ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 108 / C&RL News ■ February 2003 C o l l e g e & R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s ewsn Research agenda for library instruction and information literacy The updated version by the Research and Scholarship Committee of ACRL's Instruction Section T he “Research Agenda for Library Instruc­tion and Information Literacy” is organized into four main sections: learners, teaching, or­ ganizational context, and assessment. Each sec­ tion poses general questions with the goal of encouraging those interested— practitioners, researchers, and students alike— to conduct research around these important areas. Many studies published since the previous Research Agenda have focu sed on a specific environ­ ment, situation or audience, making it diffi­ cult to generalize the conclusions for other con­ texts. It is hoped that this Research Agenda will encourage researchers to experiment with a range o f research methods, to revisit issues and focus on different variables, and to col­ laborate among institutions so that results are meaningful for wider audiences. I. Learners Academic library users represent diverse ages, ethnicities, and abilities. Information-seeking behaviors, technological competencies, and re­ search skills vary widely among learners, pre­ senting a challenge for librarians. By under­ standing more about these audiences, instruc tion librarians can create meaningful educa­ tional environments and enduring library in­ struction programs that meet an individual’s current and future needs as a student and life­ long learner. A. Audiences Over the past 20 years, formal and informal library instruction has evolved to include many groups previously underserved or unacknowl­ edged. These populations include groups such as at-risk students, English-as-a-second-lan guage (ESL) and international students, stu­ dents with disabilities, returning adult students, off-campus and distance education students, high school groups, part-time and adjunct fac­ ulty, graduate and teaching assistants, campus staff, and administrators. Each o f these audi­ ences presents unique issues for library instruc­ tion and information literacy programs. 1. How has the emergence o f new campus audiences had an impact on academic library instruction? 2. How can instruction b est adapt to changes in the characteristics o f the audiences? 3. What issues should librarians be aware o f for m arketing and prom oting to these groups? 4. How might the type and timing o f in­ struction b e best tailored to each audience? B. Skills In order to use electronic information resources efficiently, scholars must sharpen their computer literacy and information literacy skills. Since many students turn to the Internet as their primary tool for research, they need technological competen­ cies and an increased sophistication in the selec­ tion of the materials, perhaps even more so than in the past. Critical evaluation, ethical use of online content, and focus on the new technologies them­ selves have become important facets for inclusion in instruction programs for students and faculty alike. C&RL News ■ F ebruary 2003 / 109 H istory In the April 1980 issue o f C&RL News, the ACRL Bibliographic Instruction Section Re­ search Committee published the “Research Agenda for Bibliographic Instruction.” The Research Agenda outlined important research questions related to instruction programs in aca­ demic libraries, with the hope that research w ou ld inform decisions about effective ap­ proaches for providing, managing, and evaluat­ ing classes and programs. Since its release 20 years ago, many aspects o f the instructional en­ vironment have changed, including identifica­ tion o f new user populations, development of increasingly networked technologies, reorgani­ zation o f campus agencies, increased emphasis on academic accountability, and an evolving educational role for libraries and librarians. Charged with updating the document in 2000, the ACRL Instruction Section (IS ) Research and Scholarship Com mittee re- 1. H o w have information-seeking behav­ iors o f library users changed? 2. H o w has use o f the Web changed per­ ceptions and use o f the library? 3. H o w is technology altering the need for certain types o f skills? 4. W hat impact does the relationship b e­ tw een students’ actual and perceived library and research skill levels have on their informa tion-seeking behaviors? C. Learning styles Tailoring library instruction sessions to accom­ modate various learning styles— such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic— has gained prominence in the past few decades. Discerning how different learners will learn most effectively, how to bal­ ance the variety o f styles preferred in one class, and how to adapt to these learning styles in both traditional and online learning environments re­ quires special attention. 1. H o w effective are different methods o f instruction for addressing various learning styles? 