking up lecture and dem-
onstration into shorter and more usable 
parts. In the revised lesson (see appendix 
C), we planned for the librarian to present 
briefly on how to use the library catalog. 
The students would then immediately 
begin to work in pairs: sharing topics, 
generating keywords, and searching for 
a book or other catalog resource for one 
another (see appendix D). After the catalog 
demonstration, the librarian would lead 
a five-minute discussion on the relative 
successes and failures of the students’ 
searches. Following that, there would be a 
short introduction to the article databases. 
A third change was to have the students 
work together at this point to search for 
relevant articles for both partners’ topics. 
We retained the final discussion as the 
conclusion to the session. Taken together, 
these revisions increase opportunities for 
collaborative and active learning, deepen 
students’ understanding of distinctions 
between search tools and source types, 
and foster the transferability of search 
skills. We ran the revised lesson study in 
spring 2011. This second iteration of the 
lesson was conducted by a different librar-
ian and with a different English 110 class. 

Results
Observations
The revised lesson addressed some issues 
raised in the first lesson, most notably 
student confusion over the instructions. 
Many observations of the second itera-
tion of the lesson echoed those of the first. 
To illuminate these observations, we will 
describe the second lesson in greater detail. 
Students in the second iteration of the les-
son were initially focused on the librarian’s 
demonstration of the library catalog, some 



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  387

following along on their own computers 
and some listening and watching. After 
about seven to ten minutes, students began 
visibly fidgeting in their chairs, distracting 
themselves with cell phones and other ac-
coutrements in their backpacks. Several 
students began searching the catalog on 
their own topics. By the time the librarian 
introduced and transitioned to the peer 
activity, the students seemed ready to 
move on. They immediately and enthu-
siastically engaged in conversation with 
their partners, and observers noted that, 
overall, the conversations were on topic. 
Students discussed research topics with 
their partners, generated keywords, and 
searched the catalog. Most students moved 
through these steps before being prompted 
to do so by the librarian, indicating that 
more time had been budgeted for some 
segments of the lesson than was necessary. 
Some students moved on to databases and 
began searching there as well during the 
catalog portion of the lesson. When they 
were brought back together to discuss their 
experiences, the students who experienced 
problems in finding relevant resources 
were forthcoming with their frustrations. 
This opened up an opportunity to discuss 
additional strategies for searching the 
catalog, such as using broader terms and 
exploring additional content in catalog 
records. The unfortunate layout of the 
classroom locates the teaching station, and 
thus the teaching librarian, in a corner of 
the room. While most students were en-
gaged during this discussion, the students 
in the furthest corner from the librarian 
and the teaching station were whispering 
among themselves and less attentive to 
the discussion, suggesting that the librar-
ian may want to employ tactics to draw 
in students in the far reaches of the room 
such as moving around the room.

The students were less inclined to sit 
inactively watching the second demon-
stration portion of the lesson, which was 
on searching databases. This demonstra-
tion was considerably shorter than the 
catalog demo, but students began search-
ing on their own topics as the librarian 

was talking. While the revised lesson 
stipulated that students would work with 
their partners during this segment of the 
lesson, alternating between topics, most 
students worked independently on their 
own topics, but did continue communi-
cating with their partners about their find-
ings. The group discussions about what 
students experienced during database 
searching again elicited comments and 
questions, particularly among those who 
experienced some frustration.

Student Feedback
We asked students to provide feedback 
on the lesson through both a survey and 
subsequent focus groups (see appendices 
E and F). Their comments reinforced 
and supplemented observations. In the 
student feedback survey, a number of 
students identified keyword search strate-
gies as the most useful aspect of the les-
son. One student commented, “I thought 
that using new keywords to come up with 
different topics was the most helpful tip 
I learned.” This concept was reiterated 
in a student comment on peer activity in 
which he/she said, “Having someone else 
look at my topic so I could get a different 
point of view and ideas of how to search 
differently [was the most useful thing 
about the library instruction session].” A 
number of students also mentioned that 
they really liked the peer activity, with one 
student commenting that the most useful 
part of the lesson was “getting someone 
elses [sic] perspective on my topic—found 
different terms to use throughout my 
research.” During the focus group, a stu-
dent commented that the partner work 
was helpful because “you got to have 
two people searching on your topic in a 
collaborative way. Two different minds 
[were] working on the same idea.” The 
survey verified the feelings articulated by 
students in the open-ended portion of the 
survey and focus groups; 86.2 percent of 
the students strongly or somewhat agreed 
that searching for a topic that wasn’t their 
own was very helpful in learning how to 
do research.



