Strengthening Connections Between Information Literacy, General Education, and Assessment Efforts

ACADEMIC have a long and rich tradition of collaborating LIBRARIANS with discipline-based faculty members to advance the mission and goals of the library. Included in this tradition is the area of information literacy, a foundation skill for academic success and a key component of independent, lifelong learning. With the rise of the general education reform movement on many campuses resurfacing in the last decade, libraries have been able to move beyond course-integrated library instruction into a formal planning role for general education programmatic offerings. This article shows the value of 1. strategic alliances, developed over time, to establish information literacy as a foundation for student learning; 2. strong partnerships within a multicampus higher education system to promote and advance information literacy efforts; and 3. assessment as a key component of outcomesbased information literacy activities. BACKGROUND Library instruction within the college and university setting has long been recognized as an important aspect of higher education (Evans, 1914). Over the years, academic librarians have consistently discussed the important role they can play by partnering with discipline-based classroom faculty to integrate library instruction programs into the university curriculum (Breivik and Gee, 1989; Rader, 1975). This partnership, an evolutionary process of forging strategic alliances to advance library instruction goals, has included such pioneering efforts over the past several decades as: Ilene F. Rockman, Manager, Information Competence Initiative, The California State University, Office of the Chancellor, 401 Golden Shore, 3rdFloor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210 LIBRARYTRENDS, Vol. 51, NO. 2, Fall 2002, pp. 185-198 02002 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 186 LIBRARY TRENDS/FALL 2002 Working with first-year students through a two-term humanities course which places emphasis on competence in the use of the library for research purposes (Farber, 1974); Funding pilot projects, such as those sponsored by the Council on Library Resources, to enhance library services by integrating library instruction into established courses offered by academic departments (Dittmar, 1977); Creating a separate credit-bearing library instruction course (taught by librarians, working closely with various discipline-based faculty members) for first-year students as an integral part of their undergraduate core learning experiences with the goals of integrating coursework and improving retention of underrepresented students (Rockman, 1978); Including library skills in a discipline-based English composition course (Ball State, 1979). The rise of the library instruction movement in the 1980s saw librarians heavily involved in course-integrated library instruction activities. The goal of these activities was to move beyond the traditional lecture model to one of an information-based or resource-centered teaching model (Pastine & Wilson, 1992).As such, academic libraries sought to parallel developments occurring elsewhere in higher education that placed greater emphasis upon integrated learning than on teaching specific library research and retrieval skills. As libraries mounted databases and online public access catalogs (OPACs), the opportunity to educate patrons about the effective use of these electronic systems provided a new means to enhance and integrate library instruction into the campus curriculum as an important tool (Rockman, 1989). Some progressive voices have also suggested that librarians integrate library skills into the general education curriculum (Pastine, 1995).With the reform of university general education programs in the 1990scoinciding with the rise of technology (Lanham, 1997),reports of general education “gateway” courses linking library instruction and technology training appeared in the library literature (Varner, Schwartz, & George, 1996).Such courses helped students to use electronic information resources (Fenske, 1995), especially as complex choices and multiple database interfaces emerged. The 1990s were an unprecedented time of change for libraries as it became clear that for students to function in a dynamic information environment they needed information literacy skills and strategies that could be applied to any information need (McCartin, 2001). The reform movement of the 1990ssaw some universities develop firstyear experiences and seminars for undergraduates with courses focused on communication and composition skills (reading, writing, and critical thinking) as one method to deliver information literacy instruction (Higgins & ROCKMAN/STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS 187 Cedar Face, 1998). Such efforts supported the tenets of the Carnegie Foundation’s report, Reinuenting Undergraduate Education: A Blutprint for America’s Research Universities, with its emphasis on inquiry, problem-solving, and linking communication skills to course work in a holistic fashion (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates, 1998). Other paths included the establishment of a lower-division, general education, course-integrated information literacy program (Sonntag & Ohr, 1996), professional development workshops targeted to discipline-based faculty members to integrate information literacy principles across the curriculum (Rockman, 2000), and a Web-based information literacy assessment tool (Rosen & Castro, 2002). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, reports of activities such as reaching out to distant learners by including information literacy within the general education program (Wright, 2000), and increased focus on faculty partnerships (Raspa &Ward, 2000) were reported in the literature, bringing a renewed emphasis to these important topics. All of these efforts recognized that for “on ground” and “online” students to acquire necessary information literacy skills, discipline-based faculty must be collaborative partners in the learning process across the curriculum, courses must be intellectually linked to each other whenever possible, information literacy skills must be reinforced and developed over time, and students must have built-in opportunities for success from freshman to senior levels. RESTRUCTUREDGENERAL PROGRAMS EDUCATION With internal and external public pressures for students to graduate with skills commensurate with the academic rigor of a comprehensive program of study, universities in the last decade have sought to restructure their curricular offerings to bring them more in line with current societal needs, to attract and retain students, and to help students progress toward graduation with critical reading, writing, thinking, and speaking well developed. Such restructuring would integrate the cocurriculum with the undergraduate experience; emphasize information literacy as an active learning process; inspire intellectual desire in students; promote the importance of continuous lifelong learning; and document to accreditation agencies, professional associations, legislative bodies, and other entities that undergraduate students are graduating with skills, knowledge, and abilities viewed as valuable assets in the workplace, in graduate school, and in society at large. The goals of many restructured general education programs reaffirmed learning at the center of the educational enterprise, with a renewed focus on quality and coherence in curricular offerings (Ratcliff, 1997). In addition, as the enabler for continuous learning in a technologically rich and globally diverse society, information literacy has been viewed by some universities as the foundation piece of this restructuring effort. As noted by 188 LIBRARY TRENDS/FALL 2 0 0 2 Patricia Breivik in a 2000 keynote address to the International Lifelong Learning Conference, “Within today’s information society, the most important learning outcome for all students is their being able to function as independent lifelong learners. The essential enabler to reaching that goal is information literacy” (p. 1). Jacobson and Mark (2000) note that, while some institutions choose to include information literacy as part of the lower-division general education curriculum. others have made it a central component of a first-year experience program. At James Madison University, a competency-based general education curriculum strives to make every student accountable for learning specific objectives, such as formulating and conducting effective search strategies and evaluating information policies in terms of accuracy, authority, bias, and relevance (Cameron & Feind, 2001). In addition, students are required to pass an Information Seeking Skills Test (ISST) before the end of the freshman year. At California State University, Hayward, a large urban universitywith a majority of upper-division transfer students, information literacy is part of both the first-year experience and the general education program on the campus. This institution recognizes the value of weaving information literacy into the lower division general education program via a one-unit credit course targeted to all freshmen, “Fundamentals of Information Literacy,” and as part of the upper-division information literacy general education experience for junior-level transfer students. At San Jose State University, another campus in the California State University system, information literacy is targeted to lower-division students through their English composition classes (English 1B) with instruction also occurring in the upper division (Reynolds, 1989, p. 83).In Spring 2002, the library began testing a new model for English IB (Reynolds, 2002) using an adapted version of the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT) to increase the effectiveness of the information competence instruction and engage students more fully in the learning process. Supportfor Changing Curricula Support for a changng university curriculum that includes information literacy has also come from a variety of external stakeholders, including the business community. Anthony Comper, president of the Bank of Montreal, told the 1999 graduating class at the University of Toronto that information literacy is essential to success in the next millennium: whatever else you bring to the 2lYt century workplace, however great your technical skills and however attractive your attitude and however deep your commitment to excellence, the bottom line is that to be successful, you need to acquire a high level of information literacy. What we need in the knowledge industries are people who know how to absorb and analyze and integrate and create and effectively convey inforROCKMAN/STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS 189 mation-and who know how to use information to bring real value to everything they undertake. Terry Crane, vice president for education