Presented at LILAC 2017

1. Adopting and developing
an information literacy
framework at Maynooth
University
LILAC Annual Conference,
Swansea University, April 10-12, 2017
Lorna Dodd
Senior Librarian, Maynooth University, lorna.dodd@nuim.ie, Tel: 01 708 6447, @LornaDodd

2. Respond
to
Requests
Out of context
with students’
learning
Frequent
Overlap with no
Evaluation
Deliver
Everything in
One Hour
What we do…

3. Time for change….

4. Deep
Knowledge &
Critical
intellectual
skills
Autonomous
and
responsible
learners
Breadth of
perspective
Skills for life
and work
A Maynooth Education

5. Maynooth University
Graduate Attributes
“…graduates are expected to
be… capable of gathering and
critiquing information from a
variety of sources”
(Maynooth University, 2014)

6. Underpin instructional activities
Inform our practice
Meet recognised international standards
Cater for all students
Align with the new undergraduate curriculum
Why develop a framework?

7. Graduate Attributes and
Critical skills need to be central
to the design, delivery and
assessment of Information
Literacy

8. Start with the team

9. Choosing a Framework
- SCONUL 7 Pillars
- ACRL Framework for Information
Literacy
- Australia & New Zealand
Information Literacy Standards
- A new Curriculum for Information
Literacy (ANCIL)

10. Reviewed national and international
case studies….

11. 7 Pillars
PROS:
Easily
identifiable
aims/objectives
& outcomes.
CONS
Prescriptive,
inflexible, often
out of date with
current
educational
trends?
ANZIL
PROS:
Comprehensive
plan.
Framework of
choice in 4 of
the 7 Irish
Universities.
CONS
Prescriptive.
Out of date.
Doesn’t
consider current
student needs &
changing
technology
landscape.
ANCIL
PROS:
Comprehensive.
Holistic, modular,
embedded,
active, assessed
&
transformative.
CONS
Prescriptive.
Favours face to
face as preferred
method of
delivery. Could
be problematic
as student
numbers grow.
ACRL
PROS:
Flexible. Not
prescriptive.
Takes into
account
changing
information
landscape.
Collaborative.
CONS
Lack of learning
outcomes may
be difficult for
those used to a
prescriptive
method.
ACRL
PROS:
Flexible. Not
prescriptive.
Takes into
account
changing
information
landscape.
Collaborative.
CONS
Lack of learning
outcomes may
be difficult for
those used to a
prescriptive
method.

12. ANCIL has stated outcomes, is therefore
more prescriptive and prefers face to face
delivery over online.
ACRL relies on concepts rather than
outcomes, allowing for greater flexibility.
Choosing a Framework
ANCIL and ACRL stood out. Both models are
dynamic and can align with core graduate
attributes.

13. ANCIL: emphasis on the “student’s development as a discerning scholar
and beyond the academic arena, as an informed citizen and an
autonomous and lifelong learner”
ACRL: “a set of core concepts with flexible options for implementation
rather than on a set of standards, learning outcomes, or any
prescriptive enumeration of skills”.

14. Key Attributes
Holistic
Modular
Embedded
Flexible
Transformative
Authority is constructed and
contextual
Information creation has a
process
Information has Value
Research as inquiry
Scholarship as conversation
Searching as strategic exploration
ANCIL ACRL
Vs

15. Features
Audience: primarily undergraduate
level
Who: Collaborative approach
between Library, Teaching & Learning
& Faculty
How: Favours face to face delivery,
active or inquiry-based learning
When: Modular embedded course
spanning entire programme
Assessment: Pre-sessional & post
sessional audits. Peer assessment
Audience: undergraduate &
postgraduate level
Who: Collaborative approach
between Library, Teaching & Learning
& Faculty
How: Flexible delivery. Facilitates
online, face to face...
When: Not stated. Flexible
Assessment: Not stated. Open
ANCIL ACRL
Vs

16. A blended approach

17. 1. Managing the transition and becoming an
independent learner
2. Mapping and evaluating the information
landscape
3. Researching within the disciplines
4. Managing and presenting information
5. Understanding the ethical and social
dimensions of information
Five Key Competencies

18. • Mapping &
evaluating the
information
landscape
• Managing &
presenting
information
• Managing the
transition
• Understanding ethical
& social dimensions
of information
• Researching within
the disciplines
Deep
Knowledge &
Critical
intellectual
skills
Autonomous
and
responsible
learners
Breadth of
perspective
Skills for life
and work
Information Literacy Framework for
‘A Maynooth Education’

19. “The framework acknowledges that IL skills are not
isolated from the curriculum or from the development of
other skills, recognising that they are intrinsically linked to
other learning outcomes and graduate attributes. By doing
this it is fundamentally linked to the principles of ‘A
Maynooth Education’.”
Maynooth University Library, Information Literacy Framework Strategy
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document//MUIL_strategy.pdf

20. The new framework opened up a conversation
about connecting Information
Literacy to other critical skills and
embedding IL into curriculum content and
assessment

21. Assessment Rubric
Managing the transition and
becoming an independent learner
Managing and presenting information
Mapping and evaluating the
information landscape
Researching within the disciplines
Understanding the ethical and social
dimensions of information

22. Association of College and Research Libraries (2014) ‘ACRL Framework for Information Literacy’
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework [Accessed June 5, 2015]
Beilin, Ian (2015) ‘Beyond the Threshold: Conformity, Resistance, and the ACRL Information Literacy Framework for Higher Education’, In
the Library with a Leadpipe, February http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/beyond-the-threshold-conformity-resistance-
and-the-aclr-information-literacy-framework-for-higher-education/ [Accessed January 3, 2017]
Gunasekara, C (2008) ‘Fostering independent learning and critical thinking in management higher education using an information literacy
framework’, Journal of Information Literacy, 2(2) https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/ART-V2-I2-2008-1 [Accessed
January 2, 2017]
Kessinger, P. (2013) ‘Integrated instruction framework for information literacy’, Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), pp.33-59
Klebansky, A & Fraser, S (2013) ‘A Strategic Approach to Curriculum Design for Information Literacy in teacher Education – Implementing
an Information Literacy Conceptual Framework’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38(11) pp. 103-125
Maynooth University (2014) ‘Maynooth University Graduate Attributes’
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/Graduate%20Attributes%20Final%20version_0.pdf [Accessed
May24, 2016]
Maynooth University (2015) ‘A Maynooth Education’
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/Maynooth%20Education%20Brochure_0.pdf [Accessed May24,
2016]
Maynooth University Library (2016) ‘Maynooth University Library: Information Literacy Strategy Framework’ Education’ [online] [Accessed
July 6, 2016] Available from: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document//MUIL_strategy.pdf
SCONUL Advisory Committee on Information Literacy (1999) ‘Information skills in higher education: a SCONUL position paper’. Prepared by
the Information Skills Task Force, on behalf of SCONUL. Available at
http://www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/seven_pillars.html
Secker, J & Connan, E (2011) ‘A New Curriculum for Information Literacy’, ARCADIA University of Cambridge
http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/ANCIL_final.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2015]
References