The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 30, Number 2, pages 151–156 March 2004 151

Associate Provost, Information Resources, SUNY Cortland, MillerBuilding, Room 206, Cortland, NY 13045, USA.<warnken@cortland.edu>.

,

MANAGING TECHNOLOGY. The Impact of Technology on InformationLiteracy Education in Libraries

by Paula Warnken

As an associate provost responsible for administeringboth information and technological resources on acollege campus and as a librarian whose background

is rooted in instructional services, I often find myself consid-ering issues on technology and its relationship to the evolvinginstructional role of libraries and librarians.

Each of us deals on a daily basis with the new technologiesthat have forever changed libraries and the information forwhich they are responsible. These new technologies have alsodramatically transformed and expanded the instructional role oflibrarians, as reflected by the more recent use of the term‘‘information literacy’’ instead of ‘‘bibliographic instruction’’to describe what librarians teach. In this month’s column, I willreview and reflect on how technology has influenced instruc-tion, especially in its impact on library programs.

BACKGROUND

The role of the academic library as I know it has alwaysinvolved teaching research and critical thinking, with the goalof educating lifelong learners. The ACRL Information LiteracyCompetency Standards for Higher Education, approved by theACRL Board of Directors in January 2000, includes sixstandards that provide a common framework and for definingand assessing information literacy. These standards include theability to ‘‘determine the nature and extent of the informationneeded; access needed information effectively and efficiently;evaluate information and its sources critically; incorporateselected information into one’s knowledge base; use informa-tion effectively to accomplish a specific purpose; [and] under-stand many of the economic, legal, and social issues sur-rounding the use of information and access and use informationethically and legally.’’ 1

Similarly, in his March 1999 article ‘‘TransformationalLeadership and Transformational Learning,’’ Ross Todddefines three overlapping dimensions of information and crit-

ical literacies: ‘‘connecting to, interacting with, and usinginformation.’’ 2

Likewise, in its Introduction, the ACRL Information Liter-acy Competency Standards for Higher Education includes asection on Information Literacy and Information Technologythat discusses the relationship between the two and recognizesthe role of information technology ‘‘fluency’’ in informationliteracy.3 Ross Todd notes that for librarians to be effectivefacilitators in the instructional process, they must ‘‘understandnew technologies and employ them as they work in a learner-centered environment that develops students’ knowledge andskills to manage, process, and use the enormous varietyquantity, and quality of information.’’ Todd goes on to discusshow the ‘‘convergence of an intense information society andeconomy; rapid changes in information technology; and theembedding of such approaches as independent lifelong learn-ing, flexible learning, and cooperative learning is creating arich learning environment for students as well as unparalleledopportunities for educators.’’ 4

The new information environment to which Todd refers andwhich is implicit throughout the Standards represents trans-formations brought about by new technologies that librariansand educators in higher education have been dealing with thesepast twenty-five years. In addition, it is today’s librarians whohave been most forcefully presented with the ‘‘challenge ofproducing a generation of information literate lifelong learnerswho can succeed in the information era.’’ 5

The term ‘‘information literacy’’ was first used in 1974 byPaul Zurkowski, then president of the Information IndustryAssociation.6 However, it was not until the late 1980s, astechnology was heavily impacting library services, that theterm began to take on more specific meaning. In 1989, theALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy releasedits final report and definition: ‘‘To be information literate, aperson must be able to recognize when information is neededand have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively theneeded information.’’ 7 In his July 2003 article in The Journalof Academic Librarianship, Edward K. Owusu-Ansah dis-cusses the ALA definition and other related literacy definitionsthat have emerged since then.8

Whether implicit or explicit, technology is inherent in theseliteracy definitions and has significantly influenced the instruc-tional role of the librarian. Technology’s impact on libraries haschanged the focus from ‘‘bibliographic instruction’’—whichreferred to traditional library resources—to ‘‘information liter-acy,’’ a much more inclusive concept that takes into account andintegrates the rapid advances in digital technologies that haveproliferated the amount of information available.9

