Presenters: Donna Witek and Teresa Grettano ACRL 2015, March 25-28, 2015, Portland, OR Abstract: The Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education has incredible potential for deepening our pedagogy as a profession, especially when considered alongside similar frameworks in other disciplines, such as the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. Participants in this workshop will consider together these two frameworks with the goal of making conceptual connections between them, developing shared learning outcomes, and designing learning activities to meet those outcomes, within a wide variety of learning contexts.

1. Shared Goals for Shared
Learning:
Using Frameworks to Collaborate in the Writing
and Information Literacy Classroom
Donna Witek, Public Services Librarian, The University of Scranton
Teresa Grettano, English Professor & Director of First-Year Writing, The University of Scranton
@donnarosemary ~ @tgrett
#sharedIL #acrl2015
CC BY-NC 4.0

2. Workshop Learning Outcomes
• Part I: Participants will identify connections between the Framework for
Information Literacy for Higher Education (hereafter Framework for IL) and
the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (hereafter Framework
for Writing), in order to articulate talking points with which to approach
writing faculty to collaborate.
• Part II: Participants will develop shared learning outcomes between the
information literacy and writing classroom, in order to deepen their
understanding of information literacy as a shared responsibility within the
curriculum.
• Part III: Participants will design assignments using connections made
between the Framework for IL and the Framework for Writing, in order to
return to their home institutions with possible learning activities to try
immediately and to share with their colleagues.
#sharedIL #acrl2015

3. Context: Our Collaboration
• Information Literacy Stipend:
Rhetoric & Social Media
• “Hanging Together” (Mazziotti &
Grettano, 2011): mapping between
ACRL Information Literacy
Competency Standards (2000) and
WPA Outcomes (2000, 2008, 2014)
• Frameworks in both disciplines as
“updates” and complements to the
earlier documents
• What are the connections between
the two?
Mama Bullet 1:
Understand a writing assignment as a series tasks,
including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary
sources (II.2)
Considers the costs and benefits of acquiring the needed
information (I.3)
Selects the most appropriate investigative methods or
information retrieval systems for accessing the needed
information (II.1)
Constructs and implements effectively-designed search
strategies (II.2)
Retrieves information online or in person using a variety
of methods (II.3)
Refines the search strategy if necessary (II.4)
Extracts, records, and manages the information and its
sources (II.5)
Determines whether the initial query should be revised
(III.7)
Understand a writing assignment as a series tasks,
including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary
sources (II.2)
Identifies a variety of types and formats of potential
sources of information (I.2)
Reevaluates the nature and extent of the information need
(I.4)
Refines the search strategy if necessary (II.4)
Articulates and applies initial criteria for evaluating both
the information and its sources (III.2)
Compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to
determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique
characteristics of the information (III.4)
Understand a writing assignment as a series tasks,
including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary
sources (II.2)
Identifies a variety of types and formats of potential
sources of information (I.2)
Refines the search strategy if necessary (II.4)
Extracts, records, and manages the information and its
sources (II.5)
Summarizes the main ideas to be extracted from the
information gathered (III.1)
Articulates and applies initial criteria for evaluating both
the information and its sources (III.2)
Compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to
determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique
characteristics of the information (III.4)
Determines whether the new knowledge has an impact on
the individual's value system and takes steps to reconcile
differences (III.5)
Understand a writing assignment as a series tasks,
including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary
sources (II.2)
Synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts (III.3)
Compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to
determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique
characteristics of the information (III.4)
Determines whether the new knowledge has an impact on
the individual's value system and takes steps to reconcile
differences (III.5)
Applies new and prior knowledge to the planning and
creation of a particular product or performance (IV. 1)
Mapped connections between WPA Outcome II.2 and ACRL Standards
#sharedIL #acrl2015

4. Context: Framework for Writing
• Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (pdf) (2011)
• Developed by Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA),
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and National Writing
Project (NWP)
• Published January 2011 by CWPA, NCTE, and NWP
• Describes the habits of mind and experiences with writing, reading,
and critical analysis that “serve as foundations for writing in college-
level, credit-bearing courses”
• Based on the outcomes included in the WPA Outcomes Statement for
First-Year Composition (2000, 2008, 2014)
#sharedIL #acrl2015

5. Context: Framework for IL
• Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2015)
• Developed by the Information Literacy Competency Standards for
Higher Education Revision Task Force
• Filed by the ACRL Board of Directors on February 2, 2015
• Based on a “cluster of interconnected core concepts . . . about
information, research, and scholarship,” and includes an updated
definition of IL and six frames, each consisting of a concept central to
IL, a set of knowledge practices, and a set of dispositions
• Developed through a revision process of the Information Literacy
Competency Standards (2000) in response to recommendations made
by the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task
Force (2012) that the Standards be significantly revised
#sharedIL #acrl2015

