Tag Archives: information literacy

Working the IL proficencies into the AAOT Outcome and Criteria format

Here is my quick information literacy update, but some of this information has changed a bit since yesterday. I’ll update again, probably this weekend.

1. The Council of Instructional Administrators (CIA) has a format that each Gen Ed (GE) area uses for listing outcomes and criteria. This formatted document is called the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria (Go to the OUS site “Criteria for Transferable General Education Courses” and scroll down to the document in blue)

2. Each GE area has a student based performance outcome (i.e., a statement that describes what the student will be able to do as a result of completing the AAOT) and a list of course criteria (i.e., a list of things a course must have or do in order to foster student achievement of the performance objective).

3. The CIA has a task force that is working on the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria document. They have asked that “we” put the Information Literacy proficiencies into the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria format.

4. Who is “we”…”we” are librarians and other faculty info lit educators in Oregon…many of us were the Oregon Information Literacy Summit group. At the last Summit (Fall, 2008), a small group was charged with creating a more formal structure for the Summit group so that we are better able to communicate about things like this, and our more formal name is the Information Literacy Advisory Group of Oregon (ILAGO). ILAGO has a website (http://www.libraryinstruction.wordpress.com) and a listserv (visit the ILAGO website for info on how to participate, including the listserv)

5. How are “we” approaching the task of putting the IL proficiencies into the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria document format?

  • A small group is studying the format and the way other GE areas are using it (who, you may ask, is this small group? Well right now, we are the same small group that has been working on developing a formal structure for ILAGO)
  • A small group is creating a few different samples of the way the IL Proficiencies might show up in the Objective and Criteria format
  • A small group will disseminate drafts for review to OWEAC and to ILAGO and to the Oregon Community College Library Association (OCCLA)  because we are trying to reach higher ed information literacy instructors (like you) in order to solicit feedback on the drafts

6. What is so special about the AAOTOutcomes and Criteria document? It is our current opportunity to communicate with the CIA and underscore our definition of information literacy and what a student who has completed the AAOTshould be able to do.  Again, the CIA is the group of administrators charged with making policy decisions about how to implement the revised AAOT, which includes making decisions about implementing the new IL requirement. We want to look at our IL portion of the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria document as the first step in making a recommendation about the IL requirement without dictating how each institution goes about fulfilling the requirement. 

7. How should we realize the IL outcome in Oregon? Several things to consider:

  • We want to honor the recursive nature of Information Literacy….students should get several chances to learn and practice IL skills during their first two years of college
  • That said, we don’t want to set implementation standards so pie-in-the-sky-high that we are logistically unable to accomplish our goals
  • We do not want to sacrifice sound pedagogy or what’s best for our students in order to make the courses a student takes easier to track
  • The revised AAOTIL requirement specifies that we need to designate courses with the IL component and we will need to track the students to see that they have fulfilled the degree requirement
  • A stand-alone class does not appear to be an option at this time. Reading the IL statement in the AAOT, it seems to state that IL must be embedded in GE courses and that those courses will then have an IL designation
  • Do we allow students to test out of the IL requirement?
  • It is hard to talk about “what we should do” without talking about “how we should do it”…but if it makes it easier, start with what we should do for our students and trust that decisions about “how” won’t be detrimental to library/writing course well being (e.g., no one expects that two librarians serving an entire community college will face-to-face teach all the IL that needs teaching…similarly, we don’t writing courses to carry all of the IL responsibility)
  • Consider- as the librarian, your role may be as a consultant who teaches faulty how to incorporate and assess IL…and if that is the case, how do you capture and report on the amount of time you spend consulting (may want to start tracking consultation time now so you can capture and report the amount of time you devote to this activity, especially if it is a new area for your library)

