This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 18 November 2014, At: 14:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

College & Undergraduate LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty:An ExperimentGrace L. Veach aa Southeastern University , Lakeland, Florida, USAPublished online: 20 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Grace L. Veach (2009) Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty: An Experiment,College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16:1, 58-70, DOI: 10.1080/10691310902753983

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691310902753983

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16:58–70, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1069-1316 print / 1545-2530 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10691310902753983

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty:An Experiment

GRACE L. VEACHSoutheastern University, Lakeland, Florida, USA

Faculty at Southeastern University were required to take an in-formation literacy course designed by the librarians. The authorthen interviewed faculty regarding their attitudes toward the courseand information literacy. Librarians were especially interested inwhether taking this course would change the faculty’s approach toteaching information literacy in the classroom. Librarians evalu-ated the course and recommended future changes based on theresults of these interviews.

KEYWORDS Information literacy, faculty, faculty development

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE SURVEY

In the effort to teach undergraduate students information literacy skills, thequestion of the roles of the participants (faculty, librarians, even students) isoften a puzzling one. Librarians are excited about passing on these compe-tencies but often have difficulty finding the right setting to do so, especiallywhen the library does not have any courses that it “owns” in the curriculum.Students often need the skills in order to be successful, but without facultyproviding the motivation to get students to the library, the students will nottake the initiative to learn information literacy by initiating sessions with li-brarians or even by attending library-sponsored workshops. Faculty are oftenpossessive of the time in their courses or want the canned “library orienta-tion” when they need a substitute so they can go to a seminar. However,they are then frustrated when students’ sources are subpar and their researchskills are at a beginning or even remedial level. At Southeastern University(SEU), the librarians were given the opportunity to teach the faculty about

Received September 11, 2008; reviewed October 27, 2008; accepted October 30, 2008.Address correspondence to Grace L. Veach, MA, Dean of Library Services, Southeastern

University, Lakeland, FL 33801, USA. E-mail: gveach@seuniversity.edu

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty 59

information literacy. How this opportunity came about, faculty’s attitudes to-ward this interaction, and the results on our campus are the subjects of thisarticle.

Other studies (McGuinness 2006; Little and Tuten 2006) have alreadynoted that faculty attitude and education are key to establishing a successfulinformation literacy program on campus. Salve Regina University librariansidentified, as did we, faculty information literacy competence and assign-ment building as key factors in improving student information literacy skills(Brennan and Rowe 2004). White’s (2002/2003) article surveyed motivationalfactors for faculty to undertake professional development in these skills, andCunningham and Lanning also examined methods for increasing faculty par-ticipation in and education about information literacy (2002). Hall describeshow she changed her information literacy–teaching style to accommodatefaculty members who needed to know more about how their students wereapproaching research than about how to do research themselves (1999). Wefaced these same problems and challenges with one significant difference:our faculty were required to take our course on information literacy.

BACKGROUND

A couple of things happened that brought us to a point where we couldoffer information literacy instruction to faculty. First, the vice president ofacademic affairs (VPAA) implemented technology certification for faculty,with threatened nonrenewal of contracts if certification was not completedby the deadline. Initially, faculty were required to be certified in Microsoft Of-fice and Blackboard. Once the initial certification had been received, facultywould be required to keep the certification up-to-date by taking continu-ing classes in some aspect of academic technology. Second, SoutheasternUniversity was invited to take part in a Council of Independent Colleges-sponsored Transformation of the College Library workshop. These sessionsrequired the attendance of the library director and two other campus repre-sentatives, one of whom would be the VPAA. We attended this workshopaccompanied by the dean of business. This was the first time that our VPAAhad had prolonged exposure to thinking about libraries, library issues, andinformation literacy. After the workshop, he wanted to be able to point tosomething that resulted from it; it was his idea to include information lit-eracy as a faculty technology competency. When we returned to campus,the VPAA formed a Faculty Technology Certification Committee, chaired bythe dean of business, which was tasked with implementing the faculty tech-nology certification process. Part of its mandate was to include informationliteracy as one element of faculty technology competency.

The librarians were given the task of designing the course. The librarydirector worked closely with our head of reference to come up with a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

60 G. L. Veach

course that would not be too difficult or time-consuming but would still givea good introduction to information literacy. Since we assumed at the outsetthat faculty were too busy to come to one or more class sessions, we optedto use Blackboard as a platform for the class in order for faculty members todo it on their own time schedules.