6. Part I: SHARED CONNECTIONS
YOUR TASK:
 Introduce yourselves to one another (name, job role, institution). 
 Read together your assigned unit of text.
 As a group, collaboratively make connections between your unit of
text and the entirety of the other Framework.
 Record the connections you make using the flip chart and markers.
 Prepare to share your findings with the entire workshop when we
come back together after the activity (3-minute presentations).
TIME: 30 minutes
#sharedIL #acrl2015

7. Part I: SHARED CONNECTIONS
GROUP SHARE:
 Donna will live tweet our findings at #sharedIL #acrl2015 to
create an archive of our work – you are welcome to do the same!
 Teresa will time each group using a stopwatch app so everyone
has a chance to share.
TIME: ~36 minutes (~3 minutes per group, 12 groups)
#sharedIL #acrl2015

8. BREAK: 10 minutes
WHEN YOU RETURN:
• Sit at a table where the flip
chart best describes the type
of institution you work at:
• Community College
• 4-Year College
• Master’s Comprehensive
• Research University
Source

9. VOTE: Attend “Framework: Next Steps” panel?
NO: END AT 4:30 PM
• PART II: Shared Outcomes
• 30 minutes
• PART III: Shared Activities
• 30 minutes
• PARTS II & III: Group Share
• 20 minutes
YES: END AT 4:00 PM (3:55 PM)
• PART II: Shared Outcomes
• 20 minutes
• PART III: Shared Activities
• 15 minutes
• PARTS II & III: Group Share
• 15 minutes (w/ 5 minute warning
to depart with enough time to get
to the panel)

10. Part II: SHARED OUTCOMES
YOUR TASK:
 Develop shared learning outcomes for the following contexts:
--Instruction-level: “By the end of this instruction session, students
will…”
--Program-level: “As a result of engagement with the information
literacy program, students will…”
 Develop shared learning outcomes in the following modes:
--Behavioral (skills, what students will be able to do)
--Cognitive (knowledge, what students will know)
--Dispositional (attitudes, how students will feel)
TIME: 30 or 20 minutes
#sharedIL #acrl2015

11. Part II: SHARED ACTIVITIES
YOUR TASK:
 Design learning activities through which your outcomes may be
developed and/or demonstrated:
--In-class activities
--Assignment prompts
 Consider the following contexts in which instruction may take place:
--One-shot
--Two-shot (double shot *wink*)
--Embedded within a course
--Co-teaching
TIME: 30 or 15 minutes
#sharedIL #acrl2015

12. Parts II & III: SHARED OUTCOMES & ACTIVITIES
GROUP SHARE:
 Donna will live tweet our findings at #sharedIL #acrl2015 to
create an archive of our work – you are welcome to do the same!
 Teresa will time each group using a stopwatch app so everyone
has a chance to share.
TIME: 20 or 10(+5) minutes total
#sharedIL #acrl2015

13. SHARING OUR WORK
• Search Twitter for: #sharedIL #acrl2015
• Volunteer(s) to Storify?
• If you’re not a Twitter user, email us and we will send you a link to an
archive of the workshop’s work once it is curated.
THANK YOU 
Donna Witek / @donnarosemary / donna.witek@scranton.edu
Teresa Grettano / @tgrett / teresa.grettano@scranton.edu
#sharedIL #acrl2015

14. References & Sources for Further Reading
ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force. (2012). Task
force recommendations (pdf).
Framework for information literacy for higher education. (2015). Association of
College and Research Libraries.
Framework for success in postsecondary writing (pdf). (2011). Council of Writing
Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the
National Writing Project.
Gardner, Carolyn Caffrey, & Jamie White-Farnham. (2013). “She has a vocabulary
I just don’t have”: faculty culture and information literacy collaboration (pdf).
Collaborative Librarianship 5 (4): 235-42.
Information literacy competency standards for higher education (pdf). (2000).
Association of College & Research Libraries.
#sharedIL #acrl2015
Slide 1/2

15. References & Sources for Further Reading
Mazziotti, Donna, & Teresa Grettano. (2011). “Hanging together”: collaboration
between information literacy and writing programs based on the ACRL standards
and the WPA outcomes (pdf). Presented at ACRL 2011, Philadelphia, PA, March
30-April 2, 2011.
Reid, Gwendolynne. (September 2014). Updating the FYC-library partnership:
recent work on information literacy and writing classrooms (pdf). WPA-CompPile
Research Bibliographies, No. 25. WPA-CompPile Research Bibliographies.
White-Farnham, Jamie & Carolyn Caffrey Gardner. (2014). Crowdsourcing the
curriculum: information literacy instruction in first-year writing. Reference
Services Review 42 (2): 277-92.
WPA outcomes statement for first-year composition. (2000, 2008, 2014). Council
of Writing Program Administrators.
#sharedIL #acrl2015
Slide 2/2