information literacy standards

An Open Letter Regarding the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education

ACRLog welcomes a guest post from Heather Dalal, Assistant Professor I-Librarian at Rider University.

Some of the members of the ACRL-NJ/NJLA CUS User Education Committee and the VALE NJ Shared Information Literacy Committees have collaborated on an Open Letter Regarding the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. We are appreciative of the work of the Task Force who have developed the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. However, there are a number of concerns about this new document that have not been adequately addressed in revisions and that we would like the ACRL Board to take into consideration when the Task Force presents its final draft.

The current standards should not be discarded; they should be revised to be used in tandem with the Framework. The task force has created a new document that establishes a theoretical basis for information literacy. This does not replace standards. In an early article about threshold concepts for information literacy, Townsend, Brunetti, and Hofer (2009) recommended threshold concepts as “ideas that would add new layers of meaning to the current standards and integrate those standards into a more coherent body of knowledge.” The standards could be updated to reflect the expanded concepts in the Framework. But we still need standards. Why?
- “Standards” is a powerful and clear word. It sets uniform goals and acceptable levels of achievement. We should claim our right to set such standards in our own knowledge domain (call it a discipline if you want). We disagree with the notion that the concept of standards is outdated. AASL has standards to help support their professionals as “education leaders”. Other academic groups (such as the National Council of Teachers of English) have adopted standards for their programs (see Writing Across the Curriculum). A conversation around “standards” is now also part of the national dialogue on improving education in the United States. Many states are adopting “common core” standards for K-12. Our president & our governors are initiating conversation about curriculum change around the “common core standards” and major media outlets are covering this issue in depth. “Standards” are now part of the vernacular.
- There are political implications of losing the standards when other non-library agencies – for example, Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), Association of American Colleges & Universities, NJ Council of County Colleges – have finally adopted them, which took years of engagement on the part of many librarians. To say that “this is not an issue for the accrediting agencies and they will work with what we have” is naïve. MSCHE just dropped information literacy and libraries from their “Characteristics of Excellence” and librarians fought diligently to get it reinstated. This Task Force is not helping us make our case on the importance of information literacy. They seem tone deaf to the politics of Higher Ed. Standards have easily been used to articulate active learning outcomes that everyone understands. They have practical applications that are universally understood. The theory outlined in the Framework is good and should be retained but supported with standards. There is room for both documents — the Threshold Concepts providing an overall theoretical structure and the IL Standards providing skills, learning objectives and suggested assessments. The power of the standards was that they were NOT local. Are we going backwards to insist that each locality ‘interpret’ the Framework according to their own standard? ACRL has other standards. Why are we comfortable being prescriptive about library collections but not about instructional goals?
- We disagree with the notion that standards are outdated as indicated in (a) above. National conversations about education are centered on the idea of standards. The concept of standards is widely understood as a level of quality to be attained.
- The Standards are working well in New Jersey academic libraries. It has taken many years for NJ librarians to communicate and integrate the Standards in their own institutions, and we have been rather successful. We have seen wide adoption by individual institutions of the Standards and their integration into a variety of curricula for instruction and assessment. We have also worked with K-12 colleagues to develop Information Literacy Progression Standards that articulate the skills that should be learned in the first two years of college. These standards are endorsed by NJ State College Council of Academic Vice Presidents and the Provosts at senior public colleges and universities. We planned to continue progression standards through the 3rd and 4th years and graduate school, but put those efforts on hold during this revision process. In 2011, the New Jersey General Education Foundation was revised to reflect the difference between “technological competency” and “information literacy,” establishing IL as a general education integrated course goal – a skill that should be integrated in courses throughout a general education curriculum. Such work was made possible by the outcomes-based competencies defined in the Standards. There is no advantage to confusing our non-library colleagues with new jargon, when the core ideas and learning goals remain the same.

It is NOT counterproductive to map the IL Standards to the IL Framework. So many curriculum maps and programs have been designed with the IL Standards as the foundation. As stated above, the Standards do need revising, and in doing so can be mapped to the Framework to create cohesive documents that are used in tandem. The Framework as it is written can not be “implemented,” a fact that the task force has acknowledged in its declaration that the Framework is not prescriptive. Rather than recommending that ACRL form an “implementation task force,” the next task force should be dedicated to revising the standards in light of the Framework, and in a way that they are still useful for teaching and measuring information literacy skills.