In 1984, Evan Farber cited the growth of technology and thedelivery of instruction in the use of the library as two of thethree major developments impacting libraries (the third wasfinancial retrenchment).10 In 2002, the editors of the ‘‘Informa-tion Literacy and Instruction’’ column of Reference and UserServices Quarterly took an informal poll to discover whatinformation literacy colleagues believed were the most signif-icant issues. The responses, clearly prompted by developmentsin technology, included the emergence of numerous standardsand guidelines; the changing definition of information literacy;the rise of plagiarism, questions of copyright, and social andethical use of information; the impact of the digital age onteaching and learning; and the emergence of new teachingmethods and technological delivery of instruction.11

At the same time that technology and electronic informationenvironments were changing, the role of libraries in highereducation was also undergoing a transformation. New accred-itation standards were requiring evidence that students werebeing exposed to information management and technologyliteracy. General education programs were being reviewedand reformed. There was more emphasis on integrated learningand first-year programs were emerging. There was a renewedemphasis on learner-centered education as a greater variety ofinteractive media were being deployed throughout campuscurricula.

The new instructional technologies were providing chal-lenges and impetus for increasing the potential for new learningopportunities in higher education. The librarian’s role asfacilitator of the research and information retrieval processwas expanding and becoming more complex. As traditionalinstructional paradigms were changing, each with new initia-tives, there were greater expectations and a more central rolefor libraries.

At SUNY Cortland, these new instructional technologieswere becoming commonplace in the learning environment justas new standards by which the institution should be heldaccountable were emerging. In 2001, the State University ofNew York, comprising sixty-four colleges and universitiesthroughout the state, introduced general education require-ments that all students must show evidence of having attainedupon graduation. In addition to specifying ten specific knowl-edge and skill areas, the requirements called for the infusion ofinformation management competencies. Specifically, studentsmust show evidence of being able to ‘‘perform the basicoperations of personal computer use; understand and use basicresearch techniques; and locate, evaluate, and synthesize infor-mation from a variety of sources.’’12 These parallel develop-ments in new technologies and standards brought about a new,integrated approach to learning at Cortland that incorporatesboth information and technology literacies.

This approach made a difference in 2002 when Cortlandwas being considered for ongoing accreditation from theMiddle States Association. During the accreditation process,Cortland was able to provide evidence that students were

152 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

exposed to information technologies and information literacyas part of the curriculum. And currently, Cortland is goingthrough the NCATE process, which requires all graduates ofteacher education programs to understand and be proficient inthe use of both information and technology.

Throughout these accreditation processes, it has been thelibrary that has assumed responsibility for providing bothtechnology and information literacy instruction to students—either directly or by working with departments who incorporatethe instruction in their curricula. To establish guidelines, SUNYCortland adopted its own definition of Information Literacy thatacknowledges the ACRL Standards and the Middle StatesGuidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum.13 AtCortland, information literacy has been linked both with com-puter literacy and technological proficiencies. This is reflectedin the campus definition of information literacy to includecomputer literacy, technological fluency, information literacy,and information fluencies.14

All these developments have led to what is undoubtedly amore central role for libraries in the educational process and anexciting range of new opportunities for librarians to be inno-vative educators. In fact, the opportunities represent the newchallenges technology has created as we strive to arm ourstudents with the knowledge and skills necessary to take fulladvantage of new information resources.

TECHNOLOGY’S IMPACT ON INSTRUCTION

How have these challenging opportunities come about? Look-ing back over the last twenty-five years, we can see them asthe outcome of technology’s unprecedented rates of growthand acceptance, with little disciplined attention on the part ofits new users. United States Census data from 2000 indicatethat in August of that year, 51 percent of households had oneor more computers and 42 percent of households had at leastone member who used the Internet at home in 2000.15 Thetechnology is now quickly and certainly there, but it seems theskills necessary to use it most effectively and—more impor-tant—critically are not. On the campus, both students and theirinstructors find themselves needing to work hard to close thegap by acquiring a wide variety of technology skills.