388  College & Research Libraries July 2013

The time that was given in class to work 
on searching was one of the key benefits 
noted about the session: “We were actually 
given time to work right after being taught 
which made it easier to understand,” 
noted one student. Overall, 86.2 percent 
of students found that as a result of the 
lesson that they would “be able to utilize 
Library resources more effectively.”

The survey and focus groups brought 
forth some constructive criticism as well. 
A handful of students did not like the 
partner activity. This was clearly articu-
lated in the focus groups by one student 
who said that it was difficult to search 
for his partner’s topic since he was not 
a mind reader and thus did not know 
exactly what his partner was searching 
for. Another student wished she had class 
time to work on her own topic rather than 
someone else’s. Although students appre-
ciated the time for exploration in class, a 
number of students expressed the desire 
for even more. “[I would like a] little more 
time when trying to find sources for my 
partner. I was only beginning to scratch 
the surface of the possible info on their 
topic.” Other students commented that 
the instruction could have gone more in 

depth, saying, “Most of the things men-
tioned I already knew about so maybe 
show some things that we might not know 
about.” Another said that he/she would 
have liked “more explanation on how to 
search such as more tips on how to nar-
row more or how to find what I’m looking 
for.” Some students wanted a “more dif-
ficult example, something that does not 
necessarily return articles or books right 
away, requires more difficult searching.” 
Because this was a spring semester class, 
many of the students may have already 
had library instruction in a different class 
or had previously interacted with library 
resources for other classes’ research as-
signments. Additionally, students came to 
the session with a little more background 
in using the library than the typical Eng-
lish 110 student, thanks to an enthusiastic 
teaching assistant who was not only a 
library science minor but also a student 
assistant at the library’s reference desk. 
Thus, one student commented in the focus 
group that “our TA had already covered 
that stuff in class.” 

Student Worksheets
To further assess outcomes of the lesson, 
we reviewed students’ worksheets to 
see if they were successful in identifying 
sources relevant to their partners’ topics. 
By analyzing the students’ topics and the 
titles of the sources found, we determined 
that 89.7 percent of students identified 
sources that were relevant to the topics. 
No students recorded irrelevant or inap-
propriate resources. Those who failed to 
record a relevant source did not complete 
that portion of the worksheet, for reasons 
unknown. It may be that, as some stu-
dents noted, they did not have enough 
time. Some students were observed e-
mailing results to themselves or to their 
partners, and it may be that they found 
it superfluous to write down the citation 
information as well. 

Discussion
We all concur that the process of going 
through the lesson study was ultimately 

TABLe 1
 Searching for a Topic that was 

Not my Own was Very Helpful in 
Learning How to do Research

Strongly 
Agree 

Somewhat 
Agree 

Somewhat 
Disagree 

Strongly 
Disagree

3 22 2 2
10.3% 75.9% 6.9% 6.9%

TABLe 2
As a result of this Session,  

i Will be Able to utilize Library  
resources More effectively

Strongly 
Agree 

Somewhat 
Agree 

Somewhat 
Disagree 

Strongly 
Disagree

9 16 2 2
31.0% 55.2% 6.9% 6.9%



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  389

more valuable than the resulting les-
son plan. There were several significant 
insights gleaned from this experience. 
First, the opportunity to observe student 
behaviors during an instruction session 
and to gather frank student feedback has 
impacted how the librarians teach. The 
library faculty gained a new awareness of 
their own teaching styles and classroom 
dynamics and have begun transitioning 
many of their classes from lecture-based 
learning to a more active, involved class-
room. Even those librarians who had 
previously prided themselves on incorpo-
rating active learning techniques into their 
instruction sessions were confronted with 
the reality that they still talked too much. 
In the continuing reflection and revision 
that has occurred since the second itera-
tion of the lesson, librarians have reduced 
the total demonstration time to roughly 
six minutes, leaving twenty-five minutes 
for the partner activity and research and 
twelve to fifteen minutes for discussion. 
Transitioning to this model of teaching 
may not be seamless for librarians accus-
tomed to other practices. Relegating most 
content from a well-planned and relatively 
predictable presentation to a more extem-
poraneous question-and-answer session 
can be unsettling for librarians who al-
ready feel they have too much to cover in 
too little time. Librarian comments during 
the session suggested that the lesson felt 
rushed, whereas student behaviors and 
subsequent comments suggest that stu-
dents did not share that impression. The 
librarians who participated in the lesson 
studies reported that having the opportu-
nity to play the role of teaching librarian 
as well as observer in the lesson study 
was extremely useful in understanding 
the disconnect between the librarian’s and 
the students’ perceptions of time.

