Teaching Undergraduates to Think Archivally

Abstract

This case study describes efforts in the L. Tom Perry Special Collections to build and teach an undergraduate course to develop archival literacy skills in undergraduate students. The article reviews current models of archival instruction and describes how these were applied in creating the course content. An evaluation of the course's outcomes and effectiveness is also included.

KEYWORDS:

• archival literacy
• archival intelligence
• archival instruction
• course design
• course integration

Notes

*The syllabi in the appendixes are presented in their original, unedited formats.

1. L. Tom Perry Special Collections Reference Statistics, 2010–2011. Copy in the possession of the authors.

2. This type of instruction is relatively common and similar to that found in many other repositories in the United States. For descriptions, see Magia Krause, “Undergraduate Research and Academic Archives: Instruction, Learning and Assessment” (PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010), 30–32, and Anna Elise Allison, “Connecting Undergraduates with Primary Sources: A Study of Undergraduate Instruction in Archives, Manuscripts, and Special Collections” (M.S.L.S. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2005), 32–34.

3. Robert W. Tissing, Jr., “The Orientation Interview in Archival Research,” American Archivist 47, no. 2 (1984): 173–178. Other recent models for instruction include Barbara Rockenbach, “Archives, Undergraduates, and Inquiry-Based Learning: Case Studies from Yale University Library,” American Archivist 74, no. 1 (2011): 297–311; Magia G. Krause, “Undergraduates in the Archives: Using an Assessment Rubric to Measure Learning,” American Archivist 73, no. 2 (2010): 507–534; and Elizabeth Yakel, “Information Literacy for Primary Sources: Creating a New Paradigm for Archival Researcher Education,” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2004): 61–64.

4. Elizabeth Yakel and Deborah A. Torres, “AI: Archival Intelligence and User Expertise,” American Archivist 66 (2003): 51–78.

5. Yakel and Torres's concept of archival intelligence includes improved researcher understanding of language use (archival jargon), internalization of rules, archivist-researcher reference interaction, developing search tactics, intellective skills, and understanding representational relationships (Yakel and Torres, 63–77). For a discussion of the additional goal of developing an appreciation of the role of archives, see Terry Cook, “The Archive(s) Is a Foreign Country: Historians, Archivists, and the Changing Archival Landscape,” American Archivist 74, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2011): 617.

6. Yakel and Torres, 78.

7. Ibid., 54.

8. Honors 261 Archives and Archival Research Course Syllabus 2010 (see Appendix A), copy in the possession of the authors.

9. Honors 261 Archives and Archival Research Course Syllabus 2011 (see Appendix B), copy in possession of the authors.

10. Although there were twelve students in the 2010 class, not all the students agreed to contribute the results to the study. Survey response data is based on the eight students that completed all surveys and provided release forms. Survey response data in possession of the authors.

11. Archives and Archival Research course blog, copy in the possession of the authors.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. See Jill Katte, “Reaching Out to Researchers: A Model for Web-Based User Education Resources for Archives and Manuscript Collections” (M.S.L.S. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002), and Valerie Gillispie, “An Analysis of Online User Education Resources in Academic Archives” (M.S.L.S. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2005).

15. Doris Malkmus, “Teaching Undergraduates with Primary Sources”; Doris Malkmus, “‘Old Stuff’ for New Teaching Methods: Outreach to History Faculty Teaching with Primary Sources,” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 10, no. 4 (October 2010): 413–435; Barbara Rockenbach, “Archives, Undergraduates, and Inquiry-Based Learning.”