The Framework is a theoretical document which makes it difficult to assess outcomes. Assessment continues to be an integral part of higher education. By relying solely on a theoretical framework that is not assessable, we are making information literacy irrelevant to the learning outcomes emphasis in higher education.

The entire framework is filled with jargon, especially the new definition of information literacy. It’s not even library jargon, it is educational jargon that does not resonate with librarians, the primary audience. Only faculty in a few disciplines (education, psychology, and writing) will relate to this document. We disagree with FAQ #8 that the Framework is designed to be shared with faculty, and the introductory statements for faculty and administrators are insufficient. In addition, the Framework can provide a catalyst for instruction programs to have a more cohesive approach to curriculum mapping or scaffolding yet, because of the jargon and the removal of the standards, it actually sets librarians back to square one where we will need to re-educate our faculty with new terminologies and thus lose the momentum that was gained with the standards.

The lack of parallel structure of the frames is grammatically jarring. Yes, this is discussed in the FAQ; however, the frames will eventually be reduced to their simple titles. We are academics and we should make the effort to use the English language as precisely as possible. There surely can be another way to maintain parallel structure and the meaning behind the current titles. In fact, the statement from the FAQ, “Information creation is indeed a process, but it is much more than that, and this Frame focuses on the one aspect of the creation process” does not seem to make sense. If the Frame focuses on creation, then stating “Information Creation is a Process” captures exactly what the Frame intends: the process of creating information, isolated from the many other things that information is. Also, consider “Inquiry is Essential to Research” as a concept that encapsulates what is intended by that Frame while keeping parallel structure. We urge the Task Force to make a greater effort to re-title the Frames.

Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully,

Cara Berg, William Paterson University, Reference Librarian/Co-Coordinator of User Education, Co-Chair of VALE Shared Information Literacy Committee
Leslin Charles, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Kilmer Library, Instructional Design/Education Librarian
Steve Chudnick, Brookdale Community College, Department Chair, Reference/Instruction Librarian
Heather Cook, Caldwell University, Learning Commons Librarian
Heather Dalal, Rider University; Co-Chair of ACRL-NJ/NJLA CUS User Education
Megan Dempsey, Raritan Valley Community College, Instructional Services Librarian; Co-Chair of VALE Shared Information Literacy Committee
Eleonora Dubicki, Monmouth University, Reference/Instruction Librarian
Chris Herz, Rowan College at Gloucester County, Reference Librarian
Amanda Piekart, Berkeley College; Co-chair of ACRL-NJ/NJLA CUS User Education Committee
Lynee Richel, County College of Morris, Coordinator of Instructional Services
Davida Scharf, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Director of Reference & Instruction
Theodora Haynes, Rutgers University – Camden, Instruction Coordinator
Roberta Tipton, Rutgers University – Newark, Instruction Coordinator
Mina Ghajar, College of Saint Elizabeth, Assistant Director, Research & Access Services

If you would like to show your support for this letter, please add your name to the public signature page. You can also see the list of signatures already collected.

Using the New Framework to Teach Ferguson

In moments like the reaction to Brown’s death, we need more engagement, not less, and each of us has something to offer. –#FergusonSyllabus by David M. Perry

Last week, on November 24^th, the grand jury of St Louis County announced their decision not to indict Darren Wilson for the August 9^th murder of Michael Brown. A flurry of conversation and protest started. People began tweeting and media outlets started covering multiple cities across the nation (and the world) that were protesting in solidarity with Ferguson. London, Atlanta, Boston, New York, and Chicago were just a few that participated.

Amidst the tweets expressing outrage and shock about the decision, a conversation began about education, pedagogy, and the nation’s youth. Marcia Chatelain, an Assistant History Professor at Georgetown, had already started the conversation in late August with #FergusonSyllabus. But the decision not to indict revitalized the conversation. More educators—of any level, from elementary school teachers to college professors—added suggestions under the hashtag. Moreover, blogs and media outlets started to curate the resources being shared and interview other educators about best practices for starting the Ferguson conversation.

A passage from Dissent illustrates the complexity and magnitude of the effort:

“A middle school teacher in Madison, Wisconsin had students review the grand jury evidence. Meanwhile, I had my students in Washington, D.C. connect the Ferguson decision to Rosa Parks’s activism in seeking trials for black women raped by white men in the South. Volunteers in Ferguson read books from #FergusonSyllabus to children—unexpectedly out of school again—at the local public library.”

Some of the most profound teaching recommendations (I think) came from instructors that were utilizing inquiry-based teaching models. By encouraging students to construct their own meaning and giving them a space to do, these instructors stimulated critical thinking, metacognition, and deep self-reflection in their students. One such example, from an instructor named Melissa, was featured in the New York Times Blog. Here are some of the insightful, open-ended questions she posed to her students:

What is justice?
How can we enforce it?
Who should enforce it?
What factors stand in the way of justice?
Do we need police? If so, what should be their job?
What role does/should the media play?
How did the media frame Michael Brown’s shooting and why? (Looking at various media outlets, including the New York Times obituary, which surprised me…)
Why do humans hold prejudices and how can we acknowledge them and move on?

The variety of topics introduced range from racism, housing inequality, and militarization of the police to international human rights. This movement has even gone beyond the humanities. PBS reported that science teachers were also challenging their students with issues surrounding Ferguson. One example included an instructor asking his students to learn more about tear gas and its effects on the human body.

Yet, the conversation—at least publically—on education and Ferguson has been almost silent in the library world. Some of the incredible #critlib folks mentioned it in passing in regards to critical pedagogy, but otherwise it is difficult to find other conversations. Many have rightfully acknowledged the Ferguson Public Library and their instrumental support of the community. But there still seems to be a gap in librarians’ conversation and sharing of resources, specifically among those of us that do instruction and work directly with students on information literacy.

And there is a need for our voices! The same PBS transcript featured the following conversation:

Jeffery Brown: You know, Liz Collins, you just said something a minute ago about determining the truth. When information is coming at us so quickly, especially in social media, there’s misinformation, right? How do you — how have you dealt with that?

Liz Collins: That’s so tricky and something that teenagers deal with all the time, because they love Twitter, and Facebook, and Instagram, and the information moves faster than the fact-checking. So, I think that’s an important lesson for them to learn across the board. Just because you’re getting this information, who’s the source? How trustworthy is it? What’s that person or organization’s bias? What do they want you to think and why?And I think teaching them to challenge that and think about that goes beyond this issue, but also gives them a lens with which to approach this issue as more and more facts come out. And every day, we’re learning more and more about what happened and having to sift through all those facts. And I think teaching that skill is valuable in any subject and easily transferable.

If this isn’t information literacy, folks, I don’t know what is. It might be a coincidence that ACRL released the third version of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education exactly two weeks prior to the grand jury’s decision, but I think that we should see it as an opportunity.

Several pieces of the new Framework challenge us to teach students these exact skills. The issues in Ferguson can be a current, relevant, and important vehicle for students to explore their information literacy skills in. Here is an introductory list of the more salient examples in the newest document that could reflect issues specific to Ferguson as well as questions/ starting points librarians might use to form learning outcomes and activities:

Experts understand the need to determine the validity of the information created by different authorities and to acknowledge biases that privilege some sources of authority over others, especially in terms of others’ worldviews, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural orientations (lines 160-164)

What type and/ or medium of information is privileged? What are some structural reasons for this?
How might you be an active member of the information ecosystem in combatting this privilege? What specific forms of communication might you use?
What modes of communication lend themselves to bias? How can you detect bias about current events like the issues in Ferguson?

Recognize that authoritative content may be packaged formally or informally and may include audio, visual, and other nonprint sources (lines 185-186)

Find an example of authoritative, visual content about Ferguson. What type of source is this (primary or secondary)? Why do you consider it authoritative?
Compare a tweet, blog post, and news source about Ferguson. Which one(s) are authoritative and why? Does authority always correlate with medium?

Understand the increasingly social nature of the information ecosystem where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time (lines 191-192)

Find one conversation on Twitter that includes more than two people and has more than ten tweets. How were opinions changed? Were beliefs confirmed or challenged? Was anything cited and if so what impact did that have?

Understand how and why some individuals or groups of individuals may be underrepresented or systematically marginalized within the systems that produce and disseminate information (lines 276-278)

Find one source where a protester is interviewed (not just photographed). How difficult was it? How is the protestor portrayed? How does this portrayal relate to the medium and/or the article’s author’s affiliation?

Employ critical skills to evaluate information; effectively resolve conflicting information; monitor gathered information and assess for gaps or weaknesses (lines 319-321)

Find two sources that express conflicting information about what happened between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson. Where are gaps present in either? What sources do they have (eye witnesses, forensic evidence, etc.)? What conclusions did you reach and why?

This work is hard, especially if you only have one-shot sessions. But it’s still important. For those of us that would rather stick with looking at peer review or studying the information cycle, David B. Cohen has some wise words to offer. He challenges us to think about this singular time in history as well as what we want and expect our students, the future leaders of this country, to be able to do:

And for some students who will most certainly remember this time, we’ll have to explain why this particular event—and the tragic pattern in which it fits—that mattered so much to them was not worth our time, not considered educationally relevant (emphasis mine)

We must remind our students that both stories and information are not one-sided but instead very complex and contextual. Despite some technical flaws I (and others) might see in the Framework, it is clear our profession is moving in this direction. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie articulates what happens when people engage with only one story or perspective:

The consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar- “The Danger of a Single Story”

As librarians, we must still continually remember that failing to teach students to be perceptive, empathetic critical thinkers has immense consequences for our entire society.

Note: It would be impossible for me to cover all of the brilliant blogs, tweets, and summaries of teaching material covering Michael Brown’s death within this forum. This is in no way an exhaustive list. Please feel free to explore more sources on your own and tailor the pedagogical conversation to your area of expertise.

Likewise, the ideas generated from passages in the Framework are merely starting points intended to start conversation. They are not meant to be prescriptive or exhaustive. Librarians should adapt these ideas (and other parts of the Framework) to best accommodate their teaching constraints and style.

Librarians Meet the Commissioners, Live: The Middle State Accreditation Standards Revisions Redux

ACRLog welcomes a guest post from Beth Evans, Electronic Services Librarian and Africana Studies/PRLS/Women’s Studies Specialist at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

If the recent town hall meeting of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in Albany, New York had been a boxing match, you might have easily concluded that the librarians won in a forceful effort to help shape the revision of the accreditation standards document. One third of all those who stood up to speak spoke in defense of the work librarians do on college campuses across the region. Furthermore, not all of those who spoke were librarians. Librarians had allies among the classroom faculty present. One history professor closed out the comment period with an impassioned call for all to recognize the seductions of the latest trends as not having the tested value of some of what has been with us for centuries. In particular, he referenced libraries.

The overwhelming response of librarians to the call for action in the ACRLog post of January 27, 2014 and other forums had a resounding effect.

While some may feel librarians and library concerns dominated the open discussion at the MSCHE meeting – one speaker from the audience, not a librarian, elicited a laugh from all when she introduced herself and made a particular point of saying that she was not a librarian – in an odd sort of way, it might be argued that libraries lost some ground in this critical round with the Middle State Commissions. Yes, there was a victory, and a strong victory it was. The chair of the steering committee, in a conversation before the proceedings, in introductory comments to the assembled audience, and throughout the open comments period, apologized for the omission of the words “information literacy” from what will become the new Characteristics of Excellence. It was a mistake, he said. An embarrassment. We were wrong and we are going to correct it.

The Middle States Commission, the same accrediting body that Steven J. Bell had called “a good friend to academic librarians…an early adopter of specific language in its standards addressing information literacy as a desired learning outcome,” had made a boo-boo and was more than ready to make it better.

Information literacy was in. But libraries were out. So were laboratories, art studios, physical education facilities, and any other tangible objects, for this is a standards document focused on the student learning experience and not on the counting of things. Never mind that certain things, ranging from large, physical facilities and infrastructure (including infrastructure that allows for learning in a non-physical or virtual setting) to the smaller tools of education from brushes to beakers to books, play an indispensable role in the educational process. As the president of the Commission warned those present, any attempts to be specific and proscriptive in the new document would endanger the future viability of the accreditation process. Counting library books, in particular, was noted as an out-dated methodology, something to be steered clear of in a modern evaluation of a college. A number of other vitals have dropped from consideration. Faculty is a word less used in the current proposed standards. Faculty used to be covered as a standard of its own. According to the Commission, some of their members do not employ faculty. So faculty are not required to make a college and neither are libraries.

Most librarians would agree with the Commission that counting books is not a fair way to measure the adequacy of a college. Librarians are the first to acknowledge that we own less and less of what we consider to be our collections and lease more and more. Our big e-book packages see titles come and go, often with the result that we will give up on cataloging whatever books are in an electronic package to save ourselves the effort later of removing titles from the OPAC. Counting these books as a way to define our libraries would be like counting each raindrop as it falls, and then disappears on a lake, or worse, down a drain.

