UNESCO “Training the trainers in information literacy workshop”

The International Information & Library Review (2009) 41, 246e251

ava i lab le a t www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journa l homepage : www.e lsev ier . com/ loca te / i i l r

UNESCO ‘‘Training the trainers in informationliteracy workshop’’

Sirje Virkus

Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Goals and Objectives of the Workshop

The aim of the Workshop was to provide facilitators ofinformation literacy (IL) with up-to-date knowledge andskills, and bring them together to discuss and shareknowledge on current issues, theories, teaching andlearning approaches and methods, as well as best practicesand lessons learned in facilitating the development ofinformation-related competencies. The event run overthree days from 21 to 23 of August and covered a widerange of topics on the importance of IL within a climate ofconstant economic and technical changes. Main topics ofthe Workshop were:

� The concept and importance of information literacyand lifelong learning.� An overview of the current information literacy world.� Information literacy models, programs and standards.� Best practices and lessons learnt in facilitating infor-

mation literacy.� The characteristics of learners, their needs and

learning styles.� Tools, methods, techniques and approaches for the

development of information literacy.� Embedding information literacy into curricula.� Methods of assessing information literacy.� Models and strategies for collaboration.

As the IL field is very broad, a diagnostic analysis surveyamong participants was conducted 2 weeks before theWorkshop to clarify the needs and expectations of theparticipants for the Workshop with regard to the contentand delivery options within the Learning Management

E-mail address: [email protected]

1057-2317/$ - see front matter ª 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2009.11.002

System IVA of Tallinn University. The main objectives of thediagnostic analysis survey were:

� to gain information on the participants’ existingknowledge about IL, prior to the commencement of theWorkshop so that the Workshop can be delivered at theright level.� to identify which topics and components of the Work-

shop, as set out in the original specification, are mostenthusiastically regarded by the participants, andwhich are likely to be the most useful for them in theirwork.

This enabled us to tailor the course in the best way tosuit participants’ requirements within the framework thathas been set. The participants feedback survey at the endof the Workshop showed that the Workshop was wellreceived and regarded very relevant.

Thus, the main themes that run through the talks andactivities of the workshop included digital diversity, theneed to customise IL to suit the learners’ needs and theimportance of collaboration amongst the professionalsinvolved in its provision. These themes were proposed inthe keynote speech by Susie Andretta The digital nativesof today will be the technical dinosaurs of tomorrow andcontinued by the other speakers who presented examplesof innovative solutions to address the challenges faced bylibrarians as IL educators.

Organization and Presentation of theWorkshop

The workshop was divided into 11 Sessions, and thedescription of each is summarized under the heading ofthe expert-presenter(s) for each session (highlighted inbold).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/ locate/iilr

Training trainers in information literacy 247

Albert Boekhorst, University of Amsterdam, theNetherlands, and University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Session 1: The concept, and importance of informationliteracy and lifelong learning.

Session 9: Methods of assessing information literacy.The first session set the information literacy (IL)

scenario stressing the importance of adapting toa constantly changing information environment whereusers are facing an exponential growth of information inall its forms and media, continuous technologicaldevelopments in the way information is retrieved andprocessed, as well as rapidly shifting patterns ofcommunication behaviour. Session 9 outlined formativeand summative assessment strategies and how these canbe translated into specific assessment instruments. Inparticular the ACRL’s IL were promoted as a startingpoint for assessment to ascertain the impact of thisphenomenon on the learners, while the ‘IQ’ (InstitutionalQuotient) test was presented as a way of determining thelevel of IL’s integration achieved at institutional level.

Sirje Virkus, Tallinn University, EstoniaSession 2: Overview of the current information literacy

world.This presentation reviewed some of the developments in

information literacy research based on the frameworkoffered by Christine Bruce in the light of the newest ILdevelopments: 1) the sectoral location of the research; 2)ways of seeing information literacy; 3) ‘what’ is beinginvestigated, that is the research object; 4) ‘how’ theobject is being investigated, that is the researchapproaches and paradigms; and 5) disciplinary influences.

