Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Hold the door: Crossing the threshold from ACRL Information
Literacy Standards to the new Framework
OCULA Spring Conference 2015
Nancy Birch & Christopher Popovich
University of Guelph and Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning (ITAL) combined in 2002 to create University of Guelph-Humber
Current enrollment is 4150 students across 7 undergraduate programs
Library and Learning Commons staff • 6 full-time • 2 part-time
Structure at U of GH
Culture at U of GH
Learning Outcomes
U of G = UUDLEs
Key Performance Indicators
Humber = KPIs
Small team
Adapted Liaison Plus Model = Many functions
Liaison, IL, Collection Development, Reference (common to all librarians)
Additional functions in selected roles: Learning Objects, Reporting, Marketing/Communication, Website, Assessment
Standards vs. Framework
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency
http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Framework-MW15-Board-Docs.pdf
IL Standards
1. Determine the extent of information needed
2. Access the needed information effectively
and efficiently
3.Evaluate information and its sources critically
and incorporate selected information into
one’s knowledge base
4. Use information effectively to accomplish a
specific purpose
5. Understand the economic, legal, and social
issues surrounding the use of information,
and access and use information ethically and
legally
IL Framework Threshold Concepts
1. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
2. Information Creation as a Process
3. Information Has Value
4. Research as Inquiry
5. Scholarship Is a Conversation
6. Searching Is Strategic
Differences between approaches
Differences
IL Standards Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring
individuals…
IL Framework Information literacy is the set of integrated
abilities encompassing…
Why does it matter?
Communicating with Stakeholders Ways of communicating with stakeholders
Informal Formal
surveysone-on-one
curriculum committee
emailsocial media
hallway conversations
Embedded librarian in Program
Next Steps: Curriculum
1. Analyze existing curriculum with respect to
threshold concepts
2. Highlight gaps based on needs/gap analysis
3. Adapt curriculum to address gaps
Next Steps: Assessment
1. Analyze IL session evaluations with respect to
threshold concepts
2. Ensure impact can be measured in alignment
with institutional requirements and culture
(i.e.: learning outcomes)
3. Adapt evaluation to address gaps
Selected ReferencesAdams, N. E. (2012). A comparison of evidence-based practice and the ACRL information literacy standards: Implications for information literacy practice. College & Research Libraries, crl12-417. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2012/12/19/crl12-417.full.pdf
American Library Association (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Birch, N., & Popovich, C. (2014). Three-part harmony: Assessing information literacy learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Ontario Library Association SuperConference 2014.
Bury, S. (2011). Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: a study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of information literacy, 5(1).
Diller, K. R., & Phelps, S. F. (2008). Learning Outcomes, Portfolios, and Rubrics, Oh My! Authentic Assessment of an Information Literacy Program. Portal: Libraries & The Academy, 8(1), 75-89.
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192-199.
Kaye Hensley, M., Carbery, A., DiNardo, C., Gibson, C., Miller, S. (2015). The Framework for Information Literacy and its Impact on Student Learning . ACRL Conference 2015, Portland, OR.
Koufogiannakis, D., Wiebe, N. (2006). Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1( 3), 3-43.
Lacy, M., & Chen, H. L. (2013). Rethinking library instruction: using learning-outcome based design to teach online search strategies. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 126-148.
Mery, Y., Newby, J., & Peng, K. (2011). Assessing the reliability and validity of locally developed information literacy test items. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 98-122.
O'Connor, Lisa G. (2008) The Diffusion of Information Literacy in Academic Business Literature, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(2), 105-125.
Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents’, (2005). Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Level Expectations. Retrieved on January 24, 2014 from http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/university-undergraduate-degree-level-expectations
Schilling, K., & Applegate, R. (2012). Best methods for evaluating educational impact: A comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 100(4), 258–269.
Nancy Birch Christopher Popovich
Head, Library Services Special Projects Librarian
[email protected] [email protected]
Thank you for attending our presentation!
