Information literacy in action: Florida academic libraries Share their stories and Best practices

Nancy Cunningham (University of South Florida)

Stephanie Brenenson (Florida International University)

Bill Modrow (Florida State University)

Renee Montgomery (University of Central Florida)

Catherine Lavallee-Welch (USF – Lakeland)

PSPC IL Subcommittee

Began in May 2006 Charge:

Sharing knowledge about resources, research and strategies regarding information literacy/library instruction policies, practices, programs, and services.   The Subcommittee will

Provides an outlet for collaboration among members to explore best practices and share experiences, innovations, and methods and tools for teaching and assessment

Survey of 13 member libraries Staff teaching in your program besides librarians

Yes - 41.7% No - 58.3% Graduate assistants, 40% Library staff assistants,

60% All staff in library instruction did other things

Used the ACRL standards to design a course or set of courses and mapped these to course objectives? Yes – 5 libraries, No – 2 libraries Working on this – 6 libraries

For-credit class? Yes – 4 libraries, No – 8 libraries

Any librarian "embedded" in a course or in the curriculum? Yes – 5 libraries, No – 5 libraries Working on this – 2 libraries

Survey (cont’d) New organizational structures

USF - Reference & Instruction UCF – Information Literacy and Outreach FSU – Undergraduate Information Services

Use & assessment of tutorials All use some form

• Viewlet builder, Camtasia, Captivate Instruction for distance learners

UCF – developing modules USF Lakeland – Elluminate UWF- online library orientation UF – online tutorials

Assistance in creation of instructional materials? Yes – 4 libraries, No – 7 libraries

Assessment

7 libraries have a method in place or working on a method

Tool – online & paper surveys, focus groups, and test to measure student outcomes and feedback

SAILS – 3 libraries

Faculty Awareness

Library instruction services Aware/somewhat aware – 11 No very aware – 2 libraries

Information literacy concepts Not very aware – 8 libraries Aware/somewhat aware – 5 libraries

Level of satisfaction with library instruction services Very satisfied/satisfied – 7 libraries Somewhat satisfied – 4 libraries

Challenges perceived

Staff size, scaling the demand with small and changing staff

Lack of technology support & resources

Lack of teaching facilities Faculty lack of awareness of our

services Librarian “buy-in”, burn-out

Our assets

Dedicated librarians passionate and knowledgeable about instruction and information literacy

Good facilities – wireless, etc. Supportive faculty Supportive library administrators Relationships with outside units willing

to collaborate

Issues to explore

New technologies to deliver services Podcasts, blogs, online modules, course

management software, chat, etc. Sharing instructional materials, marketing

plans, etc. Creation of IL modules Program development (graduate vs.

undergraduate) Assessment

Topics covered by members

Instructional Technology Design.Market information literacy programsAssessmentEmbedded librariansInformation Literacy for

undergraduates.

ACRL’sCharacteristics of Programs of Information

Literacy that Illustrate Best Practices 1. Do you have a Mission Statement?

2. Do you have Stated goals & objectives?

3. How is your Planning process?

4. Do you have Administrative and Institutional Support?

5. Does your program provide Articulation with the Curriculum?

6. Is there Collaboration?

7. Is there sound Pedagogy practice to the plan?

8. What will the Staffing be?

9. What will be the Outreach?

10. How will Assessment and Evaluation of student outcomes be carried out?

Programs in transition

Traditional bibliographic instruction format – “one-shot”

Rely on limited staff & facilities to scale growing demandsStaff numbers can’t keep up

Demand – driven, responding to demand as best we canBurn-out

Transitioning programs

Librarian-centric method Heavy reliance on “one-shot” Teaching methods limited to

lecture, demonstration Little student involvement Limited collaboration with

faculty member Focus on teaching limited

amount of tools or resources Little to no assessment

Content focuses on overarching concepts and critical thinking processes

Collaboration with faculty extended

Use technology and new vehicles for deliver

Librarian as guide and coach

Incorporate more learning styles