But this need may not be so apparent to today’s students asit should be. As observed in general classroom settings or informal studies, students at both the undergraduate and graduatelevel generally feel comfortable with technology but do notnecessarily have the skills to function effectively and managethe ever-increasing quantities of information resources avail-able in the electronic environment. Kate Manuel discusses thisirony in her 2002 article ‘‘Teaching Information Literacy toGeneration Y,’’ noting that students’ ease with computers canhinder the mastery of information literacy skills because thosestudents overestimate their ability to effectively search for andaccess information. The difficulty of this situation is furthercompounded by the Internet’s making so much informationavailable that students believe research is less complicated thanit actually is.16

Students expect to find vast amounts of information quicklyand easily. They consider their searches successful when shortsearch strings on popular Internet search engines yield manyresults. Within the past couple of years, ‘‘Google’’ has becomea public domain term and a verb. Students ‘‘google’’ what theyneed to know and almost always find information of some

kind. They are satisfied when they identify multiple sites fromwhich to choose. Most often, they do not consider the type ofsite or the validity of the information and are generally unawareof the concept of evaluation criteria.

In this connection, a recent announcement by OCLC Pres-ident and CEO Jay Jordan in the November 2003 issue of TheJournal of Academic Librarianship is especially significant,not to mention clever and enterprising in its strategy:

‘‘At this writing, we were preparing to start the largest, and potentially

one of the most significant, pilot tests in the history of the OCLC

cooperative—Open WorldCat.

In partnership with the Google search service, which provides Web sites

and portals with access to billions of Web pages, we are making a subset

of two million abbreviated records from WorldCat available on Google,

along with the holdings of 12,000 academic, public, and school libraries

and links to their Web-based catalogs and sites. With Open WorldCat,

an information seeker who starts a search using Google could end up

finding the items needed in the library [emphasis added].’’17

Encouraging as this prospect may be, there is still asignificant group of skills to be imparted to students beforethey can take full advantage of Open WorldCat or otherfriendly tools that might come along. Students often have noconcept of how information is organized. They do not under-stand indexing and are unaware of controlled vocabulary.They do not necessarily understand the distinction betweenInternet resources and information available from electronicdatabases.

The dramatic changes in information retrieval practices makeit imperative for students to be able to work independently oncomputers: they must know how to connect remotely to data-bases, how to use the file transfer protocol to access informationon remote servers, and how to download, cut, and paste. Theymust understand the difference between an index and a Websearch engine and differences among the databases, as well ashow to select appropriate databases. They must be able to applythe principles of Boolean logic, to identify and narrow a topic,and they must know how to evaluate information.

Of course, electronic media now extend beyond traditionalprint resources. The use of ‘‘multimedia’’ has become a recog-nized and legitimate means of imparting information andconstructing knowledge. Photos, images, audio, and video filesare all valid sources of information. A final research project isnot necessarily a paper—it may be a Web page or a PowerPointpresentation, with a compilation of sources from sound andphoto archives—with or without more traditional sources.

Moreover, the electronic environment in all formats bringswith it new issues related to copyright and respecting andprotecting intellectual property. The citing of sources hasbecome more of a challenge. It is more difficult for studentsto understand just what plagiarism means and to comprehendthe legal and ethical issues involved. Plagiarism detection toolssuch as ‘‘Turn-it-in’’ facilitate the process for faculty to identifyplagiarized works.

Again, while technology has made the research process moreefficient with full-text databases and instantaneous locationinformation, these electronic enhancements create potentialfor confusion because students do not understand the researchprocess as well as they know electronic tools. The need toeducate students about these issues is more critical than ever.

The essence of the general predicament has been pointedlystated in a recent study published in the November 2003 The

Journal of Academic Librarianship: ‘‘ . . . college students . . .perceive their facility with technology to be so thorough thatthey tend not to be interested in learning the information literacyskills necessary to effectively locate, evaluate, and use theinformation they glean from the Internet. Thus, before studentscan recognize that information literacy skills will facilitate andvalidate their quest for the information they want and need fortheir school and extracurricular interests, their ‘techno-savvy’overconfidence must be moderated.’’18 This is a dauntingchallenge in an electronic environment that is at once unpre-dictable and overwhelming.

Librarians have traditionally seen their instructional role asone of teaching informational processes, not technologicalskills. However, in order for students to successfully completethe research process, they must first understand and be able toeffectively use technology. Particularly with multimedia avail-able as a legitimate resource, new information-seeking andtechnology skills are needed and librarians must understandthe processes necessary to successfully compile multimediaprojects.

