A common sense approach to describing, reviewing and evaluating information literacy training by Stephane Goldstein & Jane Secker
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


A common sense approach to describing, reviewing and evaluating information literacy training by Stephane Goldstein & Jane Secker

Uploaded on

Stephane Goldstein, Research Information Network ...

Stephane Goldstein, Research Information Network
Jane Secker, London School of Economics and Political Science

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 3

https://twitter.com 3

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. RIDLs criteria a common-sense approach to describing, reviewing and assessing IL training Stéphane Goldstein Research Information Network Jane Secker London School of Economics and Political Science ARLG Conference “The final frontier - to boldly go where you have never been before” 24 June 2014 1
  • 2. What is RIDLs?  A coalition of partners working together to promote the value of information and research data literacy in HE and beyond  A collectively-run programme to enable activities which help to advance LIS knowledge and skills  Grant-funded by HEFCE until end of 2014  Changing its name to InformALL, June 2014 Important premise:  Partners not limited to the library world: others players have a stake!  Important to build a network that capitalises on different outlooks  Academic librarians, data management specialists, career & professional development experts, information sciences researchers… and now reaching out to stakeholders beyond academia 2
  • 3. RIDLs programme 2014  Providing networking opportunities and collective source of expertise for its members  Re-launching as a membership-based organisation  Criteria for describing, reviewing & assessing training interventions  IL and employability: investigating how IL is perceived by players at the interface between HE and employment  Basis for widening the dialogue about IL to sectors such as careers advisors, professional/accreditation bodies, employers, trade unions…  International engagement  UNESCO, IFLA, European Commission… 3
  • 4.  Describing, reviewing and assessing practice in IL training interventions (courses and other resources). Two broad aims:  Helping those who design and deliver training interventions to describe and review them in a structured and consistent manner, allowing for easy comparison between courses/resources  Providing a simple means of assessing training interventions, particularly with regards their suitability and usefulness as transferable resources  Criteria take the form of structured questions set out in logical sequence Rationale for the criteria 4
  • 5. Part 1 of the criteria Describing and reviewing training interventions  Importance of ensuring consistent approach  Three sets of questions:  Who are the interventions designed for, and why?  What knowledge, skills and competencies are they intended to provide?  How are the interventions delivered?  Are these the right sort of questions? 5
  • 6. Part 2 of the criteria What are the benefits that the training interventions bring about  Quantitative data stemming from interventions  Feedback from learners  Outputs, outcomes, impact  Problems encountered Not easy to derive such information – outcomes and impact require longer- term views  Are these the right sort of questions?  Assessment or evaluation? 6
  • 7. Questions to address We are seeking views from delegates on the applicability and potential usefulness of the criteria. We wish to find out whether they represent a genuinely useful resource that can be adopted and supported as a practical, recognised and trustworthy tool. Four broad questions focused on:  Use of the criteria in practice  Accreditation  Endorsement and promotion  Service development 7
  • 8. Use of the criteria in practice How might practitioners make use of the criteria in their institutions:  Can they be a basis for guidance, facilitation or benchmarking for practitioners?  Do they have value beyond HE? 8
  • 9. Accreditation  Could the criteria be used as a basis for providing accreditation for training interventions?  If so, who would be the accreditor, and how might any accreditation process be put into practice? 9
  • 10. 10 Endorsement and promotion  Could the criteria be formally endorsed by institutions or representative organisations such as CILIP?  What can be done to disseminate and promote them?
  • 11. 11 Service development  Is there a case for defining and setting up a viable service, based on the criteria, to provide agreed and tailored forms of support for practitioners on defining, running, evaluation and accreditation of training resources?  How might the need for such a service be ascertained?
  • 12. Thank you for taking part! The criteria can be found at www.researchinfonet.org/infolit/rids/ridls-criteria Stéphane Goldstein stephane.goldstein@researchinfonet.org Jane Secker j.secker@lse.ac.uk 12