products at America Online, writes in the September 2000 issue of Converge, ‘Young people need a baseline of communication, analytical and technical skills. We are no longer teaching about technology, but about information literacy-which is the process of turning information into meaning, understanding, and new ideas. Students need the thinking, reasoning, and civic abilities that enable them to succeed in-and ultimately lead-a contemporary democratic economy, workforce and society” (Future of Education section, para. 3 ) . Taizo Nishimuro, president of the Toshiba Corporation adds, “In short, information literacy is the ability to solve problems, taking advantage of information technology and networks. Information literacy is not a new concept, rather a traditional one in terms of problem-solving” (p. 13). As various sectors of the business community have embraced the principles of information literacy, there is also evidence that information literacy concepts are being recognized by governments as “new economy” skills (O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 7). Support for this position includes the fact that the move to a knowledge-based economy has revealed that many workers are poorly prepared and equipped to effectively deal with using and managing information on a daily basis, lacking the abilities to locate relevant information, critically analyze and assess its value and authority, and present it within legal and ethical parameters. Goad (2002) adds renewed emphasis to the importance of workplace literacy by noting-in the dustjacket of his bookthat “information is the new currency” of the contemporary society. So, ideally, curricular restructuring helps students at various places in their academic studies by seamlessly weaving information competence horizontally and vertically throughout the curriculum, with ample reinforcement occurring in both lowerdivision and upper-division courses (whether in major requirements, support courses, general education offerings, or electives).As such, students are able to develop critical analysis and communication skills, recognize and appreciate the variety of information formats available in today’s society, and critically evaluate and ethically use the desired information. Library Approaches Libraries have accepted the challenge of advancing the information literacy agenda on their campuses. While some have championed information literacy as the key competency for the twenty-first century (Bundy, 1998),others have recognized that local cultures and climates may affect desired outcomes of such pronouncements. There is no one solution for all. Campuses have chosen to pursue various models, such as separate programs, seminars, and courses for first-year students which include an infor190 LIBRARY TRENDS/FALL 2 0 0 2 mation literacy component; stand-alone credit and/or noncredit information literacy courses open to all students regardless of class standing or major; information literacy courses integrated within, and linked to, a general education program; information literacy instructional enrichment to an existing course commonly taken by all students (such as a core writing or rhetoric class); or capstone experiences in which students can demonstrate independent learning based upon previous experiences which demonstrate and reflect continuous intellectual growth and development aspart of a senior project, undergraduate thesis, performance, or internship experience. Whatever the chosen path, it is essential to collaborate with disciplinebased campus faculty leaders to advance information competence goals. Faculty, with responsibility for the curriculum, have strong voices on campus curriculum committees and in academic senates which can lend needed support to the inclusion of information literacy principles into general education offerings, prerequisites, major courses, support courses, and/or electives. A MULTICAMPUS APPROACH Recognizing the importance of contributing to an information literate society, the Council of Library Directors (COLD) of the California State University (CSU) , the largest and most diverse system of higher education in the country, serving over 388,000 students, identified information competence as a key component of its 1994 collective strategic plan, Transforming CSULibrariesjor the 21st Century: A Strategic Plan of the CSU Council of Libra? Dirrctms.A year after completing the strategic plan, the twenty-three-campus CSU system launched an Information Competence Initiative in 1995, partly as a reaction to the lack of skills of the entering students but also to strengthen the academic success of students at various university campuses (Curzon, 2000). With support from the CSU Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) , charged with developing and recommending policy guidelines to the chancellor to facilitate the effective uses of learning resources and instructional technology throughout the CSU, an Information Competence Work Group was created to recommend basic competence levels, and to recommend processes for assessment of student information competence (Curzon, 1995). Then and now the work group reflects a broad and diverse membership-librarians (who have faculty status), discipline-based faculty members representing the Statewide Academic Senate, assessment coordinators, and senior-level administrators based on the campuses and in the CSU chancellor’s office. Central to the program has been a series of grant opportunities for individual