It is especially critical that students understand how to doresearch and be self-reliant in the electronic informationenvironment at a time when it is no longer necessary toconsult with a librarian and not even necessary to come into alibrary. We all face the ‘‘challenge of producing a generationof information literate lifelong learners who can succeed inthe information era.’’19 As Robert Dugan and Carol Ou notein the November 2002 ‘‘Managing Technology’’ column, therole of technology in teaching and learning raises manyquestions about student learning.20 Technology is challengingall educators as it transforms the teaching and learningenvironment.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF THE LIBRARY

As with any resource, technology becomes valuable when it isused appropriately and effectively. New technologies createopportunities for learners but they must be approached criticallyand used correctly. Although these technologies provide resour-ces for full and richer learning experience, as Ross Toddobserves, ‘‘improved learning outcomes though informationtechnology do not happen by chance.’’ Librarians, he goes onto say, must be part of the process to inform and empowerlearning with technology that enables ‘‘students to access andinteract effectively with information in its many forms andformats—real and virtual—and use it responsibly and purpose-fully.’’ 21 New technologies profoundly impact access to infor-mation because of the skills required to efficiently andeffectively complete the process.

Librarians have the same responsibility with electronicmaterials as they do with books and other print material, bothfor what we might call intellectual and physical access. Al-though skills related to the physical access of electronic materi-als (i.e., use of hardware and software) are outside of thelibrary’s traditional scope, competencies such as saving, down-loading, e-mailing, organizing electronic files, and navigatingthe Internet are essential to effectively manage the electronicinformation environments so that the resources can be accessedand used. As Chris Ferguson observes in his 2000 article onintegrating research and technology support, in the mind of theusers, there is not much of a distinction between the digitalinformation itself and how to retrieve it.22

March 2004 153

For many students who have not been formally exposed toprint or electronic subscription databases, the Internet is theirprimary gateway to information which they typically accessthrough the World Wide Web. But as already noted, many ofthese students do not understand the basic tenets of research,nor do they know which are the most appropriate resources orthat they may or may not be in electronic format. With theexpansion of the world of information into cyberspace, the roleof the library instructor must grow to incorporate the appro-priate concepts and skills.

The Web is really a hybrid—at once an information andtechnological tool—and it is a critical element of informationliteracy. Teaching about the Internet and appropriate use of theWeb involves the same types of conceptual skills as teachingabout other research tools. However, teaching about the Web isunlike teaching traditional ‘‘bibliographic’’ instruction wherethe librarian has some control of the library resources that thestudents will be exposed to. It is critical that students be taughtto evaluate materials they find on the Web so they can makeinformed decisions about what would be considered reliableand appropriate for their research. As mentioned above, thisalso means understanding the ownership of intellectual prop-erty as well as recognizing and accepting the responsibility tocredit others for words and ideas in whatever format—text orgraphic, print or electronic—they appear.

In this digital age, the instructional goals remain the same,but the learning objectives need to be recalibrated for electronicinformation environments. Librarians must especially considertheir instructional goals in context of the wide variety ofstudent exposures to computers and the disparity in theknowledge and skill base. The inconsistencies of studentbackground have created the need for librarians to designinstruction programs that consider a variety of experiences.The systematic approach once used in traditional bibliographicinstruction programs can no longer be effective.

The convergence of electronic and traditional media is acomplex issue and one form does not displace the other. Theelectronic information environment must be presented as acomplement to traditional information formats. Students muststill learn about traditional library resources, which will notdisappear completely in the foreseeable future: ‘‘just as scribalculture coexisted for a lengthy period with Gutenberg’s inven-tion, print culture will coexist with the new electronic text for along time.’’ 23

To reinforce the role of technology as an educationalresource, it is important for students to be exposed to newtechnologies in the classroom. By using new technologies intheir instructional sessions, librarians are modeling their use forstudents and at the same time can be innovative and creative intheir presentations and enhance the learning experience. Tech-nology-rich classrooms with Internet connectivity enable librar-ians to demonstrate information retrieval techniques and givestudents the opportunity for hands-on, experiential learning.