The second main insight comes from 
the discussion components of the lesson 
plan. Observations, student engagement, 
and student feedback suggest that the post-
searching discussions were extremely valu-
able segments of the lesson. Maximizing 
the value of these discussions requires that 

librarians hone certain skills. Rather than 
coming to a session with carefully prepared 
examples and demonstrations, librarians 
must adapt to a teaching scenario in which 
they exercise their extemporaneous skills. 
During the crucial discussion segment of 
the lesson, librarians must strategically 
elicit student search examples that illustrate 
content traditionally front-loaded in lecture 
and demonstration. Effective discussion re-
quires the librarian to actively walk around 
the room, observe student search behaviors 
as they search, and gather examples that 
illustrate search techniques and challenges. 
Some librarians expressed discomfort 
in “peering over students’ shoulders” as 
they worked, but a simple explanation to 
the students ahead of time that they will 
be doing so may be sufficient to put both 
librarians and students at ease. Using real 
examples of difficulties encountered by the 
students will enable the librarian to take 
the discussion to the more advanced level 
desired by the students.

Third, we found that working as ex-
perts across disciplinary boundaries to 
plan the lesson enabled us to understand 
various perspectives on our students’ 
complex information literacy needs. Out 
of this collaboration grew the intentional 
integration of specific information literacy 
instruction into the first-year composi-
tion course. But even more important 
is the sustained collaboration that has 
emerged between the library and English 
department beyond the lesson study. 
The first-year writing curriculum was 
being revamped at the same time that 
the lesson study was being conducted; 
as a result, lesson study librarians were 
invited to help plan the integration of li-
brary instruction into the new curriculum. 
Products of the lesson study, including 
the revised one-shot library instruction 
lesson plan and the prerequisite activi-
ties, formed the basis of that integration. 
Through the lesson study, librarians and 
English faculty developed a common 
language and shared understanding of 
what can reasonably be expected during 
a fifty-minute instruction session. 



390  College & Research Libraries July 2013

Appendix A
Initial English 110 Library Instruction Lesson Study Outline 

(5 min.) Welcome to the library
In this session we will explore some research tools. We’ll start with a quick demonstra-
tion of searching the library catalog and a library database for journal articles, and 
then you will begin working on your topics with the help of a partner. At the end we 
will come back together to discuss our research experiences. There are more research 
tools and strategies available to you than we will be able to cover today, so please re-
member one of the most important library resources available to you: people. Library 
staff are here to help you when you have questions during your research process. You 
can stop by the reference desk, reach us by phone, chat, e-mail, or set up an appoint-
ment with a librarian.

(5 min.) Catalog search 
My research topic looks at the phenomenon of bullying on the Internet.
Catalog (from homepage):
• expect to find books, videos, other media, government documents, not journal 

articles
• enter: bullying Internet (note that it’s not a question or phrase, just content-

bearing words)
• first 3 results mention cyberbullying, but are not consistent in how the term is 

written
• Click on first result to illustrate subject headings (standardized spelling of cyber-

bullying, broader terms), mention location information and call number

Finally, we realized this lesson study 
pertained to one-shot library instruction 
sessions beyond the first-year composi-
tion course, pushing us to address the lim-
itations of the one-shot model overall. For 
example, we identified and designed the 
prerequisite activities and bracketed off 
concepts that could be conveyed through 
online tutorials and videos. These discus-
sions prompted the development of a 
menu of library instruction options that 
will enable instructors to pick and choose 
the concepts or skills they wish to have 
included in a library instruction session. 
Librarians expressed long-held frustra-
tion with requests for library instruction 
sessions that ask them to cover unrealistic 
amounts of material in one class period. 
But they also admitted to their own ten-
dency to perpetuate the impression that 
they could effectively accommodate such 
requests. Lesson study provided a model 

for librarians to have conversations with 
faculty in all disciplines about what can 
realistically be covered in a fifty-minute 
session. 

