Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Moselen - Information literacy curriculum integration: a professional development programme for University of Auckland subject librarians
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Moselen - Information literacy curriculum integration: a professional development programme for University of Auckland subject librarians


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Fakalofalahiatu (Nuiean)Malo e lelei (Tongan)Ni sabula (Fiji)Kia orana (Cook Islands)Taloha (Tokulauan)Talofa lava (Samoa)Iaorana (Tahiti)Halo olgeta (Vanuatu)Mauri ora (Maori)Tēnākoutoukatoa (Maori)My name is Chris Moselen and I am the Library Manager at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.
  • Business Information Skills Online – originally 2008-2009. Revised and expanded for 2011 (additional modules for year 1 students) and 2012 (postgraduate) - Carrie, D., & Mitchell, L. (2010). A holistic approach to embedding information literacy in the design, delivery and assessment of an undergraduate business program. In T. P. Mackey & T. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Collaborative Information Literacy Assessments: Strategies for Evaluating Teaching and Learning (pp. 25-52). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.ENGGEN 303 – case study – 2010. Created as a response to large numbers. School of Law – compulsory stand alone courses in legal research in the 2nd and 3rd years. Law 399 is a credit bearing course and is designed, taught and assessed by the library. Began in their current form in 2006.
  • 1. Curriculum integration – ANZIIL, ACRLCurriculum integration – any number of authors over the past few years, but curriculum IL integration is now the gold standard – as evidenced by A new curriculum for information literacy2. “IL is more than a set of acquired skills” (Elmborg). The evolution from teachers of a set of skills to librarians as educators is almost complete. “Librarians are…facilitators of active, critically reflective learning, whether the focus is directly on developing students’ information literacy or more broadly on designing and supporting information interactions and environments that will help catalyse students’ engagement with their academic discipline” (Roberts & Levy, 2005, p.221). 3. Bewick & Corrall’s literature review nicely summarises the issues of subject librarian changing roles and the professional development needs of librarians involved in teaching and learning. Their conclusions note that at least 1/5 of SLs time is spent teaching and that “the minimal coverage of learning and teaching in the professional curriculum is a recurring theme of the literature.” p.106 Bewick L., & Corrall, S. (2010). Developing librarians as teachers: A study of their pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science 42(2), 97-110. doi: 10.1177/09610006103614194. QUT – version of EduLib – librarians teaching and learning theory and practice – 8 modules of 3 hours, mandatoryOpen University – worksops for librarians on learning theory, assessment, learning design and writing LOs, digital literacyUniversity of Arizona – workshops – define IL, analysing assignments for IL content, altering assignments, assessing IL and understanding the assessment environment and working with faculty – model very similar to ours. Not compulsory but organisers felt it would have been beneficial and would ”have moved IL to a higher level of imptce and consciousness within the library.”Overall consensus
  • Li Wang doctorate Integrating IL into HE curricula: an IL curricular integration model was the influential theoretical construct supporting our training programme.It appears complex but broken into it component parts is relatively simple. The model evolved from the findings of Li’s research. “The model represents the importance of IL guidelines and pedagogic theories in IL curricular development. It demonstrates that IL should be integrated into the intended curriculum and the offered curriculum as well as the students’ received curriculum. The model also reveals that a higher education curriculum can be redesigned and negotiated at different levels; the insitutuional level, programme level and at course or class levels. IT represents the processes, people and resources essential for IL integration. The two-headed arrows indicate that this is a fluid, continuous process.” (p.159)The model consists of 3 inter-connected elements:WHAT = IL guidelines found in the intended curriculum – policies, documents, strategiesWHO = defines key stakeholders such as librarians, academics, student learning advisors, learning designers and IT supportHOW = IL must be CONTEXTUALISED into course/programmes; ONGOING interaction with information; APPLIED through curricular design process taking cognisance of learning theories, methods of delivery, Bloom’s taxonomy, IL frameworks in a way that scaffolds students learning.
  • Time consuming!