COURSE DESIGN

The first task we asked the faculty to complete was to read through thedefinition of and standards for information literacy (Association of Collegeand Research Libraries 2000) as found on the ACRL Website. The secondelement of the course was to take the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial(TILT) (University of Texas 2004) and send the scores to the campus pro-fessional development officer, who kept track of course completions, etc.We did deliberate about using TILT. On the one hand, we worried thatfaculty might find it too basic and form a perception that they were beingpatronized. On the other hand, we knew that many of our faculty had a less-than-basic grasp of information literacy concepts and thought that this wouldgive them a good introduction. We presented TILT as an information literacytool that they could assign to their undergraduate students and hoped thatby presenting it in that light, we would deflect the perception that we wereunderestimating faculty’s knowledge.

The final element of the course was the preparation of an assignmentthat could be used in one of the faculty member’s classes. We asked forseveral components, including the use of a database in the assignment,the specification of an advanced type of search (Boolean, limited to peer-reviewed sources, etc.), the inclusion of at least five resources that the facultymember had located using the specified database which would fulfill therequirements of the assignment, and a rubric that measured the students’learning for at least three of the five information literacy standards. Theassignment was to be sent to either the library dean or the head of referenceand would be evaluated according to a rubric we set up, with a passingscore of 15/20 (see Appendix A).

The class commenced in December 2006. Of approximately eighty full-time faculty, nearly fifty took the course the first year; the remainder werenew faculty members who had additional time to complete certification. Afew faculty high achievers immediately took and passed the course. Witha deadline of December 2007, faculty members had a year to complete thecourse; as a result, assignments came in slowly. As we had heard that somefaculty members were daunted by the course, we collaborated on a face-to-face class with our campus professional development officer. This classwas offered as a voluntary means of getting an introduction to information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty 61

literacy topics and a start on the database work. The class was offered severaltimes during semester breaks and was fairly well attended.

All continuing faculty had completed the course by December 2007At that point, we wanted to investigate faculty reactions to the course andwhether the course had taught what we hoped it was teaching.

METHODOLOGY

Three librarians divided up the faculty who had completed the course andset up personal interviews with each one. The same set of questions wasused for each interview, and the interviews lasted about thirty minutes each.The questions were all open-ended, and no suggestions for answers weregiven; however, as the results were compiled, similar answers were groupedtogether. We interviewed thirty-five professors who had taken the class andseveral professors who had yet to take it. This article deals only with thosewho had completed the class. (See Appendix B for interview questions.)

RESULTS

The first few questions dealt with the professors’ prior knowledge of andattitude toward information literacy and this class. When asked about theirexpectations before beginning the class, the response was mixed. The mostcommon response (eleven) was dread—“Not another requirement.” Anotherfairly large number of professors had high expectations. These ten werehoping to learn more about library resources; some reasoned that the classwould not be required if it did not have value. A third group claimed noreaction at all. Some of the specific comments were negative: “Why can’t wefocus on technology that we would actually use?” and “I don’t want morebusywork,” while others were positive: “I hoped for something to go towardour institutional effectiveness goals,” “I wanted something to incorporate intothe classroom,” and “I hoped to get an idea of what the students were using.”In response to a question on how important they thought the training wouldbe, nine said it was not important, eight said it was a little bit important, andtwelve said it was very important. One interesting response to this questioncame from a professor who claimed that teaching research at a teaching-based institution was a waste of time, since most of the students would notbe attending graduate school, and that research involves a higher order ofthinking than most of our students are capable of.

When asked if they had heard of information literacy before they tookthe class, fifteen said no, eight said they heard of the term but were unsureof its meaning, six had heard of it and were pretty sure they knew what itinvolved, and six were familiar with it. Although he claimed to be acquainted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

62 G. L. Veach

with information literacy, one professor remarked that the class did help him“realize that familiarity [with information literacy] comes in pieces, not allat once.” This question was followed by one asking whether the professorwas already incorporating information literacy skills into classes. Thirteenclaimed that they were, eleven said they were not, and ten were requiringinformation literacy tasks to some extent. Here the difference in the natureof courses was evident. Teachers who had many large general educationcourses were less likely to be incorporating information literacy. Mathematicsand business were two of the disciplines in which the professors felt thatinformation literacy did not really apply to their subject area. One professorsaid that he did not expect much research in lower-level classes, since theyare survey courses, or in upper-level classes because he assumes that thesestudents already know how to do research in their fields.

