Presentation given at LILAC 2011, 20th April, London

1. Creating information literacy partnerships in Higher Education<br />Clare McCluskey, Academic Support Librarian, York St John University<br />This paper focuses upon an action research project undertaken in order to promote the embedding of information literacy in academic programmes. Specifcally, it investigates the views of academics in relation to the role of an academic librarian, to see if this provides any barriers to implementation.<br />Existing literature<br />There is much literature available to provide evidence in favour of the embedding of information literacy in academic programmes, in order to give the best environment for students in HE to learn them, e.g. Gibson and Luxton (2009), Donnelly et al (2006) There is also evidence of the need for information literacy teaching, e.g. Brabazon (2008), Herring (2008). However, there is little about how to go about fostering the partnerships between library and faculty that can lead to embedding taking place. McGuinness (2007) takes a look at strategies for integrating information literacy, but does not offer many accounts of their effectiveness.<br />Theoretical influences<br />I have been influenced by Wenger (1998) and his concept of communities of practice and also by Chapman and West-Burnham (2010) and their ideas of team working in education:<br />Practice does not exist in the abstract. It exists because people are engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another…Membership in a community of practice is therefore a matter of mutual engagement. (Wenger 1998, 73)<br />It is relatively easy to share dreams and visions with colleagues who are friends and have similar ideas. However, working with those who have very different visions demands different skills, including confidence in one’s own ideas and an ability to accept the perspectives of others. (Chapman and West-Burnham 2010, 138)<br />Key research question<br />How do I evaluate the views of the academics in one subject area in regard to my role and investigate ways of promoting information literacy partnerships between academic support librarians and faculty members?<br />Methodology<br />As this research was central to my practice, I chose an action research methodology, as promoted by McNiff (2002).<br />Methods<br />There are 20 academics working on the programme in question. All were approached to take part in the study, six agreed. I used an emotionalist approach, generating data to find out about the subjects’ experiences (Silverman 2001, 87) and used semi-structured interviews to facilitate this.<br />Semi structured interviews were used to gain data on the academics’ perceptions of my role. Interactions on a one-to-one basis were then implemented with half of the participants and on a group basis with the others. These interactions focused upon what information literacy is and how librarians can help implement it. Emailed questionnaires completed the study, to discern whether the academics’ views of my role had changed as a result of the interactions.<br />Semi structured interview questions:<br />What do you think the activities I carry out over the academic year are?<br />What do you think my priorities are?<br />What are my responsibilities?<br />Questions in follow-up questionnaire:<br />I have changed my view of Clare’s role as an Academic Support Librarian as a result of the meeting(s) I have had with her since the initial interview.(Scale of 1 to 4 – 1 not at all, 2 a little, 3 quite a lot, 4 considerably)<br />I have new ideas about information skills and the value the library can add to my courses as a result of these meetings.(Scale of 1 to 4 – 1 none, 2 one or two, 3 a few, 4 lots)<br />If you have found this process useful, please give up to three examples of ways in which this is the case:<br />Any other comments?<br />Data analysis<br />The transcriptions of the interviews were analysed and responses in regard to the librarian’s role broken down into three categories: reactive, supportive and equal partner.<br />The questionnaire included an open ended question at the end. The responses to these were analysed in the same way. The closed questions were ranked to establish the impact of the interventions.<br />Outcomes<br />The outcomes for each interview were as follows:<br />ReactiveSupportiveEqual partnerTutor A650Tutor B177Tutor C087Tutor D167Tutor E0810Tutor F070<br />The results of the short questionnaire’s closed, multiple choice questions indicate that each method had some effect.<br />InterventionPerceived change in my role-responseNew ideas about information skills-responseTutor AOne to one2. A little2. One or twoTutor BGroup3. Quite a lot2. One or twoTutor CGroup2. A little4. ManyTutor DOne to one3. Quite a lot3. A fewTutor EOne to one3. Quite a lot3. A fewTutor FGroup3. Quite a lot4. Many<br />Conclusions<br />The study set out to discover two main things: to evaluate the views of the academics in one subject area in regard to my role and to investigate ways of promoting partnerships between academic support librarians and faculty members, as influenced by the concepts of communities of practice.<br />The interviews indicate that there is a spread of views about my role, but that, in the main, it is one of support, with some tending to more reactive and others to partner. The interviews also raised the issue that many academics feel they need more staff development themselves in the area of information skills, before they are confident in progressing to embedding them in the curriculum. .<br />The one-to-one and group sessions were very productive in building upon the relationships established in the interviews. Firm plans were made with each of the tutors regarding how I could work with them in their courses in the new term.<br />Regarding the best form of intervention for promoting the embedding of information skills, this group is too small to come to any firm conclusions. The questionnaire indicates that the group intervention may just be more effective, but this was also by far the more difficult to arrange. <br />References<br />Brabazon, T. (2008) As a seagull to chips. Library & information update, Oct, pp. 48-49.<br />Chapman, L. & West-Burnham, J. (2010) Education for social justice: achieving wellbeing for all. London, Continuum.<br />Donnelly, K. et al (2006) Blended learning in action: the Infoskills programe at Manchester Metropolitan University’s library service. New review of academic librarianship, 12 (1), April, pp. 47-57.<br />Gibson, S. & Luxton, J. (2009) Departure from the library desk: one undergraduate programme’s story of its subject librarian’s evolving role. Sconul focus [Internet], 45, pp. 41-44. Available from: http://www.sconul.ac.uk/publications/newsletter/45/ [Accessed 22 May 2009].<br />Herring, M. (2008) Fool’s gold: why the Internet is no substitute for a library. Journal of library administration, 47 (1/2), pp. 29-54.<br />McGuinness, C. (2007) Exploring strategies for integrated information literacy: from academic champions to institution-wide change. Communications in information literacy [Internet], 1 (1), pp. 26-38. Available from: http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php/cil [Accessed 14 December 2009].<br />McNiff, J. (2002) Action research for professional development: concise advice for new action researchers [Internet]. Available from: http://www.jeanmcniff.com [Accessed 7 January 2010].<br />Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk text and interaction. 2nd ed. London, Sage.<br />Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning meaning and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />