The Information Literacy Initiative at Philadelphia University Summary of Program

The Information Literacy Initiative at Philadelphia University Summary of Program April, 2006 Overview The Information Literacy Task Force (ILTF) – a subcommittee of the Undergraduate Education Committee – oversees the campus-wide information literacy initiative The initiative has been dubbed The IL Project@PhilaU, the website is http://www.philau.edu/infolit Information Literacy Task Force members include representatives from each school on campus, in addition to librarians and several university administrators In determining learning outcomes for students, the ILTF employs the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education The guiding document for the IL Initiative is the Information Literacy Framework, and is based on the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards The Framework is a living document, not static At the time of its conception and writing, the ACRL Competency Standards 1-3 were of greatest importance to the faculty and librarians Standard Four has always been very important, but can now be considered by the faculty in more depth, as faculty now collaborate with each other and with librarians more intensively on issues of assignment design As the IL initiative has matured, greater attention can now be placed on Standard Five The IL Project@Philau adheres to best practices, as outlined by the American Library Association’s The Characteristics of Programs of Information Literacy that Illustrate Best Practices: A Guideline Most notably, the IL Project: • has a Mission Statement that is in line with the ACRL IL Competency Standards • considers the goals of various campus constituencies, via the IL Task Force • is a strongly collaborative endeavor • has identified target courses in each school to be the vehicles for IL instruction • strives to assist faculty to design assignments that are relevant to students, and incorporate IL competency development in a manner that is practical and applicable to the students’ everyday and professional lives In addition, a section on Information Literacy is included in the University’s Undergraduate Catalog Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 Rationale of the Program Philadelphia University employs the course-integrated or “distributed” model of information literacy programming The small size of the University and professional orientation of the degree-granting programs were the initial reasons for choosing this model of programming A separate or stand-alone course was not deemed appropriate Instead, to best serve Philadelphia University students, it was decided that a better approach is one that is practical as opposed to theoretical, is immediately applicable, and is directly connected to course content To ensure student learning and transferability, it was decided that the information literacy content be delivered via courses not only from the College Studies Program in the School of Liberal Arts, but from the professional schools as well An integrated IL program such as this depends upon close collaboration between faculty, librarians, and administrators Targeted courses within each of the professional schools and the School of Liberal Arts are used as the vehicles to deliver IL programming that is appropriate to the students’ class standing and germane to their major courses of study Assignment design and faculty development are key to the success of this approach Philadelphia University’s Definition of Information Literacy Finding a common terminology for faculty, librarians, and administrators to use to describe information literacy was initially a challenge A faculty development program on October 31, 2000 introduced the idea of information literacy to the faculty at large, during which the debate over terminology that was occurring in academe at that time was acknowledged Faculty members were encouraged to help develop a working definition of information literacy that would be relevant for this institution In addition to the ACRL Competency Standards, the Information Literacy Coordinator promotes the “Seven Faces of Information Literacy” model attributed to Christine Bruce Bruce’s “Seven Faces” model is a comprehensive model that is transferable to life after university This model supports the university’s mission to produce lifelong learners and reflective problem solvers who enhance society with the new knowledge they create, and the wisdom they apply to their actions The Information Literacy Task Force (ILTF) The IL Task Force was formed in Fall 2002 The IL Task Force was previously named the Teaching and Learning Subcommittee of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) When the Undergraduate Education Committee replaced the UCC, the fate of the Teaching and Learning Subcommittee was uncertain However, the Undergraduate Education Committee assumed ownership of the new IL Task Force, thus ensuring it a place in the formal governance structure of the university A deliberate effort is made to avoid chairmanship of the Information Literacy Task Force in the person of a Liberal Arts faculty member The temptation to segregate the responsibility for information literacy to library staff and Liberal Arts faculty would undermine the overall philosophy of the initiative Please see the “Organizational Chart for Philadelphia University’s Information Literacy Task Force” for more details Rationale of the Information Literacy Framework Document The Framework document is based on a combination of similar documents used at other institutions, the ACRL Competency Standards for Information Literacy, and input from the TLTR members and early ILTF (the Teaching & Learning Subcommittee) members The Framework is intended to be a living document, and is currently under revision The IL Framework is by necessity a very general Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 outline of what has been decided to be appropriate for this campus, and individual variation is expected in the implementation of these stated outcomes The division of the Framework into different levels, or Years, is aimed at creating a tiered program that builds progressively on what has been learned in each previous year The cognitive maturity and development of students at each level are not as closely addressed as they could be, but the attempt has been made Initially, much emphasis was placed on the “tool literacy” aspect of information literacy, as this was the prevailing notion of the campus at the time of the original draft (2000-2001) Consequently, in the present Framework, “location and access” and building a knowledge base of potential information resources upon which to draw are heavily emphasized in the outcomes for First and Second Year students These IL components relate most closely to the ACRL Competency Standards Two and Three Standard Five is addressed mainly via the regulation of citation and documentation, and the design of assignments that discourage plagiarism Assessment Measures Assessment presently occurs at the course and assignment level There is no uniform, university-wide assessment instrument for information literacy Individual courses require a variety of assessment measures to be used, as appropriate to the course content Rubrics, pre / post tests, objective tests, checklists, surveys, and other measures are all employed at different points within different courses The grids provided with the supplemental information in this binder indicate different assessment measures used Informal assessment of librarian-delivered instruction has occurred in some courses in different schools, and much anecdotal evidence has been relayed by faculty, in reference to the improvements they have seen in students’ projects, as a result of information literacy instruction and faculty-librarian collaboration Capstone courses such as the L911 course in the School of Liberal Arts, the pending capstone course for the School of Engineering and Textiles, and the Architecture and Interior Design Thesis are prime candidates for assessment of information literacy and critical thinking These courses are not yet aggressively targeted for such, but they provide a programmatic venue for assessment of information literacy competency Historical Highlights of the Initiative Pre-1999 Bibliographic instruction and other generalized library instruction occurred in courses from the School of Liberal Arts (School of General Studies), School of Business, and School of Science and Health One course from the School of Engineering and Textiles (School of Textiles and Materials Technology) also regularly requested instruction These requests for instruction were entirely instructor-dependent, and depended on the professional relationships between the librarians providing the instruction and the faculty members requesting the instruction Therefore, over the course of an undergraduate’s career, some students received several instruction sessions, ranging from those of a general nature to assignment-specific instruction, and some students received no instruction at all Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 Fall 1999 – Spring 2000 An Information Literacy Coordinator is hired, under the title of “Electronic Instruction and Reference Librarian.” The main duties of the librarian in this newly created position were to create a campuswide information literacy program, market this program to the campus community (faculty, administrators, and students), and to coordinate the instruction activities of the professional librarians on staff The faculty members who already share a collegial relationship with librarians are targeted for more extensive collaboration These faculty members are also solicited for their support in the establishment of a campus-wide IL initiative In addition to the support of selected faculty members, certain administrators and staff members sympathetic to the cause were also sought as allies Bibliographic instruction is still taking place, as opposed to a concerted effort towards information literacy The campus organization most closely aligned with information literacy at this time is the university TLTR, chaired by the Director of the Library Discussions about information literacy—with an understandably heavy emphasis on tool literacy—begin to take place in the TLTR Fall 2000 – Spring 2001 A proposal for a campus-wide information literacy program is presented and approved at a general faculty meeting in Fall 2000 The Undergraduate Education Committee (Undergraduate Curriculum Committee) resurrected one of its subcommittees, entitled the Teaching and Learning Subcommittee (T&L Subcommittee) The members of the T & L Subcommittee undertook the new responsibility of shaping a campus-wide information literacy initiative, and undertook the responsibility of implementing a university-wide plan for information literacy Initially convening in Fall 2000, the T&L Subcommittee devised working drafts of targeted student information literacy skills, competencies and outcomes, outlined according to class standing Using the draft for First-Year Student outcomes, a pilot project was launched in the Spring semester of the 2000-2001 year Pilot classes from each school were identified as candidates for information literacy programming Via collaboratively-developed assignments, faculty and in some cases librarians delivered instruction and assignments that targeted one or more identified information literacy outcomes for first-year students In Summer 2001, pilot project faculty, IL Task Force (Teaching and Learning Subcommittee) faculty members, and university librarians took part in a daylong workshop During this workshop, faculty revised and improved the initial assignments used in the pilot project, in preparation for re-issue during the Fall 2001 semester Fall 2001 – Spring 2002 Pilot classes implemented the revised assignments, and evaluated the results Gaps in addressing IL goals for first year students via the assignments were further identified and discussed Greater clarity as to the role of courses from the School of Liberal Arts was gained, after the specific IL goals being met by the professional schools were clarified During the Spring 2002 semester, T&L members drafted a “University-wide Information Literacy Plan for Undergraduates.” It is decided to abandon the term "Plan" for the