8. Options for drafting the IL portion of the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria document

  • MICHELE’S FAVORITE: List the 8 IL proficiencies as the GE criteria, meaning that students will ultimately achieve all 8 and GE courses (plural) will ultimately teach all 8…and include language that says these will be embedded across the curriculum, not live in just one course.
  • WE MIGHT DO THIS AT CHEMEKETA, YOU MIGHT DO IT AT YOUR INSTITUTION…BUT PROBABLY TOO MUCH DETAIL FOR CIA/JBAC: Choose a sub-set of the IL proficiencies that we consider to be crucial and list those as the course criteria (meaning any course with the IL designation must provide an appropriate level of instruction and opportunity to practice those skills). Choose a sub-set of the IL proficiencies that we do not consider as crucial and make those “gravy” in some way (e.g., an IL course must meet these 5 crucial criteria and also one from the “gravy list”)
  • List all 8 IL proficiencies as course criteria then recommend a minimum number of criteria a course must include in order for it to receive the IL designation (How to track that students are getting all 8 and not the same 4 over and over?)
  • HERE IS ANOTHER MODEL THAT MIGHT BE USED AT A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION, BUT IS TO DETAILED FOR CIA/JBAC: Require students to take one course heavy in IL instruction, and at least one additional course that provides opportunity to practice (e.g., a writing class heavy in IL with a psych class that requires an annotated bibliography and provides some level of instruction)
  • THIS IS AN IDEA FOR A LETTER ILAGO MAY WANT TO DRAFT AT SOME POINT: We might do something similar to OWEAC…they submitted a recommendation for the GE Writing portion of the AAOT Outcomes and Criteria document…and they include a nice letter of explanation and an addendum that matches each criteria to a student performance outcome (maybe we should do something like that?). To see the OWEAC writing recommendation, visit their website at www.oweac.wordpress.com and look on the Recommendations page.

9. What now

  • I’m going create a few drafts and post them here (and possibly on the ILAGO website when it is ready)
  • Discuss at OWEAC meeting Feb. 6th here at Chemeketa
  • Discuss OCCLA meeting Feb. 27th here at Chemeketa
  • I’m going to draft a couple of possible implementation models for Chemeketa to consider
  • I would love to hear from anyone who wants to work on this together (call or email me at Chemeketa)
  • I’ll keep posting IL updates here and possibly on the ILAGO website

Info Lit Articulation Group of Greater Portland (notes for our panel at the IL Summit)

Quick description of our group/project. Why us? Why are we a logical group to work together? (how did  we form?)? What is our intent?

The IL group of the Greater Portland Area was formed just before the Oregon IL 2007 Summit and includes librarians from Portland State University, Mt. Hood Community College, Portland Community College and Chemeketa Community College (with guest appearances by Clackamas Community College). Our purpose is to create a shared understanding of IL proficiencies and outcomes in order to establish consistency and better service for the students who swirl among our institutions. 

Anna Johnson (MHCC), Bob Schroeder (PSU), Victoria Scott (PCC) and I (Chemeketa CC) worked on proficiencies prior to the fall Summit and then worked after the Summit to draft explanatory examples to describe each of the statewide IL proficiencies.

What have we accomplished [beyond our original goals]

When we completed our descriptive examples, Anna (channeling her past life experience in graphic design) created a poster for use as a visual at the PAIL meeting (Portland Areas Information Literacy group?…I think? the acronym plot thickens). I handed out copies of the poster at the OWEAC meeting last week and it seemed to be well received. There were requests for electronic copies of the poster and you can access that in Word (formatting of text boxes is touchy) or PDF (with notes).

·         Have used the graphic in class- distributed to students as a way of initiating a conversation about what the library is interested in, what the object of the class/assignment is.

·         Resource for talking about library instruction with faculty (skill rather than tool). Defines our interest.

·         Answers the question “but I already learned this”

·         Come together around a common interest and point of discussion (get to know each other, share ideas for classroom practice and networking with faculty, collaborate on other projects, divide and conquer, group brain-power like Anna’s Meebo question to group)

·         There is no common sense without common experience.

