Where are you now? Really?

Abstract:

While many libraries today lay claim to having an information literacy instruction program, the reality of library instruction efforts may be somewhat removed from today's definition of "information literacy," as well as from the best practices in conducting a program. In order to determine whether or not one indeed has an information literacy program, an honest assessment from a number of stakeholders is required. In addition, in order to bring one's program into the twenty-first century, rebranding library instruction as information literacy instruction can only help to elevate the program, and align it with current practice, research and theory.

Key words

information literacy program

library instruction program

program assessment

program evaluation

A reality check

Several years ago, my family and I spent five happy, fun-filled days at one of Florida's entertainment parks. Others seamlessly managed our accommodations, meals, transportation and entry to various attractions. Even the plane trip home appeared to be part of the enchanted experience. Reality, however, quickly greeted us at the gate as we emerged onto a busy concourse, found ourselves crammed on to a tram to baggage reclaim, and dealt with lost luggage. I much preferred the earlier state, living in the bubble of a perfect and carefree world. Human nature, being what it is, often allows us to escape easily into places of fantasy and illusion. In many cases those realms are pleasant indeed and they place little demand on our time and talents. But the real world always intrudes eventually.

Conducting a frank appraisal of one's own instruction program can prove equally difficult. Personally, I rather like to regard my program in the best light possible, and at times no doubt I ignore some basic realities. I do not believe I am alone in what some call "magical thinking." As I attend conferences, participate in workshops and collaborate with library colleagues both inside and outside of my institution, often I am struck by what I perceive to be an unrealistic perception of instruction and information literacy programs. While it may be as unsettling as walking into the lost-luggage office, facing the reality of one's instruction is the place to start.

The ACRL Characteristics are clear and definite; these are best practices for an "Information Literacy" program (ACRL, 2012a). Simply branding an instruction program as an information literacy program does not make it so. While one may list a definition of information literacy or detail the five ACRL standards on a web page, it is the performance or execution of practices which embody the core of those statements in meaningful and impactful ways that define and exemplify an information literacy program.

It is essential therefore that you can answer a critical question before you can build, or improve upon, your instruction: Do you truly have, or understand, what is required to build an information literacy program? Step back and make an honest, realistic and unbiased assessment of your programs. The following survey is a good starting point (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 Information literacy instruction program survey

If you scored:

1-20 points

It would be difficult to consider this program an information literacy program. While the program may be offering and teaching a number of library sessions, the score suggests that the most basic elements for information literacy are not present. This indicates a challenging, yet not insurmountable, road ahead. Consider your score an opportunity for substantive growth and an opportunity to build a program based on best practice.

21-30 points

The evidence suggests an information literacy program in its earliest stages. Substantial effort will be required to develop it further; the prospects for shaping the program on best practice and theory should serve as a motivating factor.

31-45 points

This program's librarians have implemented a core of best practices for an information literacy program. The score suggests it may be time for a program review, which will provide opportunities to enhance the current program and implement new practices to move the program forward.

46-60 points

This program demonstrates a majority of the best practice measures for an information literacy program. Such programs serve as examples for other programs and those involved in the program should share their expertise with others.

Real assessment requires more than self-assessment, of course. To ensure that your scoring is accurate, ask other stakeholders - such as library colleagues, library administrators and faculty who bring classes for sessions - to complete the scale. If their ratings are roughly the same, the consensus would suggest that the score provides a realistic view of your program. If the ratings among various stakeholders do not correspond, however, then you need to consider the possibility that there is a true disconnect between how you see your program and how others see it. As uncomfortable an idea as it may be, it is essential at this point to assume that how others perceive your program may be the more accurate and authentic representation. Consider meeting with those surveyed to solicit additional clarification and feedback. In making additional inquiries, remain positive and ask for responses predicated upon the promise that the information will be used to improve the program; do not be defensive or to use the opportunity to "set them straight." Our stakeholders may be holding up the very mirror needed to reflect the real nature the program.

Unified language, unified mission, unified program

Now ask another question: What do you call your program? According to a study of multicultural, multilingual organizations, the adaptation and consistent use of common language improves group cohesion and increases the frequency of communication (i.e., the number of personal interactions) (Lauring and Selmer, 2010). Common language usage, including simplified and controlled vocabularies, allows for communication to pass more quickly and accurately. As a result, shared language works to "improve the clarity of communication among professionals in the same line of work" (Thrush, 2001: 290). Librarians are well versed in controlled vocabularies and conventional thesauri, yet when it comes to nomenclature regarding instruction and information literacy, we may not be modeling librarianship's best practice.

Currently, I serve as Coordinator of Instruction at a level one research land-grant university based in the southeastern United States. Largely a residential campus, our student body stands at roughly 25 000 students: 21 000 undergraduates and 4000 graduate students. In addition to a strong general liberal arts and science curriculum, program offerings include engineering, nursing, agriculture, pharmacy, education, architecture, veterinary medicine and business. Degrees awarded range from certificates to doctorates.

Our library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries. There is one main library and two smaller branch libraries (architecture and veterinary medicine). In addition to holding more than 3.5 million volumes, the main library supports a learning commons and a study commons, and partners with the university's writing center, its peer-to-peer tutoring center, information technology, and student advising. The library is a hub of student learning and activity, and last year's annual door count registered nearly 1.7 million visits, with 2 million virtual visits to the library's homepage. The library's workforce is comprised of 30 library faculty, 45 staff members and a number of student workers.

Our information literacy program is robust and nearly 700 face-to-face instruction classes are taught annually. The majority of these classes are conducted by library faculty (14 members) within the Reference and Instruction Department. As instruction coordinator, I lead a team of three library faculty whose main appointment is weighted to instruction, and the four of us teach a large number of first-year and core classes. Other library teaching faculty also teach a number of core classes in addition to their subject-level instruction.

We have three computer instruction labs within the library; each designated within the online scheduler by abbreviated name and location. The third-floor lab is the 3rd floor BI lab. Two labs are located on the second floor, the 2nd floor lobby lab (aptly named as it is adjacent to our front entrance lobby) and the 2nd floor BI lab (the placard outside the door says "Bibliographic instruction," no doubt put in place when the space was first designated as library instruction space). During the fall and spring semesters, student circulation workers prepare the labs each day for teaching. Student workers look at the master scheduler and if a class is being held in any particular lab they log on the computer terminals, test the instructor station and generally prepare...