  • 1. Limited understanding of the broader aspects of IL – only 1 person mentioned the concept of lifelong learning2. Most librarians thought integration would work but they had little practical experience of it and several mentioned the fact that they felt it would be more time consuming. 3. Librarians familiar with the concept of learning styles, but few (except ex-teachers) knew of learning theories. Only a few librarians used a formal lesson plan. Thy felt there were big holes in their knowledge of curriculum, course design, how courses get approved and how they can be changed, and assessment. 4. Confusion between course-related and integrated proved that librarians were unsure what integration meant despite a definition on the library’s intranet:Generic - Voluntary, extra-curricular classes or activities. No connection to a student�s course of study.Parallel - Extra-curricular classes or activities developed to complement a specific subject area, course or assignment. May be voluntary or compulsory.Integrated or Embedded - Classes and activities that have been developed jointly by faculty and librarians to achieve course objectives and outcomes. These activities are seamlessly incorporated into subject based assignments and form part of the course assessment.(adapted from the Australian & New Zealand Information Literacy Framework, 2004 p6)Most librarians confused assessment and evaluation. Many said they used the in-house booking system which has an evaluation form to assess student learning, something for which it was not designed. The form is used at the end of each session to judge student satisfaction with the teaching of the course.5. Not all the collaboration was IL related, howeverThere were some positives and some negatives. The idea that IL could be integrated into the curriculum was generally regarded as being too hard. Some librarians felt it was their managers role to approach academics which indicated a lack of confidence when talking about teaching and learning matters to academic staff.
  • - Modules – 1. IL introduction 2. Understanding and working with faculty: The basics of IL integration. 3. Understanding the faculty curriculum 4. IL integration and curriculum design. 5. IL assessment and evaluation: An overview- “Teaching and learning librarians need to have a very wide understanding of the educational world around them. To be effective they cannot act or interact in a library/infolit vacuum, and they must engage with the complex set of internal and external educational factors that drive our universities. Information literacy is powerful, but even more so when it is framed as making a tangible contribution to improving transition, retention, success and the student experience” - NPT - 4x 3.5 hour (14 hours) sessions covering learning theories, teaching styles, lesson planning, presentation skills. x2 10 minutes teaching sessions critiqued by peers, video critiqued by peers and learning advisor.
  • Probably the most contentious of these has been the requirement making the programme required for all subject librarians. The Library SMT decided this at the end of the pilot and a number of experienced librarians have been unwilling to commit to the programme.
  • Programme as it was in 2012 – no substantial changes in format were made, but a lot of changes in content.Programme takes approx a week all up – 37-38 hours
  • The most theoretical module, but most participants felt this really extended their knowledge of IL given that they not only had to read Bruce and Elmborg, but they also looked at the Library’s annual plan and the University IL documents. Students were asked to consider questions such as:In what way are there similarities between Elmborg’s and Bruce’s view of information literacy?What are the challenges for information literacy education suggested by Elmborg and Bruce?What are the implications for librarians of Elmborg’s theory of critical information literacy?Have your views about information literacy changed in the course of the assigned readings? If so, how?From 2013 students have also had to organise a peer to review their teaching and to record some of that feedback into their learning journal. This doesn’t logically fit with M1, it is better dealt with in M5, but this is the time of year when a big bulk of the teaching is done so this reflective element is one of the first things students need to do.
  • Quite a lot of introductory work is done in this module as this is the 1st time participants have met face to face. Included a review of module 1 and discussion around the assessment task of M1. Because M1 is not face to face this year we held an introductory morning tea and introduced all the participants to each other as well getting 2 students from an earlier course to come and speak about their experiences.We asked academics to talk about a number of things such as their lives as academics – what were the challenges, pressures; how could subject librarians best support academics; their current relationship with their subject librarian and how it developed; [videos]. This part of the session was facilitated by an academic from the Centre for Learning & Research in Higher Education (CLEAR).The panel discussed - How they beganworking with academic staf fin their department?; What methods they used to make academics more receptive to the idea of integrating information literacy into their courses?; What challenges they had when they tried to integrate information literacy into a course?
  • The first part of the module was again facilitated by an academic from the Centre for Learning & research in Higher Education. What is curriculum and what are the various levels? Videos of academic staff discussing when they might change course content and assessment tasks and the processes they need to go through to make these changes. Finally they were asked what the curricular approval process was if they wanted to instigate a new course? – the idea being to give librarians an idea of how these processes worked in the university – even experienced librarians had no idea.The second part of the module is the practical part of the module where participants get an opportunity to analyse the curriculum in their area by examining the University Calendar, programme prospectuses and handouts, their faculty website and the student enrolment system to see how many students might be enrolled in a specific class. This is partially done in class and completed as the module assessment.
