maintain our libraries' relevancy in the 21st century
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Maintaining Our Libraries’ Relevancy in the 21st Century
Information Literacy Trends in the Sciences
Andrew Wick Klein
May 8, 2006
The Situation
• Changing landscape of information
• Emerging delivery methods: wikis, blogs, RSS
• New tools: Google Scholar, competitors
• Online journals, open access
The Situation
• Generation Y / Millennial Generation
• Changing profile of “college student”
• Faculty and teaching
• Libraries
We Ask Ourselves…
• Keep up-to-date?
• Prepare for the future?
• Best way to reach our users?
• Support the educational mission?
• Stay relevant?
• Information Literacy
Information Literacy
• The set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information
• Learning how to learn
• Increasingly important in the Information Age
• Essential to producing life-long learners
IL versus BI
• BI: one-shot sessions, specific assignments, no followup
• Bigger and broader:– Information needs on a global level– Throughout the entire process– Outside the classroom– General and specific
Standards
• 2000: ACRL publishes Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education
• Supporting documents
• Draft: Standards for Science & Technology Libraries
Successes
• Wide acceptance, praise for standards
• Voluminous literature on IL strategies, programs and tips
• Professional support: Instruction Section, conferences, discussion lists
Problems
• Lack of support – financial, personnel, teaching venues
• Resistance and “inertia” from faculty
• Lack of understanding that IL is a mainstream educational issue rather than just library-centric
• Is it working? Lack of assessment
Implementation
EffectiveAssessment
EffectiveAssessment
CollaborationWith
Faculty
CollaborationWith
FacultyCurriculumIntegration
CurriculumIntegration
Outcome-specific
Outcome-specific
Discipline-specific
Discipline-specific
InformationLiteracy
InformationLiteracy
1. Discipline-specific
• Standards strike a balance between generality and discipline specificity
• IL in isolation loses relevance
• Context emphasizes importance
• User need is paramount
• User need is discipline-specific
2. Outcome-specific
• Emphasized in Standards
• Outcomes themselves can vary from general to specific
• Good educational theory: backward design
• Essential to assessment
3. Curriculum integration
• IL skills are science skills
• Necessary for standardization across department
• Important for faculty collaboration
• User needs vary with program
4. Collaboration with faculty
• Foster good relationships: listening, asking rather than telling, suggesting
• Work with representative group
• Partners working towards same educational goal – we’re here to help!
• User needs!
5. Effective Assessment
• Focused on desired outcomes
• Also learning environment and IL program components
• Formal and informal
• Ongoing and integrated into design of IL program
Questions?
I Am Preaching to the Choir or
IL at Cal State Northridge
• Mission, goals: “information competence” is clear priority
• Information Competence Initiative: grants, resources
• CSUN Assessment plan: IL is 1 of 3
• ICT Literacy Assessment Initiative with EST
Room for Improvement
• Trends that aren’t going away:
• Relevance of IL to science curricula
• Value of discipline-specific programs
• Need for faculty support
• Importance of effective assessment
Bibliography
ACRL website on Information Literacy. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.htm (Accessed May 5, 2006).
Badke, William. “Can’t Get No Respect: Helping Faculty to Understand the Educational Power of Information Literacy.” The Reference Librarian, 89/90 (2005), pp. 63-80.
Galvin, Jeanne. “Alternative Strategies for Promoting Information Literacy.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (2005), pp. 352-357.
Gardner, Susan. “What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function of the Academic Library.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5 (2005), pp. 405-420.
Gilson, Caroline. Personal correspondence.
Hebb, Tiffany. Personal correspondence.
“Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries (2000).
Bibliography
Lindauer, Bonnie G. “The Three Arenas of Information Literacy Assessment.” Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44 (2004), pp. 122-129.
Manuel, Kate. “Generic and Discipline-Specific Information Literacy Competencies: The Case for the Sciences.” Science & Technology Libraries, 24 (2004), pp. 279-308.
Rockman, Ilene. “Integrating information literacy into the learning outcomes of academic disciplines.” College & Research Libraries News, 64 (2003), pp. 612-615.
Smith, Eleanor M. “Developing an Information Literacy Curriculum for the Sciences.” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 37 (Spring 2003).
Winterman, Brian. Personal correspondence.
Thank you!