Meeting to Discuss Information Literacy Standards & Objectives

May 11, 2001 – 9:35-11:40 a.m. – Davis Conference Room

Susan outlined the purposes of this meeting:

• To begin to develop a shared understanding of the ACRL Standards and Objectives for Information Literacy
• To gather ideas about what we might do with the Standards and Objectives and the process we might follow at UW

1. Ideas of ways to proceed at UW
   • Start with baby steps in areas where the chances of success are high, take advantage of opportunities to raise awareness of information literacy, build on small successes (e.g. sit down with a faculty member and talk through one of their assignments, how an information literacy component could be incorporated, and how we might help)

   • Approach information literacy on campus from all available directions and get in where we can and as we can; develop appropriate partnerships on campus (e.g. TRACE & teaching skills program, LT3 & FLIRT)

   • Take advantage of conversations with faculty and TAs to introduce information literacy concepts; follow up on last year’s collection policy discussions with another round of one-on-one conversations on information literacy

   • Consider a collaborative direction for the “baby steps” but recognize the diversity of the UW campus and watch for opportunities appropriate to each faculty

   • Recognize the importance of educating ourselves first

   • Focus efforts on new faculty who might be more receptive

   • Must be a collaborative effort with faculty to convince students of value; need to raise awareness of faculty of the importance of information literacy skills (noted difficulty re giving up already short class time for information literacy instruction; how to address information literacy outside class time)

   • Students could play an important role (value of “students telling students”)

   • Some faculty groups (e.g. ChemEng) meet with student reps at beginning and end of term – could Library tap into these assessment opportunities?

   • Professional accreditation bodies are moving toward knowledge assessment and, in the U.S., accreditation bodies are beginning to include an information literacy component – could the Library use this in Accountancy, Optometry, Engineering?

   • Try to link to mandatory or research methods courses

   • Find forums for spreading the word about faculty members’ positive information literacy experiences (e.g. link Dr. Skidmore with other faculty; put together a package of local successes and/or ways we might help); draw on body of literature for examples (Anne has discipline-based bibliography to 1999 developed with Gloria Leckie)

   • Change “Library Instruction” to “Information Literacy” now (“Library Instruction” implies “how to”)

   • Take some of the current instruction sessions and change them to incorporate Standards and evaluation

2. Comments related to current library instruction and the Standards
   • Many current library instruction sessions already address some of the Standards

   • Not all Standards will be addressed in a single session

   • Changes to current sessions to reflect the Standards would include working with the faculty member to define goals for the session, developing content based on outcomes expected, and determining a way to evaluate the impact – greater focus on specific objectives/not just teaching “how” to do something – might need only small changes in wording or teaching approach

   • Liaison Librarians are already addressing many of the Objectives but rarely have a means of evaluating the outcomes

3. Ideas for measuring outcomes of instruction sessions
   • Reviewing students’ bibliographies

   • Developing a set of questions to ask the faculty member after assignments have been marked or the course is completed (e.g. did your students use more current information sources?)

   • Surveying students (e.g. via email) before and after session re what they already know, what they want from the session, what could be changed for future session

   • Developing a pre-test to evaluate what students already know, follow up with a post-session test

4. Training needed for staff involved in information literacy instruction
   • Methods for increasing teaching effectiveness, actively engaging students in sessions

   • Sharing ideas with other Liaison Librarians for defining specific goals for sessions (e.g. how to narrow a search when you get too many hits, how to take a question and define appropriate search terms, how to chose between similar sources of information)

5. Other observations
   • There is a change in higher education in general toward an emphasis on learning outcomes; Harris government focus on lifelong learning and measuring outcomes

   • Using the FLEXlab for hands-on training helps the instructor evaluate students’ understanding

   • There is a large challenge in conveying that we’re teaching a life skill, not just a solution for an immediate course assignment (e.g. Dr. Skidmore finds his students don’t carry skills over to the next assignment); need frequent repetition at a basic level

   • There is a culture shift to be accepted by Librarians – faculty might handle information literacy without us

   • There is a need to teach information literacy skills to faculty too (e.g. many are not yet aware of electronic databases and journals)

   • Giving faculty the same session as students might help them understand how difficult some of their assignments are for novice students

   • Might be opportunities to work with high school colleagues

6. Further action discussed
   • Information literacy workshop: Susan Routliffe will pursue her previous contact with Jo Ann Carr from the University of Madison-Wisconsin to arrange a workshop at UW. Dates preferred by those present were the first week of September or October/November. Alternatives such as including people from Guelph and Laurier or UW faculty were also raised for consideration. Agreed that the workshop should focus on understanding the Standards and Objectives, developing ideas for applying them and evaluating outcomes

   • Forums for continuing discussion: A WebBoard was felt to be premature at this point but might be useful in the future if individuals make the commitment to keep the discussion going. The idea of a task force was raised but considered premature until after the workshop. To keep the momentum going, it was suggested that those present create opportunities for further discussion and information sharing and that ISMC might take the leadership in calling further meetings.

   • Information literacy readings: A selection of articles provided by Susan Routliffe will be routed in Porter by Maureen McCormack and in Davis by Yulerette Gordon.