ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ May 2002 / 345 College & Research Libraries news The value of campus partnerships in redesigning library instruction Administrators, faculty, and students get involved by Hector Escobar Jr., Joni Kanzler, G. Margaret Porter, and Cheryl Smith T o d ay ’s academ ic libraries are faced with the need to be proactive and imagina­ tive in developing instructional tools for effective use of information technology. Ideas and com m ents from students provide valu­ able insights but may not typically be com ­ m unicated to library professionals. This ar­ ticle focuses on the im portance of gathering student input and addressing expressed aca­ demic library instruction needs. It also dis­ cusses the roles that external entities can play in guiding methodical implementations of new information technology. Environment The University Libraries of Notre Dam e is served by a libraries advisory council— com ­ prised of alumni and corporate and com m u­ nity leaders w ho are dedicated to supporting and underw riting the various functions of the library. O pportunities for interaction with li­ brary faculty and staff are scheduled during the advisory council’s sem iannual meetings. During the spring 2000 m eeting, several m em bers of the advisory council participated in a h an d s-o n library instruction session, which highlighted the libraries’ electronic re­ sources. O ne council m em ber expressed con­ cern that students have not taken full advan­ th tage of these im portant resources. Another m em ber suggested that students w ould re­ e spond well to Web tutorials, possibly designed as com puter games. Since the concerns and suggestions of the advisory council members fit with the librar­ ies’ goal of designing and implementing inter­ active, computer-based instructional modules, the decision was made to capitalize on the in­ terest and possible support of the advisory council members. A library instruction task force, com prised of four instruction librarians and chaired by the coordinator of library in­ struction, was formed to lead the project. Questions and assumptions The associate director for user services di­ rected the task force to “determ ine strategies and ‘best practices’ for involving students, faculty, and librarians in identifying issues, characteristics, goals, m easures, and existing models for developing and marketing a Web- based library instruction program .” The task force w ould also identify key issues related to the inform ation-seeking habits of un d er­ graduates. Three sets of questions w ere for­ mulated: 1. W hat can students tell us about their inform ation-seeking behavior? How, w hen. About the authors Hector Escobar Jr. is visiting s ta ff librarian, Joni Kanzler is coordinator o f library instruction, G. M argaret Porter is librarian, and Cheryl Smith is s ta ff librarian a t the University o f Notre Dame, e-mail: hector.escobar.4@nd.edu; joni.e.kanzler.1@nd.edu, g.m.porter.2@nd.edu, cheryl.s.smith.454@nd.edu mailto:hector.escobar.4@nd.edu mailto:joni.e.kanzler.1@nd.edu mailto:g.m.porter.2@nd.edu mailto:cheryl.s.smith.454@nd.edu 346 / C&RL News ■ M ay 2002 and w here do they prefer to focus their infor­ m ation-seeking efforts? 2. H ow w ill th e k n o w le d g e g a th e re d from stu d e n ts affect o u r a p p ro a c h to te a c h ­ ing library skills a n d in fo rm a tio n literacy? In w h ic h form ats sh o u ld in fo rm a tio n be p r e s e n te d to rea c h th e in te n d e d a u d ie n c e m ost effectively? 3. H ow do w e develop, test, and evaluate library instructional program s that m ost ef­ fectively enable Notre Dame undergraduates to access and use inform ation resources and services selected by the libraries? Involving students in the process becam e the foundation for the w ork of the task force. We also identified individuals from other cam­ pus departm ents w h o w ould form the m em ­ bership of tw o new groups: a project team and an advisory committee. The p ro ject te a m and th e advisory c o m m itte e Letters w ere sent to potential m em bers of the two groups asking for their participation. The task force was rew arded with a high level of cooperation and enthusiasm from across the cam pus in response to the initial request let­ ters. Although Notre Dame librarians have fac­ ulty status and serve o n a variety of univer­ sity committees, collaborations and coalitions are usually initiated outside of the library. This was an excellent opportunity to build su p ­ port, alliances, and confidence in the librar­ ies’ role on cam pus and in students’ intellec­ tual growth. The final project team includes two instruc­ tional technologists; an adm inistrator in stu­ dent affairs, w ho also teaches; a faculty m em ­ ber from the university’s teaching center, w ho w orks w ith graduate teaching assistants and