As librarians further develop this 
menu of instruction options, they have 
an alternative way to meet the requests 
of faculty and the information literacy 
needs of students. Word of the les-
son study collaboration has spread on 
campus, and librarians are now being 
approached by faculty in other disci-
plines interested in conducting similar 
studies to improve the integration of 
information literacy into their curricula. 
Armed with an enhanced ability to com-
municate with faculty, student feedback 
and assessment data, and a growing ar-
ray of supplementary instruction tools, 
librarians can confidently respond when 
instructors request a one-shot library 
instruction session.



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  391

(5–10 min.) Database search 
Use databases to find journal articles, newspaper articles, magazine articles, usually 
more current information than books.
• Databases by topic: have students choose a topic (discipline) likely to include 

information on cyberbullying
• Multidisciplinary databases vs. specialized databases
• From list of recommended databases, select Academic Search Complete
• Enter: cyberbullying
• Discuss results: 

 − click on record for abstract and headings
 − Fulltext vs. Find It
 − methods for limiting search results (e.g., Scholarly only or add search term 

like “middle school”)

(15–20 min.) Exercise (handout outlining steps)
•	 (2 min.) Intro to activity: Now you get to work on your search topics. [Assign 

partners. Distribute worksheet.]  
Put your name on the sheet and exchange worksheets with your partner. Now 
that you have your partner’s sheet, put your name down for “searcher.” First, 
one of you will each describe your topic to your partner. You will have about 
2 minutes to do this, then I will ask you to switch and the other person in your 
pair will describe his/her topic. Write down your partner’s research topic. As 
you listen to your partner, jot down words, phrases and ideas that you hear—as 
well as any synonyms or related ideas that come to you. Ask clarifying ques-
tions if you need to, as you will be doing a search on your partner’s topic.

•	 (2 min.) First partner describes topic. Call the switch. 
•	 (2 min.) Second partner describes topic.
•	 (7 min.) Search on partner’s topic. Write down steps and results.
•	 (3 min.) Partners share results

 − Can you tell what the information source is?
 − Does it look like it will be useful?
 − Do you have enough information to find it?

(10 min.) Entire group comes together to discuss results
• Librarian asks focused questions such as:

 − Whose partner came up with what looks like THE perfect source for your 
topic?

 − Did anyone have trouble finding anything for their partner?
 − Did anyone search the library catalog and come up with nothing on their topic?
 − What challenges did you face in searching for a journal article?

• Librarian comments on observations.

Wrap up. 



392  College & Research Libraries July 2013

Appendix B
Initial Lesson Study Worksheet
ENG 110: Library Research Name ________________________________

Name of your partner:

As your partner describes his/her research topic, jot down some of the words and 
ideas you hear.

 Research topic:

 Keywords:

Now you can begin looking for one really good source for your partner’s research. It 
is up to you to determine whether the source is a book, journal article, etc. 

 Where did you search?

 Record the steps you took to find the source:

List the source you found. Record enough information so that your partner can find 
it again.

Appendix C
Revised English 110 Library Instruction Lesson Study Outline 

(2 min.) Welcome to the library
In this session we will explore some research tools for finding books, journal articles, 
and other media that are necessary and appropriate for doing college-level research. 
• Distribute exercise sheet.

(20 min.) Catalog search
• Please watch while I briefly demonstrate how to get to the library catalog. This is 

the tool we use for finding books, videos, other media, government documents
• Sample search: My research topic looks at the Native American mascot controversy.
• Search “Native American mascots” and demonstrate moving from list of results 

to an individual record. Explain that the record contains information/links that 
will lead you to other resources.

•	 Exercise 1 (12 min. total)
 − (4 min.) First you will each describe your topic to your partner. You will have 

about 2 minutes to do this, then I will ask you to switch and the other person 
in your pair will describe his/her topic. As you listen to your partner, jot down 
words, phrases, and ideas that you hear—as well as any synonyms or related 
ideas that come to you. Ask clarifying questions if you need to, as you will be 
doing a search on your partner’s topic.