At Washington State University, the electronic ‘‘SpeakeasyStudio Cafe’’ is a Web-based information literacy program.Author Mark Jacobs notes that ‘‘the utilization of technology inthe context of the new media classroom enables [librarians] tocommunicate to student the principles of information literacy ina way that is at once challenging and interactive.’’ 24

SUNY Cortland librarians use WebCT, an online coursemanagement system, in their Composition Library InstructionProgram (CLIP), a collaborative information literacy program

154 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

with the English Composition faculty. Students gain hands-onexperience with the technology they must use to completeassignments and be tested.

Using graphics and video—whether integrated in a coursemanagement system or a stand-alone electronic presentation—appeals to students who are visual learners. Adding audio andusing video clips extend positive learning opportunities toauditory learners. The technology engages students, allowsfor interactive threaded discussions, and expands the instruc-tion beyond traditional in-class restraints.

In order to teach with technology, librarians must be willingto change how and what they teach, and of course they mustlearn to effectively employ the technology itself. Technologyprovides more opportunities for creativity in the classroom, buttime is needed to learn (and relearn) about these tools, whosemethods of use change frequently.

Continuing a long tradition, librarians will continue to adaptto new technologies and integrate them into instruction, rec-ognizing that technology concepts and skills are critical toeducating information literate students—a role that has alwaysbeen the purview of the librarian.

MODELS OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY LITERACY

INSTRUCTION

How are libraries providing programs that recognize the goalsof teaching students about information and the researchprocess but acknowledge that students must first understandthe basics of technology? How do they bridge the technologyexperiential gap among students? How do they build confi-dence in the use of technology so students will be prepared todevelop research skills? What are they doing to help studentsunderstand that electronic information is more than the Inter-net and to comprehend the need to carefully and criticallyevaluate the information they find? We can consider someprograms that illustrate what more and more campuses haveput in place.

Of the four instructional programs offered at the SUNYCortland library, two have incorporated both information andcomputer literacy: single-session workshops and credit-bearingcomputer applications courses. The Student Information andComputer Literacy workshops are a direct outcome of theacknowledged need for students to be able to navigate andfully utilize the information retrieval resources as part of theresearch process. This program was instituted in the mid-1990swhen librarians found that much of their time was spentexplaining how to navigate the Web and how to manipulateelectronic text by cutting, pasting, downloading, saving, e-mailing, etc. Librarians offered and advertised sessions thatwere open to all students, but more popular were the sessionsfrequently requested by faculty and required of students as aprelude to a class assignment. These sessions tended to be moresuccessful because they were followed by a session dealingwith information literacy and related to the assignment. In thelate 1990s and into the early 2000s, the workshop programcontinues, with less emphasis on basic computer skills andmore on issues such as ownership of intellectual property,plagiarism, and copyright.25

At the same time that librarians were expanding theirinformation literacy programs to incorporate technology liter-acy instruction, the for-credit computer applications programwas being expanded to include information literacy. In addi-

tion to including electronic research and information retrievalin the introductory three-credit computer applications course,librarians developed two courses that dealt specifically withinformation literacy issues. A one-credit ‘‘Computer Informa-tion Retrieval’’ course covers topics such as database organi-zation and documentation, an introduction to retrievinginformation from commercial computerized databases, andthe use of command languages and communications software.A three-credit course, ‘‘Computers and Society,’’ includestopics such as information ethics, copyright, and privacyissues.26

As colleges and universities are restructuring their generaleducation programs with greater attention to the importance ofinformation and computer literacy, librarians have been drawninto the curriculum process in a way that has created newopportunities for innovation and expansion in their instruc-tional roles. In the mid-1990s, Illinois State University devel-oped a General Education course, ‘‘Foundations of Inquiry,’’which integrated technology and library and research strategyskills.27 At Eastern Washington University, a new generaleducation curriculum was implemented in 1994, with coursesthat incorporate both information and computer literacy.Librarians and technologists share the responsibility forcourse development that includes lectures and hands-on labexperience.28

