ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ January 2003 / 17 C o l l e g e & R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s news Those immersed resurface A follow up with Track 2 participants of the first Information Literacy Immersion by Michelle Toth S o w h a t h a p p e n s to all th o s e g re a t ideas and all that motivation that w e get when we attend conferences and professional de­ velopment opportunities? In the case o f the first Track 2 participants o f ACRL’s Institute for In­ formation Literacy’s Immersion program, quite a lot. Two years after the first Immersion program, a follow-up survey pursued this question and found where great ideas and motivation are taking li­ brarians and the institutions they work for. In July 1999, ACRL’s Institute for Inform a­ tion Literacy held its first Information Literacy Im mersion program at the State University o f New York (SUNY)-Plattsburgh. The Immersion experience offers two distinct tracks to provide “intensive training and education for academic librarians”1 in information literacy. Track 1 im­ merses participants in a curriculum focused on understanding information literacy and develop­ ing and improving individual teaching and assess­ ment skills. Track 2 participants, on the other hand, delve into the construction of programmatic plans and strategies for incorporating information lit­ eracy at libraries and institutions. The idea for this follow-up study emerged from conversations with the dean o f library and infor­ m ation services at SUNY-Plattsburgh, Cerise Oberman, following the 1999 Immersion program. While there are multiple aspects of the immersion experience that can be explored, the Track 2 goals o f designing and implementing action plans for information literacy integration were particularly intriguing. By examining the efforts o f Track 2 participants after the Immersion program, a study could provide a picture o f progress on the part of librarians, as well as an informal evaluation o f the Immersion program itself. On the second anniversary o f the first Immer­ sion program, in the summer o f 2001, a follow- up survey was sent to the first set o f Track 2 alumni. T he purpose o f this survey was to see which information literacy initiatives were being pursued at the institutions o f these Track 2 par­ ticipants. In addition, it sought to measure the progress institutions were making with these ini­ tiatives and to see how valuable the Immersion program was in preparing participants for these tasks. After the 1999 Immersion program, an elec­ tronic list was set up for the participants to con­ tinue to share and discuss issues o f information literacy. The call for participation in this survey went out to an electronic discussion list that had been set up for the alumni o f the 1999 Immersion program. O f the 51 Track 2 participants attend­ ing the Immersion, 35 replied that they would be willing to participate in this study. The s u rv e y The survey consisted o f three parts. The first sec­ tion gathered brief demographic information, while the second section outlined information literacy initiatives and asked respondents to rank their progress towards achieving those they selected. Respondents also rated the value o f the Immer­ sion program in working on these initiatives. The final section closed the survey with a few open- ended questions. The demographic section, which About the author Michelle Toth is instruction librarian a t the State University o f New York-Plattsburgh, e-mail: michelle.toth@plattsburgh.edu mailto:michelle.toth@plattsburgh.edu 18 / C&RL News ■ January 2003 Figure 1: Survey categories and initiatives C am pus Definitions, Missions, & Com m ittees 1. Establishing a campuswide definition for information literacy. 2. Getting inform ation literacy included in campus strategic and mission statem ent docu­ ments. 3. Establishing a campus w ide inform ation literacy committee/team/task force. 4 . H a v in g li b r a r i a n s s e r v e o n c a m p u s comm ittees influential on information literacy issues (i.e., gen. ed., assessment, planning). 5. Including information literacy in the campus’s general education or degree requirements. 6. (Write-in space) C a m p u s O u tr e a c h a n d S u p p o rt 7. Gaining administrative support for infor­ mation literacy initiatives and programs. 8. D evelop ing strategic collaborations with campus groups and services to reach faculty about information literacy. 9. H a v in g lib r a r ia n s r e c o g n iz e d as th e info rm atio n litera cy exp erts/ co n su ltan ts on campus. 10. Instituting outreach and training for faculty about information literacy. 11 . H a v in g fa c u lt y o n b o a r d a s a c tiv e stakeholders in information literacy education. 12. G ettin g dep artm ental re co g n itio n and cooperation in placing information literacy in majors/minors. 13. (Write-in space) R e s o u rc e s 14. Establishing a dedicated teaching space for library/information literacy instruction. 15. Renovating or upgrading instructional space for library/information literacy instruction. 16. Getting new information literacy programs/ initiatives supported by additional staff or staff time. 17. Getting new information literacy programs/ initiatives supported by additional technology. 18. Getting resources and time for outreach to faculty for including information literacy in courses. 19. (Write-in space) C u rricu lu m 20. Developing a campus curriculum that integrates information literacy. 21. Moving an information literacy program into a curriculum integrated model. 22. Moving information literacy skills into upper- level coursework. 2 3 . Setting learning objectives and goals for information literacy instruction. 24. Developing an information literacy program that reaches all students. 25. (Write-in space) A ssessm ent 26. Assessing preexisting information literacy programs. 27. Assessing current information literacy programs. 28. Revising programs and initiatives based on assessments. 