Next we asked some questions on the class itself. When asked aboutthe TILT tutorial, twelve professors said that it was okay, eleven thought itwas useful, and six said it was a waste. Two saw it as difficult, and two didnot remember it at all. Some of the comments on TILT were “I passed themall without reading them,” “It was grade-schoolish for faculty,” and “Great! Iliked the way it was done—humorous—light and fun—took you back if youmissed one.” Several of the professors wished that it had helped them morewith the main project assignment of the course.

We then asked about their impressions of the information literacy stan-dards, which they had to read and incorporate into their assignment rubrics.Most of the comments here were that the standards made good sense and,if built into the curriculum, would produce better researchers. Some profes-sors found it difficult to build more than one standard into the assignment.Ideally, information literacy skills are taught and practiced over the course ofa semester or, even better, throughout the college career of a student. Facedwith the difficulty of presenting a meaningful class which would not swampthe professors in complexity, we had to limit our assignments to one project.Thus, we asked for more information literacy standards to be addressed inthe assignment than we would normally expect to see in a real-life situation.The faculty also had varying ideas about where the standards fit in the cur-riculum; one said that they were “geared toward the undergraduate student,”while another saw their usefulness in graduate-level courses.

The next question dealt with assessing learning. Since our institution hasrecently been emphasizing assessment, we did not anticipate that this wouldcause difficulty, but it did. We assumed that professors would submit sometype of rubric, since we had given them a model to use within the course andsince it is an easy and visual way to show that certain elements are expectedin the assignment. Some professors had never used one before. Several didnot include one (or other assessment) in the project they submitted. Ofthe professors we interviewed, more than one third had problems with therubric/assessment portion. Some took offense at our requiring this element:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty 63

“Was this a course in information literacy or rubric literacy?” asked oneprofessor. Although there was considerable sentiment against this element,we did continue to require it in the course, since we believe that withoutcomes-based assessment, a rubric or other granular assessment instrumentis an important tool. We were encouraged by those faculty represented byone professor, who said, “I had never used one before, and I now use themin every class. They are very valuable for the professor and the student. Ifthe student is smart, they can use the rubric to see exactly where they stand.”

We asked the professors if they sought help while they were workingon the course. About half of them did. Faculty were fairly evenly dividedbetween seeking help from other (nonlibrary) faculty who had already com-pleted the class or from a librarian, either one-on-one or by participating inthe face-to-face class we offered. We found it interesting that this behaviormirrored that of our students, who also seem to prefer to go to a classmaterather than seek help from an outside source whom they do not know aswell. Some of this may be related to convenience, since it is easier to ask theperson in the office next door than make a call across campus, while somelikely has to do with saving face.

The next part of the survey dealt with their opinions on the courseand its effect on their classroom teaching. When asked which part of theclass they found the most difficult, seven said the rubric, and another sevenmentioned building the standards into the assignment. It is interesting thatboth of these aspects of the class involve pedagogical/assessment skills andhave relatively little to do with information literacy. Six said that it was justhard to find the time to do the work; four felt that TILT was the mostdifficult portion of the class. We also asked which part of the class was leastbeneficial. Twelve faculty members mentioned TILT, while six felt that thewhole course was not beneficial.

We then asked about the positive: which part of the class was mostbeneficial and which part they liked the most. Fourteen faculty liked design-ing the assignment the best; many of these stated that it was good to have aproject to work on that they could actually use in a class. Other aspects ofthe class that received several votes here included the rubric, TILT, learningabout the sources, and “nothing.” When asked what was most beneficial tothem, eight said none of it was beneficial, six said that it was the increasedknowledge of the databases we provide, six said it was the rubric, fourmentioned the assignment, three liked the standards, and two appreciatedgetting a better grasp on the research process. We asked if they had actuallyused the assignment they designed in class; sixteen said they had used itor one that they adapted from it, while fifteen said they had not. Some ofthe comments from the professors who had used it included, “I gave moredirection to what the grading structure would be, and one student handedin the assignment with 50 references,” “Papers were better,” and “I can helpthem more now.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

64 G. L. Veach

The next couple of questions dealt with departmental outcomes. Weasked the professors whether information literacy was included in any ofthe departmental outcomes for majors (we knew that in at least a couple ofmajors it was). Seven said “yes,” nineteen said “no,” two said that it should beincluded but was not, and two said they did not know. Interestingly enough,in several cases, those who said “yes” and those who said “no” representedthe same departments.