Niels Jørgen Blaabjerg, Aalborg University Library.Session 3: Sharing best practices and lessons learnt in

facilitating information literacySession 6: The characteristics of learners, their needs

and learning styles.Session 8: Models and strategies for collaboration.These three sessions aimed at disseminating a blended

learning strategy which articulated the students’ situationin the learning process. This approach is developed by theSWIM Team at Aalborg University Library, Denmark and isbased on a phase-oriented model inspired by Carol C.Kuhlthau’s and Jannica Heinstrom’s work. The sessionsengaged the participants in discussions on how they couldimplement the two e-learning products SWIM and FLOW ina blended learning environment. The sessions also aimed todiscuss the librarians need to learn about the learners. Thelearners’ needs and their learning styles in different situ-ations need to be considered by librarians when planningpedagogical interventions while operating in their diverseroles of locators of information and/or counsellors. Thedevelopment and implementation of student-centred,phase-oriented, dialogue-based blended learning strategiesrequire openness in the library’s process. In addition,librarians need to collaborate with faculty staff and to thisend collaborative strategies were also discussed duringthese three sessions. The aim of these efforts is to supportthe students in their own development of IL and to developthe academic library’s provision in support of the learnerswhether in the physical or the virtual environments.

Susie Andretta, London Metropolitan University, UnitedKingdom.

Session 4: Exploring the Six Frames of InformationLiteracy.

Session 5: Outlining the challenges of integratinginformation literacy and independent learning in thecurricula and in Continuing Professional Developmenttraining.

The participants were asked to select two statementsthat best described their practice of information literacy.These selections were ranked in first and second order ofpreference. The activity demonstrated a wide interpreta-tion of information literacy as competences or skills and asa way of learning.

Session 5 included group discussion where the partici-pants raised the need to implement a top-down strategyensuring that the integration of information literacy issupported by senior management to complement itspromotion at ground level.

Maria Carme Torras, Bergen University Library, NorwaySession 7: Describing tools, methods, techniques and

approaches for the development of information literacy.The session aimed at reflecting on and defining the

information professional’s extended educational role asa supervisor at the academic library. The central questionwhich was addressed is how the information professionalcan best support the student’s research process. Theparticipants were asked to discuss a number of learningscenarios portraying different styles of librarian interven-tion in the student’s learning process. Subsequentlya model of supervision was presented which includes theacademic librarian as an active partner in the supervisionconstellation. The model is grounded in the literature onresearch supervision, research on academic writing andKuhlthau’s information searching process model.

Aira Lepik, Tallinn University, EstoniaSession 10: Marketing information literacy programmes.This presentation gave an overview of marketing to

identify and understand the marketing activities of IL pro-grammes and consider how these activities can beemployed to promote IL. When prospective customers can’texperience the product/service in advance, they are askedto buy/use what are essentially promises e promises ofsatisfaction. ‘‘Buy this product, and you will get thisspecific benefit.’’ This approach is translated into ‘‘Do thiscourse in IL and your studies/ work/ life will be enhanced’’.

Presentations included in Session 11:Katri Magi from the Tallinn University of Technology

(TUT) Library introduced IL activities at the TUT Library andInformation Literacy Course in Generic Information Skillsfor 1st year students. Kullike Martmaa also from TUTLibrary gave an overview of specialized informationretrieval course for postgraduate students specializing ininformation technology. Hela Ojasaar from the NationalLibrary of Estonia described how they are developing ILskills of their users through a number of courses thataddress the needs of novice to expert.

Thus, the Workshop included lectures, discussions,sharing of experiences, group work, and was facilitated byexpert presenters. A Certificate of Completion wasawarded to workshop graduates who successfullycompleted the workshop. Librarians, academics, schoolmanagers and other administrators participated in theworkshop.

248 S. Virkus

Profile and Geographical Spread of theParticipants

There were more than 50 applicants mainly from Estoniaand the other Baltic countries, but also participants fromRussia, Ukraine, Georgia, Norway, Slovenia, CzechRepublic, Africa and Asia. The participants from Africa andAsia were suggested to apply for the UNESCO workshops oftheir closest region. Thus, 45 participants took part in theworkshop of which 23 participants were from Estonia. SeeFig. 1 for a complete list of participants, including theircountry and affiliation and position title.

List of Sponsors

Organization Contribution

UNESCO 6000 $Tallinn University

- Institute of Information Studies- Internationalization Foundation

89 000 EEK

Tallinn Technical University 20 000 EEKNational Library of Estonia 12 000 EEK

Outcomes and Recommendations

The Workshop concluded with feedback. This was organisedin terms of feedback covering what the participants learnedduring the workshop. Comments were extremely positiveand range from formulating a clear definition of IL to theimportance of developing engaging IL activities. The nextquestion on what aspects of the workshop the participantsliked revealed that all the sessions were well received andthat the participants found the workshop atmosphereparticularly friendly as well as inspiring and informative fortheir future IL practice.