Indeed, the visible physicality of the academic library has been on the decline since the end of the card catalog, through the advent of CD-ROMs, to standardized access to databases through the internet. Nonetheless, Jason Kramer, the Executive Director of the New York State Higher Education Initiative, a library lobbying and advocacy group, made a forecast at the MSCHE town hall meeting this past April first. If the physical functions of what libraries do—the thoughtful selecting and the collective acquiring of and providing access to resources on the behalf of many—is not taken into equal account with the established and now well-accepted role of librarians as key in the educational path towards information literacy, legislators will see this as an opportunity to deny funding for library resources. It will be April Fool’s Day for many days going forward and it will be libraries who are the ones who will have been duped. In other words, if higher education standards documents make no mention of the need for a college or a university to acquire valuable, and sometimes costly, information resources as one way in which they are defined as an institution of higher learning, then those elected officials who see that tax dollars make their way back into the economy will pass over libraries as fully-prepared to do their job with little more than access to Google.

Perhaps the match between the librarians and Middle States Commissioners in Albany was not a win for either side but rather ended in a tie. The Commission accepted that it must add information literacy back into the document; librarians are ready to make the case for expanding their role to include other things library. According to the New York rules of boxing—and this has been a face-off in the New York State capital, an official will often decide on a winner when there is a tie based on which contender appears to be in “better physical condition.” Librarians will do well for the future of education and all learning if we begin to step forward and acknowledge once again the very real physicality of the profession we serve. Libraries are very much about concrete, tangible goods, services and spaces without which, the incorporeal, but totally laudable goal of assisting learners on their path towards information literacy could not be achieved.

Accreditation Standards & Libraries: A Dangerous Ride Down a Devolving Course

ACRLog welcomes a guest post from Beth Evans, Electronic Services Librarian and Africana Studies/PRLS/Women’s Studies Specialist at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE, or, Middle States) is looking for feedback on the proposed revisions to the Characteristics of Excellence, the MSCHE accreditation standards. If you work in a college or university in an area that comes under Middle States jurisdiction, have or know of a child who attends one of the affected schools, or care about the future of higher education, add your comments to an online survey by January 31 or take the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting scheduled at one of several locations in the region throughout the spring of 2014, and be sure your voice is heard.

The Middle States standards set the bar for the accreditation of colleges in five states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. If adopted, the new standards will shape what higher education looks like in four of the eight Ivy League universities, the top two largest U.S. colleges as measured by enrollment, nine Historically Black Colleges, and the first college in the United States dedicated to the education of the deaf, among so many others. The number of students who will be affected is extraordinarily large and diverse. In contrast, the number of standards by which Middle States will measure a school is dramatically shrinking to half the number established the last time the standards underwent a comprehensive review.

According to the MSCHE, “[i]n response to extensive feedback from member institutions and experienced peer evaluators, the Steering Committee attempted to streamline the standards, eliminate redundancies, and focus on clarity and brevity.” What Middle States has done in the process of streamling their standards is to eliminate any mention of libraries from the new plan and entirely eliminate a carefully crafted integration of the teaching work librarians do from the “Educational Offerings” of a college or university (current Standard 11), the “General Education” goals of in institution (current Standard 12) and any “Related Educational Activities” a school was designed to offer (current Standard 13).

The long journey academic librarians have taken to reshape instruction in research to reflect the goals of information literacy, and further, to bring academic institutions on board so that they might understand the broadened role libraries have to play in higher education has been purpose-driven, far-reaching and effective. According to the American Library Association (ALA), when it last looked, each one of the six accrediting bodies recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation includes “language in their Standards that stress the importance of teaching [information literacy skills] abilities in colleges and universities.”

Unfortunately, since ALA did its review of the most widely accepted accreditation standards in 2011, some things have changed. What Middle States is moving towards in its proposed new and briefer guidelines, may be, in fact, part of an unwelcome trend in a backward direction. The most recent Western Association of Schools and Colleges Handbook of Accreditation, published in 2013, leaves information literacy out of Standard 2, “Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions” and only implies the existence of a library in Standard 3, “Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability.”

As higher education in the United States moves into a period of a fuller integration of pedagogy with technology, a time where researchers struggle to find their way through the onslaught of an information overload (be it a uniquely modern problem or not), and every college administrator from the president on down is quick to remind faculty of the increasing calls for accountability, will libraries continue to be counted? Libraries and the work librarians do must remain central in every institution of higher education. Let your voice for libraries be heard. Respond to the MSCHE survey today.