We then asked about changed perceptions of information literacy, librar-ians, library resources, and research assignments. In addition to the sevenprofessors who mentioned that they learned how much the library really hasand the six who told us that this class just reinforced their preexisting lovefor the library, some of the feedback we received here was as follows:

• I know the databases now.• It is very important that this is implemented on campus; we have a very

low percentage of students who go on to graduate school.• Keep implementing these standards.• Students need to be led through this process.• This is a process, not just an outcome.• I’m doing something right.• This is teaching students how to think for themselves.• Research is SO important at the undergrad level.• I have higher expectations for the students.

Our last question was on ways we could improve the course. Six profes-sors asked us to include examples of good projects. We did so, posting threesuccessful assignments from different disciplines (education, business, andphysics) within the Blackboard class. Five thought we should eliminate TILT.After discussion, we did this as well. Our rationale was that the resentmentat being asked to do a “grade-schoolish” assignment was not worth the extrabit of information that our more remedial-level professors might learn fromit. Although we did ask them to do this assignment to familiarize themselveswith a tool that could be assigned to undergraduates, most professors missedthis emphasis and assumed that we thought they needed this very basic levelof information literacy instruction (in reality, only a few of them did). Fiveprofessors thought we should make it more time efficient. We decided todo this by incorporating the suggestion of one of our deans to incorporatethis class into our College Teaching course. This course is a one-semestergraduate-level course required of all of our second-year faculty. By invitinga librarian to teach and incorporating the assignment as homework for thecourse, the faculty can meet this training requirement without having to takeextra time to do it. Five professors also suggested that we do better publicrelations and be more clear about the purpose of the course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty 65

After the interviews, the library director met with the reference librariansand we discussed what we would have done differently if we were startingover again with the information we had gained from doing the course andinterviewing the professors. Our observations were as follows:

1. We would do more advance PR. Even though the course was requiredand the professors had to do it to keep their employment (supposedly),making sure that they knew what they might gain from the course andhow it could help them in the classroom might have helped with some ofthe negative attitudes toward the course.

2. We would have reconsidered using TILT as part of the course. Althoughwe tried to explain it in the accompanying text in Blackboard as “a tutorialyou can assign to your undergraduate students,” professors either did notnote that explanation or they noted it but still tended to resent being askedto go through it themselves.

3. We would have found a way to get a realistic estimate of the time it tookto complete the course and presented it with the other course information.

4. We would have either done sample projects ourselves or found a fewprofessors to work with us on designing such projects. Professors had dif-ficulty visualizing what we wanted from them without concrete examples.

5. We would have taken care to explain in the course introduction thatwe understood the difference between a professor writing a dissertationand students doing undergraduate research, and that we understood thatprofessors are generally experts in research in their fields. We would havementioned that Southeastern may provide access to different databasesthan those they had used for their dissertation research, or the databasesmay have changed. Rather than teaching them how to do research, thiscourse would teach them how to teach undergraduates at Southeastern todo research using the tools that our library provides.

Overall, we were very appreciative that faculty took the time to meetwith us and discuss the course. We did implement quite a few of theirsuggestions and hope that the course will be even more useful to facultywho take it in the future.

Trends Among Faculty

Before we did the interviews, we wondered whether faculty would respondto the class along generational lines. We expected that the younger facultymembers would have more recent experience in graduate school and thattheir research skills would be fresher. We did see some of this, but weidentified other trends that stood out more strongly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

66 G. L. Veach

The first trend we noted was geographical. Faculty members who hadcome to our institution from the Northeast, Midwest, or West Coast within theprevious three years or so had more background with information literacyand seemed to have more facility with creating the assignment and therubric. We are not sure if this relates to differences in accreditation agenciesor some other factor (increased emphasis on information literacy in K-12 inother regions, perhaps?).