What do you need if you want to form this kind of partnership (e.g., institutional support…how much time does it take/how many meetings…)

·         Belief in the value of the project (value translated in to time)

·         Enthusiasm and energy

·         Time

o   Mtg at PCC w/ all group including Clackamas

o   Mtg at PCC (did we have three meetings?)

o   Work Group Mtg at PCC: accomplished the most when had a specific task on which to work and stayed with it until we were done

What do we want to do now? What are we working on?

Tori: At PCC, we don’t need to leave the college to find high school jrs and seniors. We have a lot of Developmental Education (DE) students who are doing college prep work. Some PCC librarians have worked with the DE faculty to embed IL outcomes into the DE curriculum. How this will play out in terms of who will teach the IL concepts and library research skills, remains to be seen.

Tori: Working in another vein, and contrary to the embedding approach, PCC has a one-credit IL class and one program (Alcohol and Drug Counseling) will require students in the program to take an IL course tailored to Addiction Studies. This course will be taught by a librarian.

Bob:   PSU is finally (maybe?) articulating campus -wide learning outcomes. While IL isn’t explicitly named, the ‘Inquiry and Critical Thinking’ goal basically is IL (This is how it’s looking at the moment- “/Students  will develop the disposition and skills to strategize, gather,  organize,  create refine, and analyze relevant information and ideas for problem solving” /). The proficiencies that our group developed will come into play, in ways as yet unknown, in the coming role-out of these campus-wide goals. 

Bob: Anna & I have begun working with 2 high school librarians (one from a public school & one from a private school) in Portland to see if, using the proficiencies already established for Portland area rising juniors, we can find some proficiencies for graduating seniors/ entering  freshmen.

What has the conversation been like at each institution? Is our work generally supported? Explain. How has this articulation work helped us at our individual institutions?

Tori: I think our work on coordinating between colleges in the Portland area gives us credibility within our institutions, or at least it gives me some credibility when I bring it up with faculty or administrators outside the library.

Bob:  This has been a bit problematic at PSU as we already have our own home-grown “Matrix of IL Skills and Abilities” that we have been using to promote IL dialog on campus. Haven’t yet resolved the relationship between our Matrix and these larger, Portland area goals.


At CCC we are…

·         Mtg with Eng and Writing faculty and continuing to define what embedded (assessable) IL will look like

·         Interest from the Education dept (mentoring a new faculty member created a connection)…also suggested she consider partnering with schools like WOU

·         Academic Standards has noticed the IL component in the AAOT and would like to know what our plan is by this spring (2009).

·         Assessment activities are encouraged and flexible, but need to start with statements of objective….the articulation work informs our understanding of objectives.

OR Info Lit Summit Debrief

Here are my notes/debrief on the 2008 Oregon Information Literacy Summit (11/21/08)- including planning process and things to consider for next year.

As members of the Summit, it is our job to raise consciousness, generate language and buzzwords around information literacy that bring others in to the conversation, and distribute information to our colleagues who are not able to attend the Summit.

8:30 – 9:00 am Registration coffee and tea

  • Registration was approximately 40. The smaller group size worked well for large discussions and reporting out from the small group breakout discussions. I would have liked to have a larger group because I know there are many who wanted but were unable to attend. To consider for next year: start planning earlier, send invitations and agenda with as much detail as possible, send invitations earlier, create a listserv of past participants then send invitation and updates to that list, choose date that does not conflict with other conference, have a Summit Planning committee member volunteer to coordinate registration.  (note: small group assigned to look at technology options for a hybrid Summit, see below).

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome & updates

  • On the evaluation forms someone noted that it would be good to “add a brief social gathering at the beginning or the evening before the Summit to become familiar with attendees.”
  • Also noted on the evaluation was that the planning committee needs to “realize that you have new attendees and do a better job of recapping last year’s meeting and work in between….I was wondering for the first half hour if I was at the right meeting.” So, as the planning committee, we need to prepare a stronger introduction to set the context for the Summit and bring everyone into the conversation.