The Washington State University Speakeasy Cafe andStudio mentioned above is itself an online General Educationcourse, ‘‘Accessing Information for Research,’’ which pro-vides an opportunity for librarians to teach credit-bearingcourses. This course moved instruction beyond the limits oftraditional library instruction modes, with students usingtechnology as they learned about the research process andthe use of information retrieval tools in an online interactiveenvironment.29

Alverno College in Wisconsin takes an integrated approachto computer and information literacy. Upon graduation, stu-dents must demonstrate four levels of computer and informa-tion literacy. Alverno’s Academic Support Services offers acomputer and information literacy course for students todevelop the required skills. The course consists of classsessions and Web tutorial modules, online quizzes, assign-ments, and an electronic discussion board.30

The University of Washington’s UWired program is acollaborative partnership among librarians, technologists, andcurricular specialists, with the goal of infusing informationliteracy and technology into the educational experience. As partof the UWired initiative course, materials were digitized andposted to the Web and librarians established a reference desk inan undergraduate library computer lab.31

In the mid-1990s, librarians at Augustana College in Illinoisdeveloped the ‘‘Technology Toolbox,’’ ‘‘intended as a founda-tion upon which to build confidence and sophistication in theuse of computers and technology in any discipline.’’ Thetoolbox is a handbook, complete with instructions and hands-on exercises that include the use of technology skills such as e-mailing and text editing, along with information skills such assuccessfully using online library resources.32

These examples represent the emergence of technology as apowerful educational tool with the potential to involve librar-ians in all elements of the educational process, at the same timecreating strategic alliances to strengthen the role of the librarywithin the university mission.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

It is the responsibility of the entire academic institution tograduate students who are both technology and informationliterate. In order for this to happen, there must be successfulpartnerships among many groups, from librarians and teachingfaculty to technologists and administration. There must be aclear understanding of the necessary processes to follow and acommitment from all groups that students have the necessaryinstructional experiences. Academic program requirements mustinclude courses that expose students to information and tech-nology literacy. This requires cooperation from deans, depart-ment chairs, and endorsement from curriculum committees.

To be successful and independent learners for life, studentsmust graduate with the ability to understand and be able tosuccessfully navigate electronic environments. They mustunderstand and use both the information and technologyrelated to their fields of study. The successful developmentand sustenance of such programs to assure that students havethe necessary competencies reaffirm the integral connectivitybetween librarians and the educational programs of theirinstitutions.

Library administrators must provide the opportunities andthe motivation for librarians to understand and learn to use newtechnologies that often are rapidly changing. They must providelibrarians with resources and tools to effectively deal with theexponential growth of information in all formats and with theconstantly changing face of database information retrievalmethods.

Library administrators must also garner support and developcollaborative partnerships for such programs with academicadministration at all levels. They must ensure that librariansparticipate in every campus initiative that involves educationalreform. They must provide librarians with opportunities to workwith others in designing curricula that integrate the researchprocess with information retrieval tools. They must continue tobe articulate and act as strong advocates for the central role thelibrary is assuming in the educational process.

‘‘Libraries have been successful over the years in transform-ing themselves according to the changing nature of teaching,learning, and scholarship.’’ 33 And if libraries are to continue asthe universities’ intellectual and educational hubs, they mustfurther extend this ability to transform by adapting their instruc-tional programs to the changing nature of technology.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Association of College and Research Libraries, ‘‘Information Lit-eracy Competency Standards for Higher Education.’’ Availableonline at the ACRL website at http://www.ala.org/acrl.html.

2. Ross J. Todd, ‘‘Transformational Leadership and TransformationalLearning: Information Literacy and the World Wide Web’’, NASSPBulletin 83 (March 1999) 7.

3. Association of College and Research Libraries, ‘‘Information Lit-eracy Competency Standards for Higher Education.’’

4. Todd, ‘‘Transformation Leadership and Transformational Learn-ing,’’ 4.

5. Hua Yi, ‘‘Information Literacy Programs: Achievements and Im-provements’’, Academic Exchange Quarterly 5 (Fall 2001): 203.

6. Edward K. Owusu-Ansah, ‘‘Information Literacy and the Academ-ic Library: A Critical Look at a Concept and the ControversiesSurrounding It’’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 29 (July2003): 223.