 − (2 min.) Brainstorm keywords for your partner’s topic and write them on the 



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  393

exercise sheet.
 − Next you will be searching for your partner because 1) you bring a different 

perspective to the topic and 2) it gives you the opportunity to step back from 
your own topic for a moment and focus on search strategies. 

 − (4 min.) Search in the catalog for a book or other source on their topic. On 
the exercise sheet, write down the information about one promising result 
you found (if any). 

 − (2 min) Share your result with your partner. Discuss how you found the item. 
What words did you type in? Ask your partner if it looks useful. Do this for 
both search topics.

•	 Discussion (5 min.)
 − Whose partner came up with what looks like THE perfect source for your 

topic?
 − Did anyone have trouble finding anything for their partner?
 − What strategies did you use? (search strategies on handout)
 − Discuss strategies for moving from one good result to another (subject head-

ings, call numbers). Broadening a topic.

(20 min.) Database search 
(3 min. demo)
• Please watch while I briefly demonstrate how to get to the library databases. 

These are the tools we use for finding journal articles, newspaper articles, and 
magazine articles. 

• Multidisciplinary databases vs. specialized databases
• Databases by topic: have students choose a topic (discipline) likely to include 

information on Native American Mascots & Team Names
• Enter: Native American Mascots
• Discuss results: 

 − click on record for abstract and headings

•	 Exercise 2 (10 min. total)
 − Go back to homepage
 − (4 min.) Now you will work with your partner to search on your topics. Iden-

tify which partner will do the searching first. Direct students to Academic 
Source Complete and ask them to work together to find an article on the 
other partner’s topic.

 − (4 min.) Switch so that the second partner now does the searching. Partners 
work together to find an article on the second topic.

 − (2 min.) Now you get to work on your search topics together. Work with your 
partner to find an article on your topic. Then switch to find article on your 
partner’s topic.

•	 Discuss (7 min.) 
Librarian asks focused questions such as:
 − Whose partner came up with what looks like THE perfect source for your 

topic?
 − Did anyone have trouble finding anything for their partner?
 − What challenges did you face in searching for a journal article?
 − How can one good source lead you to others?
 − Did you have trouble getting the actual article?



394  College & Research Libraries July 2013

(5 min.) Wrap up 
There are many more research tools and strategies available that will be valuable for 
this research assignment as well as future ones. Library staff are here to help you when 
you have questions during your research process. You can stop by the reference desk, 
reach us by phone, chat, e-mail, or set up an appointment with a librarian.

Appendix D
Revised Lesson Study Worksheet

ENG 110: Library Research Your Name _______________________________

Name of your partner:

1. As your partner describes his/her research topic, take notes.

2. What are some related words that you could also use? (e.g., teens or teenagers, 
movie or film)

3. Working independently, search in the library catalog for one really good source for 
your partner’s research. Write down enough information so that your partner can find 
it again:

[wait for further instructions]

4. Working with your partner, search for one really good article for your research topic. 
Write down enough information so that you can find it again:

Not	finding	anything? Try these strategies to modify your search by…
• Broadening • Narrowing

• Parallel concept • Time • Geography

Example: Southern Plantations
Broadening: Estate Farm

Narrowing: Slave-holding plantations
Parallel: South American Coffee Plantations

Time: 18th c. Southern Plantation
Geography: Charleston, S.C. area



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  395

Appendix E

Results of Revised Lesson Study Feedback (N=29)

I found that searching for a topic that was not my own was very helpful in learning 
how to do research.

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

3 22 2 2

10.3% 75.9% 6.9% 6.9%

The Librarian presented information that will be useful to me.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

11 15 3  

37.9% 51.7% 10.3% 0.0%

The Librarian presented information in a clear and concise manner.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

19 9 1  

65.5% 31.0% 3.4% 0.0%

The Librarian covered the right amount of material.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

11 14 2 2

37.9% 48.3% 6.9% 6.9%

I will refer back to the materials &/or webpage developed by the Librarian.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

13 11 3 2

44.8% 37.9% 10.3% 6.9%

The pace of the session was:
Just Right Too Fast Too Slow

22 4 3

75.9% 13.8% 10.3%

As a result of this session, I will be able to utilize Library resources more effectively.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