Aspects that needed to be improved raises the issue thatyou can’t please everybody as some found the activitiescovered by this event too theoretical and some too prac-tical. Not surprisingly some also commented that therewasn’t enough time to digest all of the issues raised duringthis event. The final question asked what follow-up topicsthat the participants would like to be covered in similarevents and the points raised here suggest a growing interestfor further exploration of the pedagogical impact of IL aswell as the need to focus on greater collaboration betweenall of the IL stakeholders. The analysis of the feedback isadded to this report.

Participant Feedback

The author was asked by the editor to include one item ofinformation in this article which the author believed wastruly distinctive, and would be of especial interest to theReview’s readership. I have selected the feedback receivedfrom the participants because I truly believe the informa-tion should be of great value to information literacy

Information Today (article byWoody Horton and Barbie Keiser)

1000 $

institutions and professionals planning similar kinds ofworkshops. Responses are listed under each question asked,and are in no particular order, and are largely unedited andunreviewed so as to reveal a truly authentic summary ofworkshop reactions.

Participant Feedback Summary

� What did you learn during this workshop?- Theoryþ practice- Experiences of other libraries- Interesting lecturers- Good overview about IL- I updated myself in IL concepts, etc.- Some pedagogical skills (during a group work)- Found some good contacts internationally and spend

quality time with colleagues- Theoretical knowledge about different aspects of IL

and pedagogical process- How to use different teaching methods- Better analyze myself as a teacher, identify skills

which have to be developed- That in our library we are doing the right way e we

are directed in the right way- That I have to improve our courses and learn more

about teaching IL- That I have to improve my English- That we have to work together e academic staff and

subject librarians- Training is like a starter. Now I will have to study

provided information individually and find applicablethings for my home institution

- I learned much about IL- I look myself and my learners with a different look

now- I learned how to be a better teacher and how to teach

information skills- Complete/integral approach of IL- I got many good ideas and skills how to make my own

IL course more attractive and professional- How to prepare an attractive workshop- Good practice in IL exists across HE/public sectors

across Europe- How to present the topic be interesting to listen- Some effective ways to implement IL in my country- Actually I’ve defined some ways which we should

arrange our library processes- Workshop gave me range of ideas- IL concept may be seen more widely and will be even

used in learning process in general (SWIM project)- Collaboration- 6 frames of IL- Always is something to learn- Always is useful to listen to profession- What the ‘‘IL’’ means- How to arrange training of trainers in my country- How to use research results to improve practice- Sharing and collaboration is the key- I got some tips where to find information about this

topic- Methods for the development of IL


- Assessing IL- Marketing programs for IL- I had some good tips how to improve my trainings

I learned how to:- Be more involved in IL activities- Provide IL lectures- Assess IL of students- Modules and standards of information literacy- New ideas- The best practices of colleges- You have to share your best practices- Methods and techniques- SWIM- Six frames of IL- Define IL- Current IL world- Best practices of IL- Some good points how to teach- How to create assessment- I got new ideas for my practice- What’s new in our area (SWIM, new theories, etc.)- Practical experience/strengthening with theory- Assessment- Strategyþ collaboration- SWIM- Knowledge to my literacy course in the University- Six Frames of Information Literacy- About assessment- How to collaborate- Marketing tips- What’s new in the field?- SWIM- 6 frames of IL, the survey (please send results)- Information literacy can be successfully implement in

a school domain- Information about the courses in Est. Nat. Library- I am assured myself that information literacy is still

vital- IL- How to develop attractive IL modules- How to be an inspiring lecturer� What did you like the most about this workshop?

- Theory & practice balance- Qualified trainers- Convenient atmosphere- Practical sessions- Organizing of event- Variety of topics- Lots of covered subjects- Good practice examples- Good organization!- Good food!- Speakers!- Presenters!- Good lecturers- Useful contacts with right people/specialists from

abroad- A lot of useful information which will help me in my

daily job- Communication with experts- Some good ideas are implemental in my instruction