2. W hat characteristics o f learning en vi­ ronments positively impact the experiences o f people with each o f the various learning styles? 3. What impact do different learning styles have on the effectiveness o f various teaching methodologies? view ed research articles formally published in the United States and gathered input from national conferences to identify important research areas relevant to academic library instruction programs in the current environ­ ment. W hile many o f the original issues still lacked substantial research, new themes also arose. Similarly, the scope o f the document was expanded to include an emphasis on in­ formation literacy, reflecting the transition that our institutions and organizations are experiencing. The ACRL IS Research and Scholarship Committee members, 2000-2002, are: Eliza­ beth Dupuis (chair), Melissa Becher, Susan Brant, Jeffrey Bullington, Jean Caspers, Jeris Cassel, Elizabeth Evans, Karen Evans, Carolyn Frenger, Allison Level, Cynthia Levine, Glenn McGuigan, John Riddle, Linda Roccos, and Joseph Yue. 4. W hat impact does the Internet, as a teaching tool, have on learning styles, and what are the implications for library instruction? II. Teaching As with all instruction, library instruction and information literacy can be informed by a vari­ ety o f pedagogical theories and techniques. The design and implementation o f a library class or course w ill be driven largely by the teaching m ethodology the instructor adopts. Methods, such as problem-based learning, collaborative learning, and hands-on learning; tools, such as presentation software or electronic classrooms; and the nature o f the class, such as credit, non­ credit, course-integrated, or optional, all af­ fect the impact o f the instruction given. Main­ taining the skill sets to address all o f these issues relates to ongoing questions about pro­ fessional developm ent for those teaching re­ search and information literacy skills. A. Pedagogy Library instruction has foundations in edu­ cational pedagogies including liberal, tradi­ tional, behavioral, progressive, and radical. Si­ multaneously, the pedagogy o f library instruc­ tion is furthered by its engagement with disci­ plines— such as cognitive science, information architecture and design, and human-computer 110 / C&RL News ■ February 2003 interaction— and concepts such as action re­ search, distance education, home-schooling, learning communities, and multiculturalism. There is a continuing need for research into the pedagogical basis o f library instruction and the application o f educational theories and methodologies to actual library instruction. 1. Has library instruction developed its own theoretical basis and methodologies? If not, should it? 2. What is the scholarship o f teaching and what has been its impact on library instruc­ tion? 3. H ow has the pedagogy o f library instruc tion been affected by the emergence o f such concepts and disciplines as listed above? 4. Is library instruction an appropriate set­ ting for teaching critical thinking skills and evaluation o f information? I f so, what are the best ways to approach these concepts? B. Design and implementation Traditional library instruction classes are de­ veloped based on many factors, including vary­ ing characteristics o f the audience and assign­ ments, course nature and curricula, classroom settings, availability o f instructional tools, and faculty needs. Development o f information lit­ eracy courses or components involves a more holistic approach to determining the educa­ tional needs o f students as they progress through their academic lives, as w ell as col­ laboration with other librarians and educators. 1. What are effective models o f library in­ struction for general versus subject-specific courses? 2. H ow does the structure and delivery o f instruction differ when organized according to goals or concepts, such as lifelong learning, sub­ ject-based teaching, course-integrated instruc­ tion, course-related instruction, or credit-bear ing library courses? 3. To what extent can instructional projects created to serve one audience be effectively adapted to serve others, such as a program de­ signed for distance education students adapted for the general campus user population or vice- versa? 4. Can effective, scalable instruction be de­ veloped for institutions o f all sizes? C. Methods o f instruction Educational techniques— such as tours and demonstrations, active learning, problem-based learning, social or community-based learning, self-directed or independent learning, and ac­ tion learning— can all be adapted for the range o f traditional, electronic, and virtual learning environments. In each environment, it is im­ portant to consider what array o f approaches to instruction— such as formalized classes dur­ ing the course time, voluntary-attendance workshops, online assistance, and one-on-one consultations— provide the most effective sup­ port for learners. Approaches for the develop­ ment o f effective library assignments, resources, and tutorials in print and online deserve more concentrated research. 