teaches in the College of Science; and the four task force m em bers. The four individu­ als chosen for the advisory committee include: a m em ber of the library advisory council, w ho is also a visiting professor at the university; the d e a n of the First Year of Studies; the di­ rector of the first-year writing program ; and the director of the Teaching and Learning Cen­ ter. M embers of the project team w ere asked to assist with the construction and im plem en­ tation o f the program . The advisory comm it­ tee w ould advise us of the best paths towards implem entation. S tu d e n t q u estionnaires and focus groups Efforts in fall 2000 focused on gathering in­ form ation from students enrolled in the re­ quired first-year com position class (FYC). To get a variety of responses a n d ideas from stu­ dents, w e d ecided to use tw o different m eth­ ods of data collection: a questionnaire and focus groups. Participants w ere limited to first- year students (FYS) w ho attended at least one library instruction session in their FYC class during fall 2000. All FYC instructors w ere asked if they w ould allow their classes to participate in this study. Of the 44 FYC sections available, 14 sections taught by 11 different instructors participated and a total of 230 students re ­ sponded to the questionnaire. Questionnaires w ere distributed and collected during a regu­ lar class period. The questionnaire, developed by task force m em bers, was based on the three question sets m entioned earlier. Surveys conducted by other institutions a n d sources outlining survey design w ere consulted. The final questionnaire consisted of 11 questions, all with at least 3 response options.1 Students participating in a focus group w ere offered a m eal and a $10 copy card as compensation. Fourteen students participated in three focus groups. Nine questions w ere form ulated to enhance inform ation gathered from the questionnaires.2 Questionnaires were distributed and answers w ere tabulated in Oc­ to b er 2000 and focus groups w ere held in November. The task force recorded and com ­ piled responses, questions, and discussion from the focus groups. We gained valuable inform ation about students’ perceived diffi­ culties with using the library and its Web pages, as w ell as their feelings regarding online help and tutorials. S tu d e n t fin d in g s The task force was able to draw a num ber of conclusions based on students’ responses to questionnaires a n d focus group discussion. We used the com bination of responses and com m ents to help us answ er two of the three questions w e had p o sed at the beginning of the process. 1. W hat c a n students tell us ab o u t their inform ation-seeking behavior? PIoiv, when, a n d where do they p refer to fo c u s their infor­ m ation-seeking efforts? C&RL News ■ May 2002 / 347 • they rely on the Web for accessing gen­ eral information; • they rely on librarians for starting re­ search and developing research strategies, keyw ord selection, and information about electronic and other resources; • they do not wait until the last minute to begin the research process; • they use electronic resources for most of their research; and • they use the library’s electronic resources from locations outside the library. 2. H ow will the knowledge gathered fr o m students affect o u r approach to teaching li­ brary skills a n d information literacy?In which fo rm a ts should inform ation be presented to reach the intended a udience most effectively? • they do not use the available online help to any great extent; • they experience great difficulty w hen attempting to develop effective keywords and search strategies; • they are intimidated by the size of the library; • they feel that locating print materials in the library is daunting and confusing; • they believe a single library instruction session is inadequate exposure to library re­ sources and research strategies; and • they are not interested in using an online library instruction tutorial. The questionnaires and focus groups did not provide us with any direct answers to our third question of how to develop, test, and evaluate library instructional programs that most effectively enable Notre Dame undergraduates to access and use information resources and services selected by the libraries. The information gathered did, however, provide a foundation for expanding our in­ structional program and formulating a set of recom m endations. We had clearer objectives for the advisory committee and the project team and w ould rely on their collective ex­ pertise to develop assessm ent tools and test­ ing mechanisms. Recom m endations Along with a report on the information-gath­ ering process, the following recommendations w ere sent to the project team and the advi­ sory committee. All FYS should com plete at least two li­ brary instruction