29. (Write-in space) asked for information such as type and size o f institution and number and status o f librarians, was designed to help in the analysis of informa­ tion and ranking of the initiatives section. The identification and ranking o f initiatives section was generated after reading action plans written by the participants and reviewing elements covered in the Immersion program and in the lit­ erature. While every attempt was made to come up with a list o f initiatives that covered as many areas as possible, it would be impossible to cover them all. To address this, a blank box was left at the end o f each category to allow for write-in initiatives that were not otherwise listed. Figure 1 lists the initiatives included in the survey. In the survey, participants were asked to iden­ tify initiatives they and their institutions have worked on since the Immersion program. After identifying initiatives, participants proceeded to rank their progress and indicated how useful they found the Immersion experience in preparing them for these tasks. For ranking purposes, a scale o f one to five as used; number one indicated the smallest amount of progress or usefulness and number five indicated the most progress and usefulness. The open-ended questions at the end o f the survey asked the librarians their opinions on the Immer­ ion experience and the impact of initiatives on ampuses. O f the 35 surveys sent out, 22 were returned and 20 were used in this study for a return rate of 2.8 percent with 57.1 percent being used in the nalysis. Statistics were run on all 20 surveys. Then he 20 were broken down into three self-identify­ ing categories: Community and Technical Colleges, our-Year Colleges, and Ph.D. Granting Univer­ ities. Seven o f the twenty fell into the Commu­ ity and Technical College category, seven in the our-Year College category, and six in the Univer­ ity category. n a ly sis of th e d ata his first analysis o f the data has revealed that w s c 6 a t F s n F s A T C&RL News ■ January 2003 / 19 four of the 28 initiatives were being pursued in 17 or more of the 20 campuses reported. These four initiatives are: #7 “Gaining administra­ tive support for information literacy initiatives and programs,” #8 “Developing strategic col­ laborations with campus groups and services to reach faculty about information literacy,” #9 “Having librarians recognized as the infor­ mation literacy experts/consultants on cam ­ pus,” and #23 “Setting learning objectives and goals for information literacy instruction.” It was not surprising to find that three out o f the four m ost com m on initiatives identi­ fied by this study fell into the Campus Out­ reach and Support category of the survey. Most certainly gaining attention and support on cam­ pus is a crucial part o f m oving information literacy programs and goals forward. The strat­ egies o f identifying librarians as the experts in this area, gaining administrative support and collaborating with groups and services to in­ form the campus community present a well- rounded approach to reaching your campus. “Setting learning objectives and goals for in­ formation literacy instruction” was the one top initiative that fell outside o f the Campus Out­ reach and Support category o f the survey. While the importance of setting goals and objectives cannot by denied, the popularity of this initiative may have been a product of its time. During the first Immersion program in 1999, the draft o f the “Inform ation Literacy Com ­ petency Standards for Higher Education” was being widely circulated and discussed. In addi­ tion, the 1987 “Model Statem ent o f O b je c ­ tives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction” was under revision by an ACRL task force, and a draft o f the “Objectives for Information Lit­ eracy Instruction: A Model Statement for Aca­ demic Librarians” was available in the spring o f 2000. It will be interesting to see in addi­ tional studies w hether this initiative remains as frequently pursued among participants in the 2000, 2001, and oth er Im m ersion p ro­ grams. The progress librarians have made with their initiatives was perhaps the most difficult mea­ sure the survey attempted to make. While the survey was a ble to provide som e gauge o f progress for these initiatives, it has been able to do so only in a limited way. A num ber o f variables, such as the priority given an initia­ tive and the date work was started, w ere not measured by the survey. This may account for the sizable gap in the average scores ranging from 2.40 to 3.8 5 . Survey respon dents also indicated that they and their institutions were working on anywhere from seven to 23 differ­ ent initiatives since the Immersion program. The data do not adequately show the actual rate o f progress, but dem onstrate the work and effort that is being made to move informa­ tion literacy forward. Measuring the usefulness o f the Immersion program in preparing participants for working on their information literacy goals in the sur­ vey was more straightforward. The usefulness o f the Immersion program in preparing Track 2 participants for working on the top four ini­ tiatives is rated highly, with average scores rang­ ing from 3.66 to 4.0 on the five-point scale. What is remarkable about these numbers is that while we are typically enthusiastic about our professional development experiences the first few w eeks w e return from a conference or workshop, this set o f data shows that even after two years the Immersion exp erience is still being valued and used. While the data from this study may not con­ tribute to identifying “best practices,” it has identified common approaches for integrating information literacy and documents the value o f the Immersion program. This information can be used to refine the curriculum for future T rack 2 participants o f the Im m ersion pro­ gram and can be used by library organizations and committees in the development o f work­ shops on the topic o f integrating information literacy. It may also be useful to institutions identifying starting points for their efforts in working with information literacy. Finally, this information can be used as a starting point for continuing research and discussion. Particularly useful would be a longitudinal approach for tracking these and other Track 2 participants’ efforts. As a starting point, this work has begun the rewarding task o f documenting the efforts and progress o f librarians working on information literacy at their institutions and the impact o f the Immersion program in helping those aca­ demic librarians to achieve their goals. Notes 1. “Invitation to Apply” Inform ation Lit­ eracy Immersion Web page. 17-Sep-2001 [cited May 1 3, 2 0 0 2 ]. A v a ila b le fro m http:// www.ala.org/acrl/nili/immerapp.html. ■ http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/immerapp.html