9 16 2 2

31.0% 55.2% 6.9% 6.9%



396  College & Research Libraries July 2013

Appendix F
Student Responses to Questions on Feedback Form from Revised Lesson 
Study [Note that these are not edited for spelling or grammatical errors]

What I found most useful about this session was:
• Getting to hear what other people were using for topics, I still don’t know what 

I want to do. 
• Being able to work with someone else to get more feedback and other opinions 

on what to search for.
• Talking with a peer about my topic. 
• Having someone else look at my topic so I could get a different point of view and 

ideas of how to search differently. 
• Partner input. 
• Getting someone else’s perspective on my topic—found different terms to use 

throughout my research.
• I thought that using new keywords to come up with different topics was the most 

helpful tip I learned.
• Narrowing my search help by topic. 
• Tips like using related terms. Broaden/Narrow/Parallel. 
• Learning how to broaden/narrow my search terms. 
• Using other keywords yields new results. 
• How to better use the databases. 
• The emphasis on using different search terms/keywords. Learning how to find 

sources from other sources/articles.
• The information on book searches, that was new to me.
• Learning about the online bookshelf. 
• Learning about the “online book shelf” 
• Showing how to find the differnet .search engins/hosts.
• How to receive call #s.
• How to find specific items online and how he used examples to show us how to 

do it.
• Looking at differn search sites and using all of them.
• Learnig more about the library’s website.
• Learning new stuff about the McIntyre Library website
• He really explained how to use the system in depth. That was really nice to get 

a little help.
• The presenter explained where and how to find info explained how to begin 

searching.
• Having time in class to research my topic. 
• We were actually given time to work right after being taught which made it easier 

to understand.
• Being able to search for topics but I could’ve done that on my my own :(

What I would like to see improved in future sessions:
• Most of the things mentioned I already knew about so maybe show some things 

we might not know about. 
• Overall it was pretty helpful!
• More data about youtube. There isn’t that much on the online database. But any-

thing related to the presentation, there wasn’t anything wrong with it.
• I would like to see more information that I did not already know.
• Ideas that are different than what most people already know. 



Collaborating with Writing Faculty to Rebuild a Library Instruction Session  397

• More in depth ideas, everything that was said we have already covered in class 
felt extremely rushed. 

• Overall not helpful.
• Maybe more time to work.
• Little more time when trying to find sources for my partner. I only was beginning 

to scratch the surface of possible info on their topic.
• Slower lessons.
• Able to use more time in each activity. 
• Clearer directions but more work time on own.
• Explain where to go when things aren’t available here.
• More explanation of how to search such as more tips and how to narrow more or 

how to find what I’m looking for ex! Book vs casset tapes. 
• How to get a text available when its not in our library.
• Tips about being more specific in searching. 
• More help on synonyms for search keywords. 
• Provide a more difficult example, something that does not necessarily return 

articles or books right away, requires more searching.
• Focus more with key terms and how/when to use them.
• What else is available to do / other ways to search for materials online.
• Show the website more indepth.
• Because there is so much info on N.A. mascots it really didn’t show what to do 

if your stuck. 
• All I really got out of it was try new words. If that doesn’t work what Now? search 

for own topics!
• I can’t think of anything to change. I thought the session went well.



398  College & Research Libraries July 2013

Notes

 1. Van Houlson, “Getting Results from One-Shot Instruction: A Workshop for First-Year 
Students,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 14, no. 1 (2007): 89–108.

 2. Ibid., 104.
 3. Stefan Smith, “Designing Collaborative Learning Experiences for Library Computer 

Classrooms,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 11, no. 2 (2004): 66.
 4. Ibid., 80.
 5. Jonathan Helmke and Brad S. Matthies, “Assessing Freshman Library Skills and Attitudes 

Before Program Development,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 11, no. 2 (2004): 29–49.
 6. Bonnie J.M. Swoger, “Closing the Assessment Loop Using Pre- and Post-Assessment,” 

Reference Services Review 39, no. 2 (2011): 244–59.
 7. Megan Oakleaf, “The Information Literacy Instruction Assessment Cycle: A Guide for 

Increasing Student Learning and Improving Librarian Instructional Skills,” Journal of Documenta-
tion 65, no. 4 (2009): 539–60.