We also noticed an interviewer effect. The three librarians who didthe interviews were the dean (at SEU for six years), the head of reference(at SEU for four years), and a reference librarian (at SEU for one year).The interviewees were not divided randomly; each librarian chose facultymembers with whom he or she had an existing relationship. The librarydirector had strongly positive responses to the interview questions; the headof reference had fairly positive results; and the reference librarian had al-most all of the very negative responses, along with a few that were morepositive or balanced. We theorized that perhaps since the reference librar-ian was new and had not had a chance to build long-lasting relationshipswith faculty members (and perhaps because he had been “stuck” with fac-ulty members who did not form relationships with any librarians), this wasresponsible for a more negative response. There is also a possibility thatthe faculty responded more positively toward people they considered to befriends and/or to the librarians whose position titles carried more politicalweight.

Reactions also tended to be discipline specific. There was a strongcorrelation between discipline and the faculty member’s attitude towardthe information literacy course. The natural sciences and math departmenthad the highest percentage of negative response. One hundred percent ofthe math professors had strongly negative (some angry) reactions to thetraining. The science professors, on the other hand, responded quite pos-itively. Business was another area where the reactions were mixed, withabout half of the business professors appreciating the training and the otherhalf resenting it. Education was also mixed, and it seemed that the reasonhere was the rubric. Several of the education professors surprised us byomitting the rubric or sending a rubric that did not measure learning inthe information literacy standards. Because assessment is one of their ar-eas of expertise, we were taken aback by this, and apparently they werealso taken aback by our asking them to clarify the assessments on theirprojects.

CONCLUSIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

We were fortunate in that many factors worked together to allow us toprovide this class to the faculty. Without mandatory technology certification

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teaching Information Literacy to Faculty 67

for the faculty, as instituted by the VPAA, and without his support and thesupport of the dean of the College of Business, we would not have beenable to reach the entire faculty. It seems obvious to us that a class such asthis, especially with a project required, will never be voluntarily undertakenby faculty. The professors who already had a very active relationship withthe librarians and who already worked information literacy into assignmentsprobably benefitted the least from this class, along with those whose mindswere set against it from the beginning. The rest of the faculty, a strongmajority, probably learned quite a lot from the class. Our new task is to keepit fresh in their minds and to encourage them to use it in their teaching. Wehave already come to the conclusion that library outreach to students willnot be effective without faculty first stressing the need for quality researchthrough assignments in the classroom.

We have implemented a couple of programs that we hope will con-tinue the momentum that we have been able to build with this course.The first is an annual Teaching Faculty Information Literacy Award. Thisaward was granted for the first time in spring 2008 and carries a stipendof $500. Faculty, librarians, or administrators may nominate teaching fac-ulty for the award, and a committee formed of librarians, administrators,and the previous winner of the award selects the next recipient. The awardis designed to affirm faculty members who build information literacy intotheir classroom work, especially in interesting or unusual ways, and who arestrong supporters of the library and of information literacy within the campuscommunity.

The second program we began is a collection grant for a faculty memberwho would like to build up a certain part of the library’s collection. Althoughnot directly related to teaching information literacy in the classroom, wehope that this incentive will also encourage the faculty to continue theirpartnership with the librarians. This year we awarded two such grants, oneto an education professor to support a new major in special education, andthe other to an English and foreign languages professor for sign languagematerials.

Our research was entirely self-reporting; we did not give our faculty anyformal assessment of their information literacy before or after they partici-pated in this class. As such, we now have anecdotal and attitudinal evidenceonly. Further research should be done on the best ways to present informa-tion like this to faculty as well as how we can continue to educate facultyin information literacy issues now that they have had this basic introduc-tion. We also need to research the assignments that professors are actuallygiving to their classes to see if they do include more information literacyoutcomes. Finally, further research should be done to determine whetherthe learning that took place through participating in this class has beenpassed on to the students and, if so, whether student research has shownimprovement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

68 G. L. Veach

REFERENCES

Association of College and Research Libraries. 2000. Information Literacy Com-petency Standards for Higher Education. American Library Association, As-sociation of College and Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm.

Brennan, T. H., and C. Rowe. 2004, June. Information literacy and technology acrossthe curriculum. Paper presented at Proceedings of the ASCUE Conference,Myrtle Beach, SC.

Cunningham, T. H., and S. Lanning. 2002. New frontier trail guides: Faculty-librariancollaboration on Information literacy. Reference Services Review 30:343–48.