more fitting term "Framework." The “Framework for Information Literacy” is drafted to convey targeted IL outcomes for students at different levels (years) The Framework document is general by intent, in order to be more easily accepted as relevant by all the schools on campus An intentional program that could be integrated into existing courses and coursework in a symbiotic fashion was then designed Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 Although still a working draft, the Framework is then used as the guiding document for the initiative Faculty in each school teaching second-year classes that might be targeted for information literacy programming are identified and approached by their committee representatives A faculty development program for second-year faculty is held in May 2002 It is much like the Summer 2001 workshop, but prior knowledge of the IL Project allows programming to be condensed into a half-day workshop Again, librarians and faculty work together to determine specific information literacy outcomes for particular assignments the faculty will use, either during their summer sessions or in the regular 2002-2003 year Fall 2002 – Spring 2003 A general meeting of all Project members and pilot faculty for both the first and second years is held in Fall 2002 Second-year goals are incorporated with varying degrees of success across the pilot courses in the various schools Refinement of first-year pilot courses also occurs Most notable are the inroads made with the pilot courses in the School of Architecture and Design In April 2003, the WAC Director—Dr John Eliason – was instrumental in securing changes to the New Course Proposal form used by faculty Added was a section that opens dialogue about information literacy between the faculty proposing the new course and the Director of the Library or designee thereof Fall 2003 – Spring 2004 Major accomplishments include the introduction of Blackboard to the targeted first year courses T101 and L121, and faculty-led assessment in First Year Writing and History courses (School of Liberal Arts) Several courses in the Schools of Business, Engineering and Textiles, and Science and Health continue their traditions of requesting librarians to conduct instruction sessions Many of these courses are not formally “targeted IL courses,” yet IL skills are being emphasized in the assignments being given For example, many courses from the Fashion Design program are perennial requestors for library instruction Although not formally recognized as IL-targeted courses, this professionallyoriented instruction helps students become much more aware of information resources that are in print, as well as online or on the free web Inroads into the School of A&D continue to be made, as more instructors from the various programs become more aware of library resources and more aware that they can request instruction sessions to help their students use these resources, and evaluate and apply the information found from them Fall 2004 – Spring 2006 (Present) The past two academic years have seen the targeted courses for First and Second Year students become more firmly entrenched in all the schools Refinement of existing assignments, the addition of assessment measures to some courses, and librarian-faculty “information literacy consultations” have been the primary themes of the past two academic years The School of Business Administration formally added a Third Year course—Business Law—which is part of the Business Core The advent of the School of Design has caused some students who were formerly reached via A111 and A112 to be lost However, greater inroads were made in the School of Architecture, with Thesis students in both the Architecture and Interior Design programs Changes in the School of Engineering and Textiles have caused a stagnation of IL integration after Year Two, however, the T101 assignment used for First Years has been revised and updated In summary, the past two years have been a time of reflection and refinement, as consideration is given to the many programmatic changes that have recently occurred The Information Literacy Initiative is now in a position to re-shape itself in the 2006-2007 academic year, to better serve the teaching and learning mission of the University Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 Future Work Revision of the Information Literacy Framework To gain acceptance and understanding by the faculty implementing the assignments used to drive the initiative, current descriptions of targeted IL outcomes are colloquial Greater adherence of targeted outcomes to the language of the ACRL Competency Standards and to the language of Middle States and individual programmatic accreditation agencies could add more coherence to the assessment reports for the various IL-targeted courses This in turn would better enable the broad, programmatic picture to be drawn from the efforts within the different schools Campus-wide conceptions and definitions of information literacy have since evolved to better reflect the integrative nature of IL, and to more clearly emphasize problem-solving and critical thinking, ethical issues surrounding the use of information, and information literacy in the disciplines, via revised assignments in the School of Liberal Arts and the professional Schools Drafting of Individual School Frameworks for Information Literacy Using the campus-wide Framework as a guide, individual Schools need to decide what an information literate graduate of their programs should be able to do, know, and be Collaboration with faculty to overtly draw connections between information literacy and the workplace would advance the lifelong learning aspect of information literacy, and provide greater impetus for students to make connections between their coursework and the “real world.” Approaching the School Frameworks from a practitioner’s point of view is necessary, and will inform the librarian liaisons greatly Development of Assessment Instruments and Overall Assessment Plan These actions are dependent on the revision of the Framework document, and of individual plans in each school Previous efforts on the part of the Coordinator of Information