  • This is an example of a curricular integration template filled out by one of the students last year in the area of psychology. The highlighted courses are the ones she identified as being suitable for IL integration based on the work she had done in class. She has identified all courses in each year and the course coordinators/lecturers responsible for each course.
  • Different approaches to IL education – generic (extra curriculum); course-related (inter-curriculum); integrated or embedded; stand-alone. Participants asked to identify examples of each type of teaching within UoA.Li spends some time discussing her model and how it works practically and then elaborates on the “who” part of the model the collaborative aspect.The collaborative nature of IL integration is emphasised by a speed-dating session where participants get a chance to talk briefly with people who might support them in their endeavours could be anyone from an experienced librarian who has done it all before, to learning designers, e-learning experts, media and web specialists, student support, academics, IT. This is where the focus on online IL often comes in.The group gets to compare 2 assignments – 1 unmodified and then a modified version of it.
  • This is an example from my own facultyof the mapping process asked for in the first assessment task. Useful when talking with academics.
  • Module 5 is online and is regarded as the “heavy-duty” module – certainly it is the one that has received the most negative feedback and the one that we have had to make the biggest changes to. The bullet points indicate the content of module 5 which is delivered from the University’s LMS via a piece of local software called Coursebuilder. Participants are required to use an online learning journal to record their activities and thoughts
  • Activity 1: Read the UoA Assessment of Student Learning Policy (2011) and pick out two statements in the policy that reinforce John Hattie's view of assessment and note your reflections in your learning journal.Activity 2: Read the IFLA Guidelines and the Oakleaf article (see above). Record two actions in your learning journal that you think you will follow up on as a result of reading these documents. Activity 3: 1) Give one example of formative assessment and one example of summative assessment used by academic staff in your liaison area; 2) If you have previously assessed your teaching, write a short paragraph describing what worked well and what could be improved next time. If you have not yet assessed your teaching, choose one method of assessment and explain why you think this would be effective. Activity 4: Select a class you will teach. Identify whether it is an extra-curriculum or inter-curriculum or intra-curriculum class. 1)Write down 3 key student learning outcomes 2)Write down why the student needs to learn these tasks 3)What is the outcome of learning the skills chosen 4)Consider what type of instructional method and learning activities will ensure the student learns these skills well? Activity 5: Take the class that you developed for Activity 4. Decide how you will assess the learning outcomes, then choose a suitable assessment tool, either formative or summative, to assess student learning. Explain why you have chosen this tool. Activity 6: Read Measuring the outcomes of information literacy: Perception vs evidence-based data (Abdullah, 2010). 1) Explain the main difference between evidence-based evaluation and perception based evaluation. 2) Critique the current Library evaluation form. 3) Consider how you might seek feedback on your teaching that would be more meaningful than the current evaluation form. Activity 7: Peer teaching reflectionActivity 8: Read "On becoming a critically reflective practitioner" (Forrest, 2008). Record in your learning diary two questions you will ask yourself following a session.
  • I believe one of the most notable effects has been in the “big picture” view that librarians now have of teaching and learning in the institution. They are beginning to appreciate that T & L also revolves around retention and student success and that we can pitch IL in those terms. This is a far more successful approach than just talking about IL as a separate entity. The course has given a number of librarians the confidence to engage in these kinds of discussions with academics, in some cases with astounding results.