1. Can traditional teaching methods be suc­ cessfully applied to Web-based instruction? 2. H o w effective is online instruction as compared to more traditional instruction meth­ ods? 3. Are problem-based assignments more ef­ fective than library-created assignments? 4. H ow effective are stand-alone assign­ ments compared to course-integrated assign­ ments? 5. H o w can assignments effectively inte­ grate print and digital information sources? 6. What is the relationship between effec­ tive instruction and the timing o f assignments? 7. H ow effective are different types o f de­ livery methods for course-related instruction? 8. H ow can libraries effectively build upon the relationships betw een formal library instruction , one-on-one consultations, and inte­ grated information literacy skills? D. Library teaching and continuing education Recognition o f the need for ongoing edu­ cation for librarians providing instruction has grow n significantly in recent years. Various models currently exist within the profession for developing instruction skills, including li­ brary school courses, continuing education pro­ grams, workshops, seminars, conferences, in­ stitutes, computer-based instruction, and texts; however, research could determine the need for and impact o f directing additional resources towards developin g librarians’ instructional techniques and expertise. 1. What are the most effective ways for a librarian, w ho has previously done little or no teaching, to learn fundamental methodologies and pedagogies? 2. What educational skills from other teach­ ing professions are relevant for librarians? C&RL News ■ February 2003 / 7 7 7 3. H o w can an institution ensure that li­ brarians participating in information literacy efforts have the knowledge and skills to make the program successful? 4. What impact does assessment o f instruc­ tion, such as teaching portfolios or peer obser­ vation, have in the promotion and tenure pro­ cess? III. Organizational context Library instruction exists both as a function within the library and as a part o f the overall mission o f the university, college, or educa­ tional institution. Library instruction and in­ formation literacy programs can be organized and managed according to different models, influenced by the internal structure o f the li­ brary. The success o f information literacy and library instruction initiatives is also highly de­ pendent on the larger institutional environ­ ment. Factors such as the level o f cooperation between academic departments, the perception o f librarians as teachers and faculty colleagues, and expectations for the library determine how these programs are implemented and sustained. A .R elαtio›n ship within the library organizational structure T h e organizational structure o f informa­ tion literacy or library instruction programs varies from library to library. Some examples o f specific organizational models include a separate instruction unit or department with librarians assigned to it, team coordination o f instruction, an instruction coordinator w h o does not supervise librarians directly, and in­ struction duties merged with reference or sub­ ject responsibilities. Organizational differences determine instruction librarians’ responsibili­ ties within the library, with academic depart­ ments, and elsewhere in the institution. Ques­ tions remain about the benefits and drawbacks o f different organizational models. 1. What impact do different organizational models have on library instruction? 2. H o w does instruction as a function over­ lap with, and what is its impact on, other ser­ vices in the library such as reference, distance education, and Web development? 3. What professional roles and responsibili­ ties would enhance the ability o f librarians to provide high-quality instruction? 4. Is it more effective for generalists, sub­ ject specialists, or a combination o f the tw o at different levels to teach information literacy and library instruction? 5. What incentives support the d e ve lo p ­ ment and delivery o f high-quality library in­ struction? B. Relationship to the larger institutional envir onment To formulate an effective instruction pro­ gram, it is necessary to understand and work effectively with administrators, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community patrons. Fa­ miliarity with departments and campus orga­ nizations similarly concerned with student edu­ cational outcomes— such as faculty teaching centers, writing centers, and evaluation agen­ cies— and participation in campus-wide plan­ ning offer possibilities for n ew partnerships. Issues such as faculty status o f librarians, pro­ motion and tenure guidelines, and institutional governance are important factors to consider when implementing changes in existing instruc­ tional programs or developing new ones. 1. What university characteristics— aca­ demic, administrative, or cultural— lead to an environment supportive o f library instruction? 