- Very good organization and very many materials forfuture work

- Friendly/informal ‘‘SAFE’’ learning environment- Good community of practice- All was good!- SWIM e something new and practical- Good lecturers!- Sharing the experiences- Got some very good and useful links and materials- I liked all of this workshop; it was for me the right

theme at the right time- Everything was OK arranged- I liked the most that in this workshop took part the

people with practical and theoretical background- SWIM- FLOW- Meeting colleagues- Sharing best practices- New motivation for my work- Logical and interesting program- Different practices of libraries- Good presenters- Comfortable learning environment- Good organization- Friendly and informal atmosphere- IVA support and links to relevant materials- Friendly atmosphere- Interesting group works- Meeting people- Interesting program- Well-known educators- LMS/IVA support- Financial support- Very good lecturers- Good organization and planning- I like presentations of SWIM and FLOW. It’s great- Useful and interesting subject- Professional lecturers- Nice people, nice to meet colleges- Session 7- Implementation issues- SWIM models and strategies for collaboration- Methods of assessing IL- Professional lecturers from various countries- Combination of theoretical and practical staff- Susie Andretta’s sessions were good- All sessions were relevant to me- The other trainers- Susie Andretta’s papers (presentation), also her

interesting ideas- Group work- SWIM- Practical information: how to use materials in

practice- I liked good lecturers and interesting performances- Group works were interesting- I liked to know new stuff- Feedback organizing- Albert’s’ session 9- Susie’s’ session 5- And the examples of the attendees

250 S. Virkus

- I liked the lecture e presentation of Aira Lepik aboutthe marketing, very practical approach to the matter

- Work in group- Qualification and knowledge of lecturers, teachers- Topics (!)- Lecturers- Active workþ discussions- Maria Torras workshop- Dynamics- Informative- The presentations of really different presenters- Interesting and useful subjects- Professional lectures- It was pleasant to meet colleagues from different places- Susie Andretta’s presentation- Practical approach to IL implementation- IL integration in practice example- I liked all the practical assignments� What did you not like about the workshop?

- I was very sad but my very bad English. I can’tunderstand all and I can’t participate in

workshop group works as I wanted to.- Not Applicable- A little too theoretical.- OK- Everything was very good- Too little time for social time- Niels program was interesting but not so well

performed- No practical outcome that I could right-away use at

my everyday practice- I didn’t like that SWIM introduction was divided

between two days- There are no things I didn’t like for me- Aira’s pp. A feint ‘marketing’- The VIP was too dominant in the debates- Concentration on activities of academic libraries and

teaching IL to students- Too long seminar day- ?- Perhaps there were too much hands-on tasks- Theoretical sessions- Maybe too practical- Too theoretical in some points- Some presentations were too detailed and concen-

trated on very special theme- Some too theoretical- Integrating IL- Characteristics of learning in the curriculum- Lifelong learning- Theoretical part might be a little bit less- It was too theoretical- Too intensive. Hard to absorb such amount of

information- Too library centered- I do not believe that a librarian could be a MA thesis

co-supervisor e this doesn’t work- Sometimes it was difficult to understand the lasts

sessions (I was tired)- I have got a lot of information which is hard to

remember all

- I would prefer all handouts with slides during thesession (later it would be easier to check what wassaid)

- Maybe too many hands-on tasks and little feedbackfrom the lecturers’ point of view

- Could be few more participants from different countries- Maybe could be different courses (online)- Some presentations were too long- Sometimes it seemed that the lecturer didn’t believe

what they were saying about.- Nothing that comes to my mind- Everything was OK� What should be the most significant topics covered

by the next, similar workshop?- IL philosophical aspects- Models and strategies for collaboration- Pedagogical workshop e how to teach IL- How to prepare curriculum for IL- Cooperation with academic staff: experiences and

possibilities- How to become a good teacher- Best practices in e-learning courses- Web 2.0 tools & information literacy- Some methodological tips how to use Web 2.0 in IL

courses- Pedagogical methodology- Web-based IL courses- Practical skills for trainers (how to build up

a course.)- I think to be essential topics are analysis of media

texts and critical thinking in a process of perceptionof information

- Methods of assessing IL- Task- Practice- More practical example- Focus on emancipation of librarians as ’educators’- Pedagogical aspects- The ways of teaching- Group work- More hands-on actions- How research results could be used in practice- Pedagogical aspects of IL- IL best practice/case analysis- Information literacy practices- Use of teaching methods- Designing a web-based course- Teaching IL to various groups (not only students)- Success stories of IL in. institutions- Integrating IL in curricula on library services, etc.- Collaboration issues- Policy point of view (policy-making)- Best practices- Promotion and marketing IL- To organize workshop for librarians, teachers and

researchers for a dialogue- Concrete steps for IL development and concentration

for collaboration- The practical side of information literacy- Pedagogical skills for librarians- Start with these examples of the attendees next time


