RIDLs (Research Information and Digital Literacy Skills) is a coalition that promotes information and research data literacy in higher education. It has developed criteria for describing, reviewing, and assessing information literacy training interventions. The criteria consist of structured questions in two parts: the first addresses who the training is for and how it is delivered, while the second examines the benefits and outcomes of the training. RIDLs is seeking feedback on how practitioners could use the criteria, whether they could be a basis for accrediting training, and how the criteria could be endorsed, promoted, and developed into a support service for practitioners.

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