9:30 – 10:30 am Panel discussion – collaborative IL models

  • Cooperative Library Instruction Project. Allen took the lead with a modified version of the presentation he gave at the ACRL OR/WA conference in October. Robert chimed in to help clarify the project vision. I added comments about the stage of the project (i.e., we at the beginning and want input, we have been talking to OWEAC colleages from the get go…)
  • Information Literacy Articulation Group of Greater Portland. Anna and I talked about our work articulating the Summit IL proficiencies. We talked about the creation and use of the proficiency poster “College students who are ready to begin upper-level coursework” (I posted updated pdf and word versions of the poster on this blog under Info Lit Links).

10:30 – 11:30 am Breakout session on institutional collaboration. Robert Monge from WOU facilitated the first breakout session. He asked each small group to consider: What can we share? What should we share? What kind of instruction and types of collaboration might we share?

  • Although we had a good discussion, our small group veered off topic considerably.
  • Wolfgang noted the need for different levels of information literacy…a continuum.
  • Kate mentioned the recursive nature and that it is unrealistic to think we can set specific objectives that students will come out of class with.
  • I noted a recommendation of the book Writing to Learn by William Zinsser (requested and received!)
  • Starting place for each institution is to identify which classes require research
  • Characteristics of Info Lit in sciences = APA, journal study, currency study, using .com as a springboard into current topic, Kate compared to writing across the curriculum…that just as you write differently in a science class so too would you write research differently.

11:30 – 12:00 noon Presentation: sharing materials and licensing (Rachel Bridgewater)

  • I asked OSU to post Rachel’s handout on the OR IL Summit site and I will link to when possible
  • I noted Bryan’s suggestion to allow students to comment on tutorials via multi-media u-tube type comments…how will we have students license their own materials? Apply copyright to student’s work!

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch (spent time catching up with Dan Bjerke from OSU)

1:00 – 2:00 pm Presentations on Information Literacy in the Classroom

2:00 – 3:00 pm Breakout sessions…discussion tables

“Set expectations as high as we can, support from the bottom as much as we can.” Bryan Miyagishima.

  • Our table broke in to groups of three and were tasked with reporting back about 2 things that work and 1 thing that works better. Here is a list of ideas we generated:
  • break up material into segments so you don’t exceed students’ attention spans
  • use small group work (have them report back, charge students with teaching their classmates)
  • physically move around the classroom
  • wow factor of technology such as smart boards sometimes works to keep students’ attention
  • small groups come up with 5 tips around one study skill theme
  • scholarly/popular activity
  • model conversation with instructor (talk about why we are here…)
  • model a search
  • see student presentations and assignments (analyze for strong/weak areas)
  • use call number feature to see shelf list (browse online)
  • hand-held technology to help people work through info tech challenges because it is their tech of preference
  • annotated bib (source relevancy, structure course around a final content, formatting) helps students move from collecting sources to reading and engaging with the content of the sources
  • do the assignment yourself (!good idea!)
  • scaffolding
  • have students write from their passion
  • work to build community in a one hour session

Notes from the Assessment discussion table

  • the challenge of the One-shot
  • proficiencies from the last summit…make them in to measurable activities
  • have a strategy you can communicate to people outside of the library
  • IL can be scattered, messy, difficult to assess…so you are not crazy if you think this is hard work!

Notes from the Collaboration table

  • How do librarians try to connect to faculty? Frequently attend meetings and participate on committees together
  • Tutorials can help with the lack of time
  • Class page for assignments
  • non-research paper info-lit activities !assignments!
  • challenge to work with discipline instructors who already feel proficient in research

3:00 – 4:00 pm Future of the IL Summit and next steps

  • participants were in favor of keeping a face-to-face portion of the Summit
  • participants were in favor of adding technological components for increasing access (hybrid model)
  • participants agreed to have small groups discuss and make a recommendation for 1) structure of the Summit committee 2) Program of the Summit “conference” and 3) technological options for increased capture and access
  • Anna suggested we start and end the day with work with our regional partners
  • consider ‘unconference’ model where program is set the day of
  • consider setting aside time for lightning talks (people sign up and give ten minute talks on current projects/research…etc)
  • Bryan proposed we find institutions who are willing to host or fund (WOU, Linn-Benton, Chemeketa have volunteered)
  • Sara suggested we consider an OWEAC like structure (set meetings, open membership, officers)
  • Lynda suggested we add themes to the program that will attract other partners (e.g., IL in the sciences theme to attract science faculty)
  • Dan to send out a survey asking for nominations of persons to sit on JBAC and/or the IL Subcommittee
  • Consider: what is the name of our group
  • Consider: piggy back on the Oregon Rhetoric Conference

Volunteers to work on Structure:
Doyne, Kate, Robin, Michele

Volunteers to work on Proposal for Face to Face:
Anna, Sara, Bryan, Uta

Volunteers to work on Tech Blend:
Robert, Ann-Marie, Candace

note about the Cooperative Library Instruction Project

I’ll post updates about the Cooperative Library Instruction Project as it develops. I hope your input will shape the vision and realization of this project! Below is the project overview from the handout I distributed at the fall OWEAC meeting in Bend. Although it has only been a short time since we met, my concept of this project has morphed and I think changing vision will be the norm for awhile. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts and will put out a more formal call for ideas soon. ~Michele

Cooperative Information Literacy Project

Goal: Create a collection of information literacy tutorials that may be shared by Orbis Cascade Alliance institutions and eventually non-Alliance members.

Funding: The LSTA grant proposal has been selected for funding pending board approval, which happens sometime in October. The board has never rejected a proposal that has been recommended for approval, so the Project Team is moving forward with initial implementation work.

Project Team: Liaisons from four Oregon Cascade Alliance member institutions (Chemeketa Community College, Western Oregon University, Oregon State University, and Willamette University) plus a Project Coordinator to be hired pending final approval.

Have Your Say:Which tutorials are most needed? If only ten tutorials are created- which ones should they be? What is not needed? What’s missing that should be considered? What should the Project Team know going into this effort? Who else should be involved? How should we collect, add, and make available tutorials and materials that have already been created?

Cooperative Library Instruction Project…update on the grant

From Dr. McKiel:
We have passed another hurdle. Our LSTA grant proposal for cooperative instruction has been selected for funding pending board approval, which happens sometime in October. It is my understanding that the board has never rejected a proposal that has been recommended for approval. It would, therefore, be reasonable to proceed with initial plans for implementing the grant.

Cooperative Library Instruction Project

At the OWEAC meeting we discussed the Cooperative Library Instruction Project, an LSTA grant proposal for creating a shared collection of information literacy/library instruction tutorials. There seemed to be agreement that OWEAC supports the spirit of this project, but we wanted to know more about the specifics of the proposal before issuing an endorsement.
I contacted Allen McKiel, Dean of Library and Media Services at Western Oregon University in Monmouth. McKiel initiated the project and wrote the grant proposal. You can read his comments below.  
I feel compelled to clarify that I am not on the payroll trying to market this project. However, after reading the description, I  do believe it is a good starting point for building a shared resource. I recommended that OWEAC track the development of this project and form a liaison relationship with the project coordinator(s) so that the voices of Writing and English faculty are represented as this takes shape. I am happy to help set up this communication.  I also recommend that the project include teach-the-teacher tutorials as a resource for helping instructors incorporate IL into their subject curriculum.  

McKiel’s Description of The Cooperative Library Instruction Project:

Although the initial project will involve a subset of the libraries in the Orbis Cascade Alliance that will set up the standards for producing and sharing modules, the modules are meant to be open source for use by anyone. The precise mechanisms for participating in the production of modules by librarians or faculty will be an outcome of the processes set up through the grant. The Alliance provides the organizational and administrative infrastructure for cooperation. The processes set up for the ongoing development of standards and procedures will likely expand through the administrative structures of the Alliance. It would be important from my perspective to set up structures that provide for participation by non-Alliance members in the production of modules.