Hall, L. 1999. A home-grown program for raising faculty information competence.Computers in Libraries 19:28–34.

Little, J. J., and J. H. Tuten. 2006. Strategic planning: First steps in sharing informationliteracy goals with faculty across disciplines. College & Undergraduate Libraries13:113–23.

McGuinness, C. 2006. What faculty think—Exploring the barriers to informationliteracy development in undergraduate education. Journal of Academic Librar-ianship 32:573–82.

University of Texas. 2004. TILT: Texas Information Literacy Tutorial. http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/

White, M. V. 2002/2003. Information literacy programs: Successful paradigms forstimulating and promoting faculty interest and involvement. The Reference Li-brarian 79/80:323–34.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ap

pen

dix

A:Rubric

for

Libra

rian

Ass

essm

entofFa

culty

Pro

ject

Poin

ts1

23

45

Usi

ng

adat

abas

ePro

fess

or

did

notpic

ka

dat

abas

ein

his

/her

dis

ciplin

e.

The

pro

fess

or

pic

ked

adat

abas

ein

his

/her

dis

ciplin

e,butdid

notuse

anad

vance

dfu

nct

ion.

Pro

fess

or

pic

ked

adat

abas

ein

his

/her

dis

ciplin

ean

duse

dan

adva

nce

dfu

nct

ion

(Boole

anoper

ators

,lim

iting

topee

r-re

view

ed,et

c.).

Cre

atin

gth

eas

sign

men

tIt

does

notm

eetan

yofth

efive

info

litst

andar

ds.

Itm

eets

only

one

stan

dar

d.

Itm

eets

only

two

stan

dar

ds.

Itm

eets

thre

eor

more

ofth

efive

Info

Lit

stan

dar

ds.

Ass

essi

ng

outc

om

esTher

ew

asno

way

toas

sess

studen

ts’i

nfo

litdev

elopm

ent.

Som

eoutc

om

esbut

notal

lw

ere

addre

ssed

.

The

pro

fess

or

has

crea

ted

aw

ayto

mea

sure

each

studen

t’sin

form

atio

nlit

erac

ydev

elopm

ent.

List

ing

Res

ourc

esThe

pro

fess

or

found

zero

reso

urc

es.

The

pro

fess

or

found

few

erth

anfive

tota

lso

urc

es.

Outofth

efive

reso

urc

es,only

one

or

two

reso

urc

esw

ould

be

acce

pta

ble

.

Outofth

efive

reso

urc

es,only

thre

ear

ticle

sw

ould

be

acce

pta

ble

(sch

ola

rly

artic

les)

.

The

pro

fess

or

found

five

reso

urc

esth

atw

ould

be

acce

pta

ble

for

studen

tsto

use

inco

mple

ting

the

clas

sas

sign

men

t.

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

4:45

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

70 G. L. Veach

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1) What were your expectations at the start of the project?2) Had you heard of information literacy before this training?3) How important did you think this technology training was at the start?4) Did you feel you were already incorporating information literacy skills

in your courses? If so, describe.5) What were your thoughts on the TILT tutorial?6) What were your reactions to and/or thoughts about the information

literacy standards?7) Many of the faculty seemed to have difficulty with the assessment portion

of the assignment. Was this true in your case? What is your previous ex-perience with rubrics? Did your previous experience with rubrics prepareyou to do this portion of the assignment?

8) How did you get help (if any) as you worked through the training?9) What part of the project did you like best?

10) What did you have the hardest time with?11) What part was most beneficial to your teaching/assignments/courses?12) Was there a part of the class that you felt was not as useful? If so, why?13) How has your perspective on information literacy changed due to this

project?14) Have you used the assignment in class? If yes, how well do you feel that

it allowed the students to achieve the information literacy standards thatyou aimed for? Did you already use a version of this same assignmentbefore you took the class? If so, was the assignment stronger as a resultof incorporating information literacy standards?

15) How has your perspective on library resources changed? On the librari-ans? On research assignments you create/give for your students?

16) Does your department have any of the information literacy standards(or something very similar) as a part of the outcomes or goals for yourdepartment? If yes, what classes are they currently incorporated into andhow are they measured?

17) How could we improve the class to make it more relevant/helpful forprofessors?D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Win

dsor

] at

14:

45 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014