sessions. Students value the Results o f o ur in itia l investigations indicated th a t students' instructional needs d iffe r fro m th e suggestions o f th e libraries' advisory council: students do not show trem endous in terest in o n lin e W eb tu to ria ls . personal contact with librarians and time for hands-on experience with library resources. Additionally, a W eb-based online exercise should be created to assess the needs of the students and their understanding of research libraries. The path from the university’s Web pages to the libraries’ should be m ore direct. Better explanations of links are needed, as well as the developm ent of prominently placed “How do I . . .” links or menus. We also recom m ended the developm ent of an information literacy course for all in­ coming FYS. Problem-solving skills, critical evaluation of information, and the ability to apply information efficiently and effectively w ould be key com ponents of this course. Im p le m e n ta tio n The task force’s report and recom mendations w ere given to the library administration, the advisory committee and project team, and li­ brary faculty. A subsequent m eeting with the advisory council revealed the difficulties in adding new required course w ork to an al­ ready crow ded first-year studies program and the challenges of altering course objectives on an institutional level. Nevertheless, the task force report brought the need for more ex­ tensive library instruction to the attention of key m em bers of the cam pus community. As a result, the director of the writing pro­ gram recom m ended that all FYC instructors schedule two library sessions during fall 2001. Likewise, positive student and FYC instructor response to hands-on experience justified the purchase of additional laptop com puters for use in two wireless library classrooms. In re­ sponse to student concerns, easy access to basic research assistance was added to the libraries’ Electronic Resources Gateway Web page. 348 / C&RL News ■ May 2002 Discussions with the project team focused on the kind of online assessment tool that should be d eveloped, tested, and im ple­ mented. Although the original goal of the task force was to develop an online tutorial, stu­ dent responses and discussions with the mem­ bers of the project team indicated that a bet­ ter starting point w ould be a tool to assess student skills at the beginning of their first year. The project team identified several cam­ pus entities that w ould be able to assist with the developm ent and dissemination of the as­ sessm ent tool. Project team m em bers had been asked to serve based on their know l­ edge of students’ learning patterns, pedagogy, and technology. With their support and ad­ vice, the task force form ulated a proposal for interested m embers of the libraries’ advisory council. The proposal recommends an online skills assessm ent tool rather than an online tuto­ rial. A projected budget details the cost of developm ent, implementation, maintenance, and analysis. Concurrently, the task force is developing a list of possible com petencies to be evaluated with the online assessm ent tool. Conclusion The University Libraries’ administration and the libraries’ advisory council shared a per­ ception that a W eb-based library instruction tutorial was needed. The library instruction task force was formed in part to research and develop this instructional technology. Results of our initial investigations indicated that stu­ dents’ instructional needs differ from the sug­ gestions of the libraries’ advisory council: stu­ dents do not show trem endous interest in online Web tutorials. Due to students’ varied experiences with libraries and information-retrieval methods prior to arriving on campus, a logical first step w ould be a Web-based library skills assess­ m ent test. Members of the advisory commit­ tee and the project team support this idea. The latter group w ould assist in developing the test and the venues needed for its admin­ istration to students. To ensure objectivity, future questionnaire developm ent and focus groups w ould be conducted by profession­ als outside the library, in consultation with the task force. The coalition resulting from the first year’s w ork has been an unanticipated benefit. By communicating with members of the librar­ ies’ advisory council, we w ere able to build support at important administrative levels. We met with students and instructors from the FYC program in larger num bers than ever b e ­ fore. The project team will w ork with librar­ ians in new and innovative ways. In the coming year, w e hope that the task force’s proposal for the assessment process will be accepted and funded by interested members of the advisory council so that work can proceed. While the most tangible result is the commitment to at least two instructional sessions for FYS, the formation of strategic alliances with external groups is equally im­ portant. Notes 1. Please see Web site for full details: h ttp ://w w w .n d .e d u /~ re f d e p t/in s tru c tio n / libra rians/litf/ index. shtml. 