There are two focal areas for content development that reflect ACRL’s call for horizontal and vertical integration of information literacy instruction throughout the curriculum. Comprehensive horizontal integration requires that institutions of higher education find ways to ensure that all incoming students are able to effectively function within local institutional and the greater Internet information sphere. Below is an example list of some of the topics that basic modules could address. The list is an example of the types of modules intended. It is not comprehensive. The modules available would undergo constant expansion and revision as the information infrastructure and student and faculty experiences evolve and librarians continue to contribute modules. I have provided the list to show the relevance of this effort to OWEAC. The modules will be available for use as they are or for modification as modules for insertion into courses for students or as tutorials for faculty. It is intended that assessments be included—i.e. multiple choice questions and exercises that could be available through some mechanism of controlled access.


Knowledge of Institutional Information Infrastructure
Web Services, User ID and Password, and Email
WebCT, Moodle
Campus Resources
Library Physical Overview
Library Web Page Overview


Effective Use of Resources
E-books—Ebrary and Netlibrary
E-journals—Ebsco and Jstor
Government Documents
Accessing Physical Materials
Link Resolver
Serials Solutions
Federated Searching
Interlibrary Loan


Skills & Concepts
Evaluation of URLS
Research Strategies
Peer Review
Plagiarism and Citation
Search Terms

Vertical integration of information literacy is the second focal area of development that could benefit from cooperation. The information literacy needs of nursing, finance, education, or chemistry students are different. The information resources relevant to the various disciplines are in a state of rapid expansion in diversity and depth on the Internet. Much of the current expansion of the Internet is occurring through the integration of governmental, corporate, and organizational data structures. The interfaces to these data sets are often not intuitive. The interface to the Federal Government’s Census Datais an example. As librarians and faculty progressively identify relevant web sites and online resources that are relevant to the curriculum of the various disciplines, it will become increasingly important to share the instruction that librarians produce. 









IL discussion at Menucha (ACRL OR/WA Joint Fall Conference)

ACRL Oregon & Washington Joint Fall Conference 2008
The Once & Future Catalog
When: October 23-24, 2008
Menucha Conference Center, Corbett, Oregon.
Grab a beverage and join colleagues from Oregon and Washington to discuss Information Literacy. We have time set aside Thursday, October 23 @ 8:00pm, so this will be a pre-social-social. 
Oregon librarians are in the process of interpreting the revised AA/OT and JBAC recommendations.  Washington librarians from 2 and 4-year schools are continuing conversation about statewide IL articulation. We’re all interested in ways to embed IL in foundational courses. The Cooperative Information Literacy Project would start a pool of shared online IL tutorials for Summit libraries. Always lots to talk about- hope to see you there.

Information Literacy Group of Greater Portland…

…at least I think that’s our name! And because there have been a few questions, here’s who we are and what we are working on.

The IL group of the Greater Portland Area was formed just before the Oregon IL 2007 Summit and includes librarians from Portland State University, Mt. Hood Community College, Portland Community College and Chemeketa Community College (with guest appearances by Clackamas Community College). Our purpose is to create a shared understanding of IL proficiencies and outcomes in order to establish consistency and better service for the students who swirl among our institutions. 

Anna Johnson (MHCC), Bob Schroeder (PSU), Victoria Scott (PCC) and I (Chemeketa CC) worked on proficiencies prior to the fall Summit and then worked after the Summit to draft explanatory examples to describe each of the statewide IL proficiencies. When we completed our descriptive examples, Anna (channelling her past life experience in graphic design) created a poster for use as a visual at the PAIL meeting (Portland Areas Information Literacy group?…I think? the acronym plot thickens). I handed out copies of the poster at the OWEAC meeting last week and it seemed to be well received. There were requests for electronic copies of the poster and you can access that in Word (formatting of text boxes is touchy) or PDF (with notes).

