1. The document discusses maintaining the relevancy of libraries in the 21st century given changing trends in information delivery, tools, and the millennial generation of students. 2. It emphasizes the importance of information literacy and the need for discipline-specific and outcome-focused standards and assessments, as well as collaboration with faculty through curriculum integration. 3. Recommendations include effective assessment of information literacy programs and acknowledging both progress in adopting standards and the ongoing need to address faculty support and program relevance in the sciences.

1. Maintaining Our Libraries’ Relevancy in the 21 st Century Information Literacy Trends in the Sciences Andrew Wick Klein May 8, 2006

2. The Situation Changing landscape of information Emerging delivery methods: wikis, blogs, RSS New tools: Google Scholar, competitors Online journals, open access

3. The Situation Generation Y / Millennial Generation Changing profile of “college student” Faculty and teaching Libraries

4. We Ask Ourselves… Keep up-to-date? Prepare for the future? Best way to reach our users? Support the educational mission? Stay relevant? Information Literacy

5. Information Literacy The set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information Learning how to learn Increasingly important in the Information Age Essential to producing life-long learners

6. IL versus BI BI: one-shot sessions, specific assignments, no followup Bigger and broader: Information needs on a global level Throughout the entire process Outside the classroom General and specific

7. Standards 2000: ACRL publishes Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Supporting documents Draft: Standards for Science & Technology Libraries

8. Successes Wide acceptance, praise for standards Voluminous literature on IL strategies, programs and tips Professional support: Instruction Section, conferences, discussion lists

9. Problems Lack of support – financial, personnel, teaching venues Resistance and “inertia” from faculty Lack of understanding that IL is a mainstream educational issue rather than just library-centric Is it working? Lack of assessment

10. Implementation Effective Assessment Collaboration With Faculty Curriculum Integration Outcome- specific Discipline- specific Information Literacy

11. 1. Discipline-specific Standards strike a balance between generality and discipline specificity IL in isolation loses relevance Context emphasizes importance User need is paramount User need is discipline-specific

12. 2. Outcome-specific Emphasized in Standards Outcomes themselves can vary from general to specific Good educational theory: backward design Essential to assessment

13. 3. Curriculum integration IL skills are science skills Necessary for standardization across department Important for faculty collaboration User needs vary with program

14. 4. Collaboration with faculty Foster good relationships: listening, asking rather than telling, suggesting Work with representative group Partners working towards same educational goal – we’re here to help! User needs!

15. 5. Effective Assessment Focused on desired outcomes Also learning environment and IL program components Formal and informal Ongoing and integrated into design of IL program

16. Questions?

17. I Am Preaching to the Choir or IL at Cal State Northridge Mission, goals: “information competence” is clear priority Information Competence Initiative: grants, resources CSUN Assessment plan: IL is 1 of 3 ICT Literacy Assessment Initiative with EST

18. Room for Improvement Trends that aren’t going away: Relevance of IL to science curricula Value of discipline-specific programs Need for faculty support Importance of effective assessment

19. Bibliography ACRL website on Information Literacy. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.htm (Accessed May 5, 2006). Badke, William. “Can’t Get No Respect: Helping Faculty to Understand the Educational Power of Information Literacy.” The Reference Librarian , 89/90 (2005), pp. 63-80. Galvin, Jeanne. “Alternative Strategies for Promoting Information Literacy.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 31 (2005), pp. 352-357. Gardner, Susan. “What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function of the Academic Library.” portal: Libraries and the Academy , 5 (2005), pp. 405-420. Gilson, Caroline. Personal correspondence. Hebb, Tiffany. Personal correspondence. “ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries (2000).

20. Bibliography Lindauer, Bonnie G. “The Three Arenas of Information Literacy Assessment.” Reference & User Services Quarterly , 44 (2004), pp. 122-129. Manuel, Kate. “Generic and Discipline-Specific Information Literacy Competencies: The Case for the Sciences.” Science & Technology Libraries , 24 (2004), pp. 279-308. Rockman, Ilene. “Integrating information literacy into the learning outcomes of academic disciplines.” College & Research Libraries News , 64 (2003), pp. 612-615. Smith, Eleanor M. “Developing an Information Literacy Curriculum for the Sciences.” Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship , 37 (Spring 2003). Winterman, Brian. Personal correspondence.

21. Thank you!