2. H o w d o e s the p e rc e p tio n o f the librarian’s status and role in a student’s educa­ tion affect the success o f library instruction initiatives? 3. D o campus-wide information literacy re­ quirements facilitate quality library instruction programs, and if so, how? 4. H o w can w e identify and w o rk with courses, academic departments, and other of­ fices providing student and faculty support to ensure that library instruction has a broad im­ pact? 5. H o w can standards for information lit­ eracy be coordinated with and com plem ent P a n e l se ssio n The Research Agenda for Library Instruction and Information Literacy will be the subject o f a panel session, “Put instruction on Your (Research) Agenda,” at the ACRL 11th Na­ tional Conference, April 10-13, 2003. Inquiries and suggestions are welcome, con­ tact Committee Chair Melissa Becher at e-mail: mbecher@american.edu or visit the commit­ tee Web site at http://www.ala.org/acrl/is/ commitee/webpages/research/index.html. mailto:mbecher@american.edu http://www.ala.org/acrl/is/ 112 / C&RL News ■ February 2003 other professional organization standards, sub ject-area standards, K-12 standards, or other model academic standards? C. Relationship with faculty A primary goal o f many library instruction programs is to support the courses and cur­ ricula o f the institution. As an increasing fo ­ cus is placed on sustaining information literacy programs, coordination with the faculty re­ sponsible for planning and offering the courses becomes essential. Whether promoting a library instruction program, consulting about assign­ ments, or team-teaching a course, relationships with faculty members on an individual and de­ partmental level become preeminent. 1. What techniques are effective for pro­ moting course-related instruction services to faculty? 2. H ow can librarians and teaching faculty partner to ensure that students gain informa­ tion literacy skills? 3. What are the benefits and drawbacks o f team teaching with faculty? 4. T o what extent are nonlibrary faculty receptive to collaboration with librarians, and what factors influence receptivity? 5. What are the characteristics o f effective research instruction conducted by teaching fac­ ulty, teaching assistants, or other nonlibrarians? 6. Do the different ways in which librarians and teaching faculty perceive research have an effect on how students learn research skills? IV. Assessment Assessment and evaluation are essential parts o f documenting the effects o f library instruction and information literacy programs. Future research in the areas o f assessment, evaluation, and transferability needs to address involvement from stakeholders other than li­ brarians and include an integration o f disci pline-based standards or model academic stan­ dards. Information literacy programs need to show that skills learned are transferable from one discipline to another and from secondary school to higher education and beyond. A. Evaluation of instructors and programs Evaluation o f instruction and information literacy programs is a key component in deter­ mining the value o f programs, activities, and techniques within the educational process and to determine areas needing attention. Admin­ istrators are demanding justification for pro­ grams through cost-benefit analyses o f pro­ grams and activities, and requiring evidence of successful learning outcomes. 1. What are the most effective and ethical methods for evaluating librarians as teachers? 2. What variables must be considered in research questions to measure outcomes for a library instruction or an information literacy program? 3. What are the most effective tools for assessing the impact o f a library instruction or an information literacy program? 4. H o w effective are formative versus summative assessments of instruction in libraries? 5. H ow can w e institute a culture o f assess­ ment at our libraries? B. Assessment o f learning outcomes Assessment o f educational outcomes pro­ vides measurable accountability for both teacher and learner. An increasing number o f articles are focusing on assessing learning out­ comes in relation to specific goals and stan­ dards. The research literature focuses prima­ rily on first-level students in general courses (e.g., composition) with increasing emphasis on discipline-based courses (e.g., education, en­ gineering, music, psychology) and a few articles on graduate and doctoral level students and courses. There is also an increasing number of articles on the collaboration o f faculty and li­ brarians in assessing/evaluating library instruc­ tion. Surveys, case studies, and pre-tests and post-tests continue to represent the assessment/ evaluation tools most used. The tools are ad­ ministered most often to students who partici­ pated in some form o f library instruction, i.e., course-integrated sessions, credit courses, and tutorials. 1. In what ways does information literacy instruction have a lasting impact on the ways individuals approach or think about research? 2. H ow do library instruction and library usage impact academic success? 