For related information on IL in Oregon, see Undergraduate Information Literacy: Sharing Students, Sharing Standards, a site I set up to support a showcase we did for the 2008 OLA/WLA Joint Conference. I’m in the process of repurposing that site, so expect changes.


OWEAC 5/16/08 meeting

OWEAC = The Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee…

Maybe you already know what OWEAC stands for, but it bears repeating as this group is a too-well kept secret. As I say in my notes from the Feb. 8th meeting at Linn Benton, tuning in to OWEAC is a great way for Oregon librarians to stay in the loop about the important issues affecting our collaboration with writing colleagues in higher ed. Here are my in process notes from the May 16th meeting at OIT in Klamath Falls. I’ll try to capture the flavor of the discussion and why it is important, then we can further discuss implications for academic librarians. If you are interested, I hope you’ll comment in the blog or contact me personally with questions, corrections, and to get in on the IL conversation. Cheers!

  1. Revisions to the AAOT (Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer) degree requirements went to the Joint Boards of Education for adoption on May 2. 2008. In brief, the revisions to the AAOT are done (here is my copy with scribbles). Note: Information Literacy is not listed as a foundational requirement, but it is called out in the notes and clarifications (page 2, number 7). The note on IL says: Information Literacy is included in the AAOT through embedding the appropriate content and analytical activity in courses that count toward Foundation Requirements or Discipline Studies. Colleges will designate courses that do so.  Looks like we need to think about how to designate a course as fulfilling the IL piece.
  2. The revised AAOT and the Oregon Transfer Model (OTM) describe the minimum writing requirement as …at least two courses totaling a minimum of eight credits of lower division collegiate writing courses and designated courses are WR 121, 122, 123, and 227. (see a copy of OTM with my scribbles).
  3. Many (most?) Oregon colleges and universities are making the conversion from 3 to 4-credit writing classes. English and writing instructors are sending outcomes to Eva Payne who is compiling a side-by-side list of existing 3 and 4-credit outcomes. Now is the time for librarians to chime in and work with Writing and English folks on incorporating IL outcomes into the 4-credit writing courses…ideally coming up with language that suits both purposes, rather than trying to squeeze in an IL outcome after the fact. As noted above, this is also a good time to think about how we will designate those foundational requirement classes with incorporated IL.
  4. There is a need for IL training for faculty. I mention the LSTA grant proposal to fund creating of shared IL tutorials. It was clear at OWEAC that there is a need/desire for a set of IL tutorials for faculty (full and part time, adjunct, and instructors in dual credit programs). I’m going to forward this OWEAC recommendation to McKiel. OWEAC is also interested in endorsing McKiel’s IL grant proposal, although it is only in spirit until we are able to read the text of the grant. Writing and English faculty expressed a strong desire for IL tutorials aimed at teaching faculty (full time and adjunct) to successfully incorporate IL into writing classes. In addition to training our regular college and university faculty, we also need a way to train Dual Enrollment instructors who teach writing classes in High Schools. I hope the shared online instruction resources McKiel envisions will include tutorials designed for our Writing and English faculty colleagues.

Here is the Information Literacy Proficiencies poste (pdf with notes OR word doc but be careful about losing formatting).

Undergraduate Information Literacy: Sharing Students, Sharing Standards

For all kinds of information on our OLA/WLA Joint Conference Showcase, visit the Information Literacy site hosted by Chemeketa http://newterra.chemeketa.edu/library/instruction/infolit/index.html.

The showcase format was a success and it was nice to work closely with Oregon librarian colleagues, Kate Gronemyer, Bob Schroeder, and Cat Finney, and to meet Jeff Purdue from Western Washington University in Bellingham. See showcase collaborators. Jeff, Kate and I had dinner Wednesday Tommy O’s Pacific Rim Bistro to talk about details for the Thursday showcase.  As Kate pointed out, Vancouver, WA isn’t exactly a resort town, but the downtown is cute and I liked Tommy’s!