  • 2013 and 2014 will bring about major changes in the programme because of institutional changes in the library. There is no time to rest on our laurels
  • Transcript

    • 1. IL curriculum integration:professional development forlibrariansChris MoselenUniversity of AucklandA presentation for LILAC 2013
    • 2. Greetings, Fakalofa lahi atu, Malo e lelei, Ni sabula, Kia orana, Taloha ni, Talofa lava, Iaorana, Halo olgeta, Mauri ora, Tēnā koutoukatoa
    • 3. University of Auckland• 41,000 students• All disciplines• Ranked 1st in NZ• Ranked 7th in Australasia (Times HE Rankings)
    • 4. University of Auckland Libraries & Learning Services • Distributed sites and collections • 243 FTE Library staff – 90 professionally qualified, 52 subject librarians • Merged with Student Learning and English Language Enrichment – 2013
    • 5. Rationale for IL• Graduate Profile (2003)• Information Literacy: Guidelines and Principles (2011)• Both underpinned by University Strategic Plan 2013- 2020
    • 6. IL initiatives
    • 7. Literature review• Curriculum integration the gold standard – ANCIL• Changing librarian roles – teaching• Pedagogical knowledge (Bewick & Corrall, 2010)• Examples of in-house training – mostly teaching – e.g. QUT• Open University, University of Arizona
    • 8. Wang curricular integration model(2010, p.159)
    • 9. IL curriculum integration courseco-ordinators (L-R):Patsy Hulse, Library Manager Engineering; Dr. Li Wang, Manager Learning Support Services; Chris Moselen, Library Manager Education; Megan Clark, Library Manager Medical & Health Sciences
    • 10. Background to programme – informationgathering• Interviews with 18 subject librarians, 2 managers and 3 digital/systems• Understandings of IL• Delivery of IL• Experiences of IL integration – successes/barriers• Relationship with academic staff - collaboration• Knowledge of learning theories• Use of technology/resources• Assessment and evaluation of teaching
    • 11. Findings • Good understanding of IL in UoA context • IL policy seen as “idealistic” • Knowledge of learning theories and teaching pedagogy requested • Confusion between course-related and integrated; assessment and evaluation • Good levels of collaboration with colleagues both inside and outside the library
    • 12. Pilot programme 2011 • 5 modules• Learning outcomes of programme: • gain an understanding of information literacy and its importance to the University of Auckland, as well as the responsibilities of all stakeholders in providing information literacy education to students. • identify approaches for establishing relationships with faculty or departments. • analyse faculty/school/departmental (referred to as faculty in this document) curricula to identify potential courses for information literacy integration. • understand and apply the Wang information literacy integration model in a course context. • familiarise with assessment and evaluation tools used in information literacy teaching and evaluation.• Programme externally reviewed by Dr Jane Secker (LSE) and Judy Peacock (QUT)• Inter-relationship with New Presenter Training
    • 13. Evaluation of pilot - negatives• Module 5 (Assessment & Evaluation) too “heavy” and took too long to complete• Not enough lead in time given for readings and assessment task• Getting assessments signed off by managers too cumbersome and managers are busy• Timing is an issue – sometimes prep, classes and assessments clash with workload
    • 14. Evaluation of pilot – suggestions• Keep the course practise-based – “theory in action”• Liked reflective journal• Liked interacting with other librarians and learning in a team• Instigate peer support• Make the programme required for all librarians• Create a bank of online resources and learning tools• Include more examples from non-professional faculties like Arts and Science
    • 15. Programme overview:Module Delivery method TimeModule 1.Information literacy Discussion with 2-3 hours reading &introduction – What is manager/team assignment + 1 hour teaminformation literacy and why is discussionit important to us?Module 2. Establishing Face-to-face 3-4hrs reading &relationships with faculty assignment + 3hr class.Module 3.Understanding the Face-to-face 3-4hrs reading &faculty curriculum assignment + 3hr class.Module 4. The integration of Face-to-face 4-5hrs reading &information literacy into assignment + 3.5hr classcurriculum and designinginformation literacy curriculaModule 5. Information literacy Online 6-7hrs reading andassessment and evaluation assignments onlineoverview
    • 16. Module One: IL IntroductionLearning Outcomes:• Understand the meaning of information literacy at the University of Auckland.• Understand the responsibilities of librarians, academics and other stakeholders in providing information literacy education to students• Understand the successful ways your team builds relationships with faculty• Team based discussion• Identify a training buddy or mentor• Read Bruce (2006), Elmborg (2006), UoA IL documents• Peer feedback on teaching• Assessment – notes on discussion recorded and submitted to facilitators; peer review of teaching
    • 17. Module 2: Understanding & working withfacultyLearning outcomes:• Understand the work of an academic• Learn some techniques for building relationships within your faculty.• First face to face meeting of participants• Academic life – relationship with librarians• Panel of experienced subject librarians discussing relationship building and successes in IL integration• Assessment – create action plan for faculty involvement and relationship building
    • 18. Module 3: Understanding the facultycurriculumLearning outcomes:• Understand the curriculum and different levels of curriculum at UoA• Identify who is teaching what in specific courses• Curriculum content – changes, approvals• Practical analysis of curriculum to identify “core” courses• Assessment - curriculum analysis exercise using template to identify courses, course co- ordinators, and courses for IL integration (core)
    • 19. Module 4: IL integration and curriculumdesignLearning outcomes:• Understand and apply the Wang IL integration model in curricular integration of IL• Be able to design IL integration activities• Approaches to IL education• Wang model• Collaboration - speed dating• Integrating IL into assignments – Bloom and learning outcomes• Assessment – 1. Map the intended curriculum (University graduate Profile, professional requirements if there are any, IL standards), against the potential courses identified from Module 3 and develop one IL learning outcome for one course in each year by applying Bloom’s taxonomy. 2. Choose an existing assignment from your subject courses orchoose one from the exercise sheet and modify it by integratinginformation literacy into it.