3. H ow can assessment o f information lit­ eracy be integrated into other institutional as­ sessment measurements? 4. What are the most effective tools for benchmarking information literacy abilities and progress? 5. What, if any, standardized testing meth­ ods can be developed to assess information lit­ eracy abilities in various groups o f learners? C&RL News ■ February 2003 / 113 6. What are the most cost-effective meth­ ods for assessment o f learning outcomes? C. Transferability Transferability o f successful models o f in­ form ation literacy programs— w hether b e ­ tw een courses at the same institution or b e­ tw een institutions— is important for further­ ing collaboration and developin g models o f best practices. Current research concentrates on assessing the instruction designed for spe­ cific research projects, and focuses on student attitudes, opinions, and satisfaction with a li­ brary instruction experience and library research experience. The literature is lacking in longitu­ dinal studies on the impact o f library instruc­ tion, and the transferability o f secondary school library instruction learning outcomes to higher education and on into adult life. 1. H ow are the skills and knowledge devel­ oped through library instruction transferable to other research assignments, adult life situa­ tions, and the workplace? 2. H o w can librarians maximize the trans­ ferability o f skills from one class to another, or one campus to another? 3. What is the correlation between library instruction and research skill im provem ent during four years o f undergraduate educa­ tion? ■ ( “Rem oving barriers to research ” continued from , page 94) Notes 1. This list only applies to the literature for which the permission crisis is solved. In my terms, it only applies to open-access literature, not to all literature. The items in the list overlap somewhat, not only with one another, but with items bearing on the solution to the pricing crisis. 2. The only constraint that authors might want to enforce is that no one should distrib­ ute mangled or misattributed copies. This is a reason for authors to retain copyright. Authors w h o don’t care to enforce these constraints, or w h o live in moral-rights countries where they are enforceable even without copyright, could put their works into the public domain. 3. Open Archives Initiative, http://www. openarchives.org/. 4. There are two packages o f open-source soft­ w are for OAI-com pliant archives: Eprints (Southampton University), http://software. eprints.org/, and Dspace (MIT), http://web.mit. edu/dspace/. 5. Peter Suber, “Momentum for Eprint Archiving,” Free Online Scholarship Newsletter, A u gu st 8, 2002, s e co n d story, http:// makeashorterlink.com/?Xll423092. 6. For more details, see the Self-Archiving FAQ‚ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/. 7. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Re­ sources Coalition (SPARC) maintains the most comprehensive list o f journal-management soft­ ware, http ://w w w .arl.org/sparc/core/index. asp?page=hl6. Some o f this software is expen­ sive and some o f it is free and open-source. An example o f the latter is the Public Knowledge P ro ject’s O p e n Journal Systems, http:// www.pkp.ubc.ca/ojs/. 8. BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral. com/. 9. For more on the funding model for open- access journals, see Budapest Open Access Initia­ tive FAQ, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ fos/boaifaq.htm. Peter Suber, “Where Does the Free Online Scholarship Movement Stand Today?” Cortex, 38, 2 (April 2002): 261-64. http:// www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/cortex.htm. Peter Suber, Open Access to the Scientific Jour­ nal Literature," Journal o f Biology, 1,1 Øune 2002) page 3f. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writ- ing/jbiol.htm. 10. What librarians can do to facilitate open access in general, http://www.soros.org/ openaccess/help.shtm# ibraries. What librarians can do to facilitate eprint archiving in particular, http://www.eprints.0rg/self-faq/#libraries-d0. Answering some library-specific questions and o b je c tio n s ab ou t o p e n -a cc e s s , http:// makeashorterlink.com/?G27212392. Reprinted in Walt Crawford’s Cites and Insights, November, 2002, pages 12-14, http://home.att.net/ ~wcc.techx/civ2i 14.pdf. 11. What scholars can d o to facilitate open access in general, http://www.soros.org/ openaccess/help.shtml#scholars. What scholars can do to facilitate eprint archiving in particular, http://www.eprints.Org/self-faq/#researcher/ authors-do. ■ http://www http://software http://web.mit http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/ojs/ http://www.biomedcentral http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/cortex.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writ- http://www.soros.org/ http://www.eprints.0rg/self-faq/%23libraries-d0 http://home.att.net/ http://www.soros.org/ http://www.eprints.Org/self-faq/%23researcher/