Information Literacy Standards Development

1
Information Literacy Standards Development

• Irene Doskatsch
• Executive Director, ANZIIL
• irene.doskatsch_at_unisa.edu.au

2
PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• Development chronology
• Identification of significant milestones
• US process
• Australian process
• Revision process
• Reflections a critical perspective

3
BEFORE NATIONAL IL STANDARDS

• No common framework for integrating IL into
  curricula
• No common basis for assessment
• No common starting point for benchmarking

4
US MILESTONES

• 1989 ALA Presidential Committee on Information
  Literacy Final report defined 4 aspects of
  Information Literacy
• 1990 National Forum for Information Literacy
  established

5
Climate of reform

• 1990s general education reforms
• fundamental academic skills across the curriculum
• internationalising the curriculum
• using technology to enhance teaching
• learning communities to promote cooperation
• assessing student learning

6
STAKEHOLDERS in the EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA

• American Association for Higher Education
• Teaching and Learning with Technology Group
• Regional Accreditation Groups
• Discipline-Based Accreditation
• Association of Educational Communications and
  Technology

7
WHAT WERE THE DRIVERS FOR THE GENESIS OF IL
STANDARDS?

• Various stakeholders expecting greater
  accountable for demonstrable student learning
  outcomes from higher education institutions
• Need for assessment methodologies based upon
  abilities and performance
• Pressure on academic libraries to demonstrate
  effectiveness in terms of student learning

8
US MILESTONES

• 1998 Boyer Commission Report Reinventing
  Undergraduate Education
• 1998 American Association of School
  Libraries Association of Educational
  Communication Technology Information
  Literacy Standards for Student Learning
  competencies for students K-12

9
AUSTRALIAN MILESTONES

• Early 1970 IL advocacy in schools
• 1990 Various government reports which implicitly
  or explicitly highlighted the need for
  information literacy

10
AUSTRALIAN MILESTONES

• 1992 National information literacy
  conferences
• 1994 Developing lifelong learners through
  undergraduate education
• 1997 Christine Bruce Seven faces of
  information literacy doctoral research

11
Task Force on Information Literacy Competency
Standards

• Multi-association Task Force established 1998
• One year to complete the Standards
• Budget of 10,000 for travel, to hire an
  assessment consultant, and to cover expenses of
  the non-librarians on the Task Force.

12
US Task Force on Information Literacy Competency
Standards

• The draft was presented at several higher
  education conferences (one on assessment, one in
  Australia, one at AAHE).
• Strategies for securing endorsement from other
  higher education associations and accreditation
  bodies as well as discipline-based groups.

13
DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY
14
Information literacy competency standards for
higher education

• The information literate student
• determines the extent of the information needed
• accesses needed information effectively and
  efficient
• evaluates information and its sources critically
  and incorporates selected information into his or
  her knowledge base and value system

15
Information literacy competency standards for
higher education

• The information literate student
• uses information effectively to accomplish a
  specific purpose
• understands many of the economic, legal, and
  social issues surrounding the use of information
  and accesses and uses information ethically and
  legally

16
BIRTH OF AUSTRALIAN I L STANDARDS

• Facilitator Mary Jane Petrowski, Associate
  Professor Head, Information Literacy, Member ACRL
  Task Force on Information Literacy Competency
  Standards for Higher Education
• 62 participants were representative from
  Australian and New Zealand universities, the
  school sector, TAFE sector, the Council of
  Australian State Libraries ALIA

17
BASIS OF THE WORKSHOP

• Changes in pedagogy
• Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
• Critical thinking
• Australian research in particular the Bruce
  relational model of Information Literacy
• Information Literacy Competency Standards for
  Higher Education - Who? What? How? When?

18
Explores general information sources to increase
familiarity with the topic
Higher level cognitive skills - more complex and
abstract
Thinking Skills
Lower level tasks
Recognizes that knowledge can be organized into
disciplines that influence the way information is
accessed
19
Information Literacy as Critical Thinking
Points of ViewStandards 1, 3, 4, 5
Purpose of Thinking Standards 1 4
Question at IssueStandards 1 and 2
Implications ConsequencesStandards 1, 2, 5
A critical thinker considers
InformationStandards 1 and 2
AssumptionsStandard 3
Interpretation InferenceStandards 3
ConceptsStandards 1, 2
20
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE US AND AUSTRALIAN VERSIONS

• US
• Five standards
• Emphasis on competencies
• Higher education in the title

• Australian
• Seven standards
• Omission of the term competency from title
  -emphasis ways of using information
• Higher education deliberately omitted from title

21
DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY
22
Critique of first edition

• The standards should reflect the language of
  quality and quality audits. This would leave the
  way open for individual professions, industries,
  etc to rework the standards into a "competency
  standard" specific to that profession or
  industry.

23
Critique of first edition

• Terminology and concepts used in the current
  standards have made it a difficult task to sell
  the idea of information literacy to the academic
  community. It is felt that using language more
  relevant to the academic and professional
  community would facilitate wider adoption of the
  standards

24
Critique of first edition

• The role of the examples is confusing.
  Examples is not a familiar term associated with
  Standards.
• What is their function?
• Are they intended to be suggested
  performance/assessment criteria?
• Should they be clearly measurable?

25
Critique of first edition

• more attention should be given to the wording of
  the standards and outcomes
• examples need to be carefully examined to ensure
  that they actually flow from the outcome to which
  they are attached
• standards are at present too complex to be
  user-friendly

26
REVIEW OF THE FIRST EDITIONOF IL STANDARDS

• Facilitator Dr Ralph Catts, an academic from
  University of New England
• Review process considered
• scope and meaning of each Standard
• how it is written
• for whom it is intended

27
Suggestions for the second edition

• New title - The Australian/NZ Information
  Literacy Framework Principles, Standards
  Practice.
• Case studies of how higher education institutions
  using the Standards
• Methods of Assessment curriculum alignment
• Information literacy and staff development

28
REFLECTIONS

• First edition a pilot
• Review process rushed greater consultation
  required
• Endorsement by a great number of educational and
  related associations
• Lack of involvement of non Library stakeholders
• No budget