2. Visit http://www.nd.edu/~refdept/instruc- tion/librarians/litf/focus_response.shtml). Bibliography 1. Brandt, D. Scott. “The multiple person­ alities of delivering training via the Web.” Computers in Libraries Y! (1997): 51-3. 2. Dewald, Nancy H. “W eb-based library instruction: What is good pedagogy?” Infor­ m ation Technology a n d Libraries 18,1 (1999): 26-31. 3. “Transporting good library instruction practices into the Web environment: an analy­ sis of online tutorials.” Jou rn a l o f Academ ic Librarian ship 25, 1 (1999): 26-31. 4. Greenbaum, Thomas L. M oderating f o ­ cus groups. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2000. 5. Merton, Robert Kind. The fo cu se d inter­ view. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan, 1990. 6. Michel, Stephanie. “What do they really think? Assessing student and faculty perspec­ tives of a W eb-based tutorial to library re­ search.” College a n d Research Libraries 62, 4 (2001): 317-32. 7. Morgan, David, ed. Successful fo c u s groups. Newbury Park, California: Sage Pub­ lications, 1993- (continued on page 358) http://www.nd.edu/~refdept/instruction/ http://www.nd.edu/~refdept/instruc-tion/librarians/litf/focus_response.shtml http://www.nd.edu/~refdept/instruc-tion/librarians/litf/focus_response.shtml C&RL News ■ M ay 2002 / 349 358 / C&RL N ew s ■ M a y 2002 dealing with scholarly comm unication issues unless it had strong leadership from the presi­ dent and the board as well as active partici­ pation from the m em bers at large. Because the scholarly comm unication agenda will re­ quire time, visibility, and an in-depth know l­ edge of the issues, the initiative cannot rely solely on volunteer efforts. In view of these factors, the task force rec­ om m ended that ACRL engage a visiting pro­ gram officer to w ork actively on scholarly comm unication issues and have primary re­ sponsibility for canying out the association’s scholarly comm unication agenda. The officer w ould also serve as a visible spokesperson for the association on these issues. In order to facilitate m em ber participa­ tion at the grass-roots level, the task force reco m m en d ed the form ation of an ACRL scholarly com m unication discussion group. The group should provide an opportunity for general m em ber participation and e d u ­ cation and function as a source of ideas as the scholarly com m unication agenda is d e ­ veloped. The success of ACRL’s strategic initiative on information literacy has show n that sig­ nificant initiatives need to be supported by a firm financial base. Accordingly, the task force believed ACRL should establish an annual budget for scholarly comm unication that ad­ dresses all planned areas of activity. Board action The report of the ACRL Scholarly Communi­ cations Task Force was submitted to the ACRL Board in January 2002, and its recom m en­ dations w ere unanim ously approved by the Board at the 2002 Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans. The Board resolved that w orking to reshape scholarly com m unication will be one of the organization’s highest strategic p riorities a n d that activities will include broad-based educational work, political ad­ vocacy, coalition building, and research. A standing com m ittee will be established, a visiting program officer will be hired, and ACRL will budget u p to $90,000 annually for the initiative. In a separate action, the Board approved the establishm ent of a scholarly com m unica­ tion discussion group, based on a petition of m em bers that was subm itted at the Midwin­ ter Meeting. N ext steps Real w ork on the initiative begins at Annual Conference with the initial meetings of the standing committee and discussion group and the confirmation of the first year’s budget. ACRL will then solicit candidates for the visit­ ing program officer position to begin in Sep­ tember. ACRL has taken strong action to address the ongoing crisis in scholarly com m unica­ tion. This new initiative will allow the asso­ ciation to play a prom inent national role in shaping the future of the scholarly com m uni­ c a tio n system in p a rtn e rs h ip w ith o th e r groups. We ask all ACRL m em bers to follow and support this initiative as it develops. ■ ( “The value o f . . c o n tin u ed fr o m p a g e 348) 8. Stewart, David W. Focus groups. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990. 9. Thomas, Susan J. Designing surveys that work. T housand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1999. 10. University of Texas at Austin. Libraries f o r the Future. (Survey & Focus Group Out­ line). Austin, Texas: Graduate School of Li­ brary and Information Science, 2000. ■