Literacy to initiate the administration of an information literacy survey instrument to incoming students have been historically unsuccessful, even when actual external instruments were available Creation of a local instrument is possible, and technology to support the delivery of a survey instrument to incoming students, before they begin classes is also possible In addition to providing quantifiable date, these actions are necessary to establish a baseline understanding of incoming students’ existing IL skills and attitudes towards IL, so that the effectiveness of IL instruction, delivery and content can be improved Faculty Development Lack of consistency in faculty-led information literacy instruction can be largely addressed via faculty development programming There have been five programming efforts since 2000 that included the Coordinator of IL, and such programming needs high-level administrative support to be scheduled, delivered, and utilized by faculty Pursuing faculty development at the school level, as opposed to the university-wide level, is a better avenue Mixing faculty from different schools has had uneven results, as each school is at a different place in terms of IL integration and buy-in Faculty surveys to discover specific needs and gaps that can be addressed and supported by librarians or administrators are part of a faculty development plan Again, such surveys are best deployed at the school level Improved Delivery Mechanisms for Instruction In addition to the lack of assessment instruments for potential target courses, the inability to provide uniform instructional experiences for students in already-targeted courses hampers the collection of meaningful assessment data The Library’s new Instructional Technology Specialist (ITS) has asked to Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 serve on the ILTF Collaboration with the ITS to develop online modules for information literacy instruction is anticipated in the near future This will help facilitate more uniformity in content and delivery, and streamline assessment efforts in courses where online assessment instruments are appropriate Based on the results Spring 2004 IL Survey of Students (below and in this binder), students prefer receiving information literacy instruction via a combination of librarians, their instructor, and online delivery methods Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 The Information Literacy Initiative at Philadelphia University Additional Information Course Syllabi, Reports, and Assessment Instruments Instruments, reports from individual schools, and detailed information pertaining to the Information Literacy Initiative can be found in this Information Literacy Project binder Student Survey of Attitudes and Behaviors In April, 2004, randomly-selected students were invited to participate in an Information Literacy Survey The survey questions are included in the supporting documents in this binder Forty students responded Overall, the respondents did value the basic information literacy attributes being promoted by the IL initiative, rating the attributes as either “Highly” or “Moderately” important, the two higher rankings possible on the rating scale provided The instrument and summary results are available in this Information Literacy Project binder Notable findings: • Students indicated that they would like information literacy skills to be conveyed to them by a combination of faculty, librarians, and online support This finding supports the need for increased and ongoing faculty development and librarian-faculty collaboration for the effective teaching and learning of IL • Students would like instruction sessions more tailored to “specific majors.” This finding points to increased need for either: o instruction sessions that take place during class meeting times, in the professional schools o supplementary training sessions offered outside of class time, at which student attendance is either mandatory or is given recognition/recompense • Students indicated that, although a general web search engine is their first choice for finding information (47.5%), library-accessible databases came in a close second (37.5%) as a first choice When combined with those choosing Gutman’s online catalog to find a book (10%), the library’s resources equal the free web as a first choice for students trying to find information (see Appendix 2, Question 5) These results may be indicative of greater student awareness of library-based resources, or may be a factor of the pool of respondents (heavily FAM/FIM and Business majors) It would be nice if this random sample was indicative of information seeking behavior across all majors Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 References American Library Association (2003) The Characteristics of Programs of Information Literacy that Illustrate Best Practices: A Guideline Online http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/characteristics.htm Association of College and Research Libraries (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Online http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm Bruce, C (1997) The Seven Faces of Information Literacy in Higher Education Online http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~bruce/inflit/faces/faces1.php The Information Literacy Project@PhilaU (2002) Online http://www.philau.edu/infolit Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2003) Developing Research and Communication Skills: Guidelines for Information Literacy in the Curriculum Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 ...Rationale of the Program Philadelphia University employs the course-integrated or “distributed” model of information literacy programming The small size of the University and professional... undermine the overall philosophy of the initiative Please see the “Organizational Chart for Philadelphia University? ??s Information Literacy Task Force” for more details Rationale of the Information Literacy. .. methods Middle States Report on Information Literacy at Philadelphia University – April 2006 The Information Literacy Initiative at Philadelphia University Additional Information Course Syllabi,