Tag Archives: Oregon Information Literacy Summit

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
Advertisements

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