- More examples and techniques of IL connected withdifferent target groups

- Collaboration- Theoretical aspects on IL- Practical workshop on how to create IL modules and

what techniques to use- How to teach even better- At the next workshop could be introduced news in IL

field- More experiences from different countries

List of Participa

Name of the participant Position title

Susie Andretta Senior Lecturer

Signe Bachmann Subject Librarian

Zurabi Baghashvili Chair

Niels Jørgen Blaabjerg Head of the Library's SWIM Group

Albert Boekhorst Associate Professor

Veronika Burmakina Head of the Department

Irina Chelysheva Associate Professor, Head of the Department

Niels Damgaard Senior Manager School Libraries and Web 2.

Michaela Dombrovská Teaching Assistant

Nataša Godec Library Specialist

Rene Haljasmäe Head of the Department

Kristiina Jaansen head of group, political & economic informat

Triin Kaasik Subject Specialist

Kai Kalvik E-resources Specialist

Ülle Kalvik Head of the Library

Jolanta Kaun Acting Head Librarian, Reference Librarian

Dzeinara Kaunaite Head of Information Services Department

Gerda Koidla Vice Director

Anneli Kuiv Leading specialist, Research & Development

Peeter Kukk Associate Professor

Gražina Lamanauskiene Head of Division

Rao N. Laxman Professor

Aira Lepik Associate Professor

Krõõt Liivak Head of the Humanities Reading Room

Heli Luik Subject Librarian

Sigrid Mandre Head of the Department, Subject Librarian

Kristi Mets Subject Librarian

Kärt Miil Subject Librarian

Katri Mägi Subject Specialist

Küllike Märtmaa Subject Specialist

Jelena Nevskaja Librarian

Julija Niauraite Information Manager

Helen Nigol Subject Librarian

Taimi Nurmiste Head of the Information Department

Hela Ojasaar Deputy Head, Research & Development Cent

Lubov Panchenko Associate Professor

Maie Pihlakas Subject Specialist

Monika Ränd Training Specialist

Lina Sarlauskiene Chief Librarian

Vilve Seiler Subject Librarian

Jevgenija Sevcova Databases administrator

Irina Šapovalova School LibrarianMarje Tamm Head of Library

Ruth Tammeorg Head of The Centre, Subject Librarian in Economics

Gintare Tautkeviciene Head of the Information Services Departmen

Aiki Tibar Research Scientist

Maria-Carme Torras Senior Academic Librarian

Kristel Veimann Leading specialist of the Loan Department

Sirje Virkus Lecturer

Juri Zuravljov Chief of Board NGO

Figure 1 List of participants

- IL strategy- IL lector characteristic (more pedagogical knowledge)- ?- More about other target groups than students- I think good IL teaching skills sharing by best profes-

sional teachers will be good- To bring different stakeholders together to have

a discussion on IL issues e students, teaching staff(subject specialists, tutors), researchers, librarians,politicians.

nts – Estonia TTT Workshop

Institution Country

London Metropolitan UniversityUnited Kingdom

Tartu University Library Estonia

Tbilisi State Pedagogical Institute Georgia

Aalborg University Library Denmark

University of Amsterdamthe Netherlands

Institute of Open Education Russia

Institute of Pedagogy (Taganrog) Russia

0 Norwegian Library Service Center Norway

Charles University in PragueCzech Republic

University of Ljubljana Slovenia

Academic Library of Tallinn University Estonia

ion National Library of Estonia Estonia



West Viru College of Applied Sciences Estonia

LCC International University Lithuania

Klaipeda University Library Lithuania

Tallinn University of Technology Library Estonia

Centre National Library of Estonia Estonia

Estonian National Defence College Estonia

Siauliai University Library Lithuania

Osmania University India

Tallinn University Estonia

National Library of Estonia Estonia







Sillamäe Public Library Estonia

Vilnius University Library Lithuania



re National Library of Estonia Estonia

Luhansk National University Ukraine


National Library of Estonia EstoniaLibrary of Lithuanian University of Agriculture Lithuania


Lithuanian Research Library Consortium Lithuania

Jõhvi School Library EstoniaInstitute of Cybernetics Estonia

The European Documentation Centre Estonia

t Library of Kaunas University of Technology Lithuania


University of Bergen Library Norway

National Library of Estonia Estonia

Tallinn University Estonia

Intellekt RS Estonia

e Estonia TTT Workshop.

Documents

UNESCO “Training the trainers in information literacy workshop”