7. Report is available online at the ALA Website at http://www.ala.org.

March 2004 155

8. Owusu-Ansah, ‘‘Information Literacy and the Academic Library,’’220–221.

9. Ann Grafstein, ‘‘A Discipline-Based Approach to Information Lit-eracy’’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (July 2002):198.

10. Evan Farber, ‘‘College Libraries and the Teaching/Learning Proc-ess: A 25-Year Reflection’’, The Journal of Academic Librarian-ship 25 (May 1999), pp. 173.

11. Lori Arp, Beth S. Woodard, ‘‘Recent Trends in Information Liter-acy and Instruction’’, Reference and User Services Quarterly 42(Winter 2002) 125.

12. The State University of New York General Education LearningOutcomes are listed in Appendix D of the SUNY AssessmentInitiative Report, which is available online at the SUNY GeneralEducation Assessment Review (GEAR) Website at http://www.cortland.edu/gear/supportdocs.html.

13. A complete set of the Guidelines is available online at the MiddleStates Commission on Higher Education Website http://www.msa-che.org.

14. SUNY Cortland’s definitions of information literacy are availableonline at http://www.library.cortland.edu/info_lit_def.asp.

15. United States Census Bureau, ‘‘Current Population Reports’’ is-sued September 2001 and available online at http://www.census.-gov/population/www/socdemo/computer.html.

16. Kate Manuel, ‘‘Teaching Information Literacy to Generation Y’’,The Journal of Library Administration 36 (2002): 195–217.

17. Jay Jordon, ‘‘Cooperating During Difficult Times’’, The Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 29 (November 2003) 345.

18. Cecelia Brown, Teri J. Murphy, & Mark Nanny, ‘‘Turning Techno-savvy into Info-Savvy: Authentically Integrating Information Lit-eracy into the College Curriculum’’, The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 29 (November 2003): 386.

19. Yi, ‘‘Information Literacy Programs,’’ 203.20. Robert E. Dugan & Carol Ou, ‘‘Keeping Me Awake at Night:

Some Issues and Questions about Managing Technology’’, TheJournal of Academic Librarianship 28 (November 2002): 407.

156 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

21. Todd, ‘‘Transformational Leadership and Transformational Learn-ing,’’ 4–6.

22. Chris Ferguson, ‘‘Shaking the Conceptual Foundations, Too: In-tegrating Research and Technology Support for the Next Gener-ation of Information Service’’, College and Research Libraries 61(July 2000): 303.

23 Brendan A. Rapple, ‘‘The Librarian as Teacher in the NetworkedEnvironment’’, College Teaching 45 (Summer 1997): 113.

24. Mark Jacobs, ‘‘Speakeasy Studio and Cafe: Information Literacy,Web-Based Library Instruction, and Technology’’, InformationTechnology and Libraries 20 (June 2001): 66.

25. A listing of Student and Information Literacy Workshop offeringsis available online at http://library.cortland.edu/scil.asp.

26. A full description of Cortland’s Computer Applications Program isavailable online at http://www.cortland.edu/cap.

27. Carroll H. Varner, Vanette M. Schwartz, & Jessica George, ‘‘Li-brary Instruction and Technology in a General Education ‘Gate-way’ Course: The Student’s View’’, The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 22 (September 1996): 355–359.

28. Rachel F. Fenske, ‘‘Computer Literacy and the Library: A NewConnection’’, Reference Services Review 26 (Summer 1998):67–72.

29. Jacobs, ‘‘Speakeasy Studio and Cafe,’’ 66.30. More information about the Alverno College Computer and In-

formation Literacy Program is available in the EDUCAUSE 2003Annual Conference Proceedings available online at http://www.educause.edu and at http://depts.alverno.edu/cil.

31. More information about the UWired program is available in theCAUSE 1998 Annual Conference Proceedings available online athttp://www.educause.edu and at http://www.washington.edu/uwired.

32. Jeanne R. Davidson, ‘‘Computer Technology: Pandora’s Box orToolbox’’, Research Strategies 12 (Summer 1994) 182–186.

33. Ilene F. Rockman, ‘‘Strengthening Connections Between Informa-tion Literacy, General Education, and Assessment Efforts’’, Li-brary Trends 51 (Fall 2002) 195.