These slides were a part of the Yale University Library discussion series on the ACRL Framework on December 14, 2017, lead by Kelly Blanchat, Undergraduate Teaching and Outreach Librarian.

1. ACRL FRAMEWORK FOR
INFORMATION LITERACY FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION
Scholarship as Conversation
University Library
Kelly Marie Blanchat
Undergraduate Teaching and Outreach Librarian

2. ACRL Standards for
Information Literacy for
Higher Education (2000)
Learning outcomes
Units of measure to assess
student understanding
Shared goals for librarians
ACRL Framework for
Information Literacy for
Higher Education (2015)
Threshold concepts
Knowledge practices/abilities
Dispositions
VERSUS

3. ACRL Standards for
Information Literacy for
Higher Education (2000)
Learning has an end-point
Uniform expectations based on
an equal starting point
ACRL Framework for
Information Literacy for
Higher Education (2015)
Cognitive shift in thinking
Focus on learning as an
individualized, flexible process
VERSUS

4. SCHOLARSHIP AS CONVERSATION
"Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education", American Library Association, February 9, 2015.
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (Accessed December 5, 2017)

5. • cite the contributing work of others in their own
information production;
• contribute to scholarly conversation at an
appropriate level, such as local online community,
guided discussion, undergraduate research
journal, conference presentation/poster session;
• identify barriers to entering scholarly conversation
via various venues;
• critically evaluate contributions made by others in
participatory information environments;
• identify the contribution that particular articles,
books, and other scholarly pieces make to
disciplinary knowledge;
• summarize the changes in scholarly perspective
over time on a particular topic within a specific
discipline;
• recognize that a given scholarly work may not
represent the only or even the majority
perspective on the issue.
• recognize they are often entering into an ongoing
scholarly conversation and not a finished conversation;
• seek out conversations taking place in their research area;
• see themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than
only consumers of it;
• recognize that scholarly conversations take place in
various venues;
• suspend judgment on the value of a particular piece of
scholarship until the larger context for the scholarly
conversation is better understood;
• understand the responsibility that comes with entering
the conversation through participatory channels;
• value user-generated content and evaluate contributions
made by others;
• recognize that systems privilege authorities and that not
having a fluency in the language and process of a
discipline disempowers their ability to participate and
engage.
KNOWLEDGE
PRACTICES DISPOSITIONS&

6. How can we use the Framework’s thresholds to influence learning
outcomes based on the individual or situation?
So that learning outcomes become sign-posts for threshold concepts.
INSTEAD OF THIS VERSUS THAT…

7. • What are a few ways that you receive [scholarly] information?
• Who gets to publish? Who gets to tweet?
• How long does the publication process take?
“Identify the contribution that particular
articles, books, and other scholarly pieces
make to disciplinary knowledge”
“Contribute to scholarly conversation at
an appropriate level”
“Summarize the changes in scholarly
perspective over time”
 “See themselves as contributors to
scholarship rather than only consumers of it”
“Recognize that systems privilege authorities”
“Recognize that scholarly conversations take
place in various venues”
“Recognize they are often entering into an
ongoing scholarly conversation and not a
finished conversation”
EXAMPLES

8. • Collaborative tweets
• Zine making
• Wikipedia-edit-a-thon
EXAMPLES
 Twitter provides an opportunity to quickly practice
information creation and attribution into a real world context –
“Recognize that scholarly conversations take place in various
venues” – which models the on-going nature of [scholarly]
discourse.
 A method of information creation – “contribute to scholarly
conversation at an appropriate level” – that also demonstrates
alternative methods of publication to expand beyond the
traditionally accepted avenues.
 Another method of information creation – “recognize that
systems privilege authorities” – focused on online publication,
how information can change over time, how information is
vetted, and who is able to contribute.

9. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1) DO YOU HAVE ANY HESITATIONS ABOUT ADOPTING THE
FRAMEWORK?
2) DO YOU HAVE ANY HESITATIONS ABOUT ”SCHOLARSHIP AS
CONVERSATION”?
a. DO YOU AGREE THAT SCHOLARSHIP IS A CONVERSATION?
b. WHAT SET OF SKILLS ARE NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE
DISPOSTIONS OF SCHOLARSHIP AS CONVERSATION?