    • 20. Model application in Education Using information to Year 1 – Support & scaffolding Year 2 – Developing independence Year 3 – Independent learning learnNB Categories below Bloom’s Taxonomy– knowledge, Bloom’s Taxonomy - application, analysis Bloom’s Taxonomy– synthesis,developed from items in comprehension SOLO - Relational evaluationblue: SOLO – Unistructural, multistructural SOLO – Extended abstractRecognise need for E.g.: E.g.: E.g.:information/decide Be familiar with the appropriate Examine assignment topics and Recognise when furtherGraduate Profile II (e) learning management system – develop keywords for searching information is needed and be ableUoA IL Policy - Skills (a) Cecil/Moodle to find it from relevant sourcesANZIIL IL Standards (1) Generate ideas using thinking tools such as brainstorming Understand the assignment questions and requirementsLocate/find/sort E.g.: E.g.: E.g.:information Be familiar with the Education Develop a keyword concept map for Familiarity with searching GoogleGraduate Profile II (e) Library – know how to get course searching the Catalogue and Scholar and the Education set ofUoA IL Policy - Skills (b) readings, find books, check out and Databases databases for finding articlesANZIIL Standards (2) return books, lending policies, Mental map of Catalogue, Use the advanced search features where to get study help, special Databases and Internet (Google) – of the Catalogue such as saving collections understand limitations of Internet searches and using facets Interpret items on a reading list – Be aware of the major NZ Carry out advanced understand differences between educational journals Internet/database searching journals, articles, book chapters, Source material from outside the effectively – use social books Epsom and University libraries by bookmarking to store and retrieve Find the full-text of an article both using intercampus delivery and information electronically and in print interloan RSS and alerting feeds
    • 21. Module 5: IL assessment and evaluationLearning outcomes:• Understand assessment and how to apply assessment tools to assess student learning• Understand evaluation and how to apply evaluation tools to evaluate IL sessions or programme• Constructive alignment – Hattie and IFLA Guidelines for IL Assessment• Types of assessment• Learning outcomes – develop and apply• Assessment tools/activities• Evaluation of IL teaching• Reflective practice – peer feedback on teaching• IL programme evaluation
    • 22. Module 5: IL assessment and evaluation• Assessment - 8 activities which need to be recorded in online learning journal. E.g. • Reflective comments on readings/videos • Practical exercises such as revision of library’s evaluation form • Differences between evidence-based evaluation and perception-based evaluation (Abdullah, 2010) • Development of LOs for a specific class • Assessment of LOs
    • 23. Outcomes• 12 librarians through course, plus 6 this year• Re-engagement with IL• Evidence of increased confidence in engaging with academic staff• New IL integration projects have emerged – Psychology 108, Speech science, Nursing• Introducing librarians to a broader understanding of the nature of T & L in the institution
    • 24. Other issues• “Required” nature of course not appreciated by all librarians• Significant time required to run the course• Programme goals can be linked to development and performance and to re- validation by NZ professional library body
    • 25. What’s next?:• Re-orientation of course towards academic literacies - a complete re-write• Involvement of Student Learning and English Language Enhancement advisors• Utilisation and modelling of teaching strategies such as those in the AVID programme• Ongoing evaluation
    • 26. Thank you for your attention  Questions?