campuses to mount local programs and projects, or for campuses to work together in multicampus partnerships. Such projects have included partnerships with general education faculty to develop academic ROCKMAN/STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS 191 orientation courses; the development of Web-based tutorials, electronic workbooks, and other instructional materials to teach principles and fundamentals of information literacy; the creation of summer workshops for discipline-based faculty members to learn more about information competence principles and to help them rethink their syllabi, assignments, and learning outcomes; outreach activities to high schools and community colleges through teacher-librarian collaboration; support on one campus for an online information competence graduation requirement; establishment of first-year experience programs; assessment activities; and the integration of information competence into the learning outcomes of academic departments using the Information Competency Standards for Higher Education produced by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000). Faculty-librarian partnering has been a key objective underlying the work group’s activities. In addition, the CSU system has supported faculty professional development opportunities such as summer fellowships and system-wide conferences to further advance the goals of information competence on the campuses. Successes have been achieved locally, between campuses, and across the system (Clay, Harlan, & Swanson, 2000; Curzon, 2000; Dunn, 2002; Rockman, 2000; Roth, 1999). In 2002, two of the campuses received national recognition by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) .The Fullerton campus was chosen as a “Best Practices” library, and the ACRL Instruction Section bestowed its “Innovation in Instruction” award to the Fresno campus library for the creative “InfoRadio” project. Both of these campus projects received funding from the CSU Information Competence Initiative. Exclusive of the grants, several campuses have also developed successful local information literacy activities. These have focused on information literacy programs to assist first-generation college students (Tyckoson, 2000), and the establishment of a foundation one-unit information literacy course aspart of the general education program which thematically links core courses together in a yearlong freshmen-learning community (Faust, 2001). At the core of the experience is an integrated rigorous educational experience for all entry-level first-year students with a strong emphasis on composition, communication, critical thinking, and information literacy. As noted by Tsui (2001), “students deserve challenging coursework from the start of their freshmen year and throughout each of the college years, rather than having it received at the end of their undergraduate experience” (p. 20). Information literacy has a clear and strong contribution to make toward meeting this goal. ASSESSMENT S RATEGIES Within the last several years, academic libraries have responded to a changng academic environment by becoming more involved with issues 192 LIBRARY TRENDS/FALL 2 0 0 2 related to assessment, especially outcomes-based assessment. Ideally, libraries want to be able to show that the role of the library has a strong impact on campus mission and goals by strengthening the quality of a student’s educational experience, empowering students with a renewed confidence in learning, contributing to student motivation and educational persistence, and providing a strong foundation for the retention and transferability of learning to any new experience. Much can be learned from the higher education assessment movement as libraries move into this arena (Pausch & Popp, 1997). Although some may view the role of the library difficult to quantify (Hernon & Dugan, 2002, p. 65), its contributions can best be defined and shaped by its connections to institutional goals and desired educational outcomes (Lindauer, 1998). Such outcomes-based assessment can be conducted independently as a single library unit, or as a central component of a larger campus-based assessment project such as the general education program. Either way, it is important to collect appropriate evidence to show the library’s impact on campusby including the development of information literacy skills in course learning objectives in order to guide improvements, make informed decisions about instructional or curricular adjustments, and document change over a period of time. Improving student learning is the goal. Although some have used quantitative summative assessment techniques (preand posttests, questionnaires, surveys, etc.) to collect appropriate evidence, it is equally important for students to be able to demonstrate mastery of information competence principles through other means such asacademic portfolios (both print and electronic), perfonnance-based assignments and activities, and senior-level capstone experiences and demonstration projects. Embedded assessment approaches-examining student work within a course or discipline-provide another technique that can be useful for improving or advancing information competence goals on the campus. Such assessment can reveal if there are areas of student performance needing improvement, if students have retained and effectively applied knowledge and skills from course to course, and if instructional strategies and learning objectives are well aligned.