 8. Catherine C. Lewis et al., “Lesson Study Comes of Age in North America,” Phi Delta Kap-
pan 85, no. 7 (Dec. 2006): 273.

 9. Sonal Chokshi and Clea Fernandez, “Challenges to Importing Japanese Lesson Study: 
Concerns, Misconceptions, and Nuances,” Phi Delta Kappan 88, no. 4 (Mar. 2004): 521.

 10. Catherine C. Lewis, “The Essential Elements of Lesson Study,” Northwest Teacher 4, no. 3 
(2003): 6.

 11. Catherine C. Lewis, “What Is the Nature of Knowledge Development in Lesson Study?” 
Educational Action Research 17, no. 1 (2009): 95. According to Lewis, Perry, and Muratka, the lesson 
study literature rests upon two examples of full lesson study cycles from Japan. These studies 
focused on elementary school teachers using lesson study in math and science education. See: 
Catherine C. Lewis, Rebecca Perry, and Aki Murata, “How Should Research Contribute to Instruc-
tional Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study,” Educational Researcher 35, no. 3 (2006): 3. The 
lesson study literature reflects this in that much of its focus is on K–12 education, K–12 teacher 
training, and mathematics. See: Elizabeth A. Burroughs and Jennifer L. Luebeck, “Pre-Service 
Teachers in Mathematics Lesson Study,” Montana Mathematics Enthusiast 7, no. 2/3 (2010): 391–400; 
Roberta Devlin-Scherer, Lourdes Z. Mitchel, and Mary Mueller, “Lesson Study in a Professional 
Development School,” Journal of Education for Teaching 33, no. 1 (2007): 119–20; Jennifer Dubin, 
“American Teachers Embrace the Japanese Art of Lesson Study,” Education Digest 75, no. 6 (2010): 
23–29; Noriyuki Inoue, “Zen and the Art of Neriage: Facilitating Consensus Building in Math-
ematics Inquiry Lessons through Lesson Study,” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 14, no. 
1 (2011): 5–23; Catherine Lewis, Rebecca Perry, and Jacqueline Hurd, “A Deeper Look at Lesson 
Study,” Educational Leadership 61, no. 5 (2004): 18–22; Naomi Robinson and Roza Leikin, “One 
Teacher, Two Lessons: The Lesson Study Process,” International Journal of Science & Mathematics 
Education 10, no. 1 (2012): 139–61; W.W. Wilms, “Altering the Structure and Culture of American 
Public Schools,” Phi Delta Kappan (Apr. 2003): 606–13.

 12. Lewis et al., “Lesson Study Comes of Age,” 273. Lewis has written or coauthored two 
books on lesson study: Catherine C. Lewis, Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-Led Instructional 
Change (Philadelphia, Pa.: Research for Better Schools, 2002); Catherine C. Lewis and Jacqueline 
Hurd, Lesson Study Step by Step: How Teacher Learning Communities Improve Instruction (Portsmouth, 
N.H.: Heinemann, 2011). Other books on lesson study include: Bill Cerbin, Lesson Study: Using 
Classroom Inquiry to Improve Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2011); 
Lesson Study Research and Practice in Mathematics Education: Learning Together, eds. Lynn C. Hart, 
Alice Alston, and Aki Murata (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2011); Jennifer Stepanek 
et al., Leading Lesson Study: A Practical Guide for Teachers and Facilitators (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 
Learning Point Associates / NWREL / Corwin Press, 2007); Karin M. Wiburg and Susan Brown, 
Lesson Study Communities: Increasing Achievement with Diverse Students (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 
Corwin Press, 2007).

 13. Joy Becker et al., “A College Lesson Study in Calculus, Preliminary Report,” International 
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 39, no. 4 (2008): 492.

 14. Chokshi and Fernandez, “Challenges to Importing Japanese Lesson Study,” 521.
 15. Shevon Desai, Marija Freeland, and Eric Frierson, “Lesson Study in Libraries,” College & 

Research Libraries News 68, no. 5 (2007): 290–93.
 16. Galadriel Chilton et al., “Teaching Library Information Literacy Skills to Students Enrolled 

in an Introductory Communication Course: A Collaborative Study” (unpublished manuscript, 
Feb. 28, 2007), available online at www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=52676532745991 [ac-
cessed 24 November 2010]. 

 17. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards 
for Higher Education (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000).