ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ June 2000 / 483 College & Research Libraries news Developing a program of information literacy How California State University did it by Susan Carol Curzon I n the early 1990s, librarians at Califor­ nia State University (CSU) became increas­ ingly concerned about the information litera skill level of the students. The librarians found themselves instructing in ever more basic con­ cepts in information literacy—concepts that the students should have mastered prior to university life. CSU librarians worried that the information literacy skill level of many of our students w ould eventually have a serious im­ pact on their academic achievement. The CSU environment The concern of our librarians coincided with a shift at CSU regarding the development of CSU’s information and technology resources. Observing society’s change towards a heavy use of technology and electronic information, CSU launched a plan called the Integrated Technology Strategy. To guide the academic initiatives established under this plan, CSU created the Commission on Learning Re­ sources and Instructional Technology, which was charged with recommending policies on the use of learning resources and technol­ ogy throughout our 22 campuses. As the same time the CSU Council of Li­ brary Directors (COLD) determined a course of action that would have a dramatic impact on the CSU libraries. COLD created a plan, “Transforming CSl’ Libraries for the 21” Cen­ c tury,” which outlined projects that would ben­ efit the libraries. One area identified for ac y tion was information literacy. COLD’S plan stated that CSU needed to “establish basic competence levels in the use of recorded knowledge and information and processes for assessment of student com petence.” The commission approved the plan and agreed that information literacy was a prior­ ity. At the request of the commission, a work group was formed to develop a program of student information literacy, or information com petence as we called it. T he In fo rm a tio n C o m p e te n c e Work Group, comprised of university and library administrators and faculty began work in April 1995. The work group determined early that we had three main tasks. First, we needed to establish a common understanding of what information com petence was. Second, we needed to understand what the current state of information competence was on our cam­ puses. Third, we needed to create a strategy that would enable CSU to develop a program of information competence. A common understanding The first task, developing a common under­ standing of information com petence, took longer than expected because we decided that we w ould issue a report containing a About the author Susan Carol Curzon is dean o f the University Library o f California State University, Northridge and has chaired the CSU Information Competence Work Group since its inception in 1995, e-mail: susan.curzon@csun.edu mailto:susan.curzon@csun.edu 484 / C8,RL N ew s ■ J u n e 2000 We do have one ongoing struggle. We found th at it is one thing to have a definition of inform ation com petence but it is quite another to have others understand it. definition of information competence, the sig nificance of information competence, and our goals. It was easier said than done. The most challenging task was the cre ation of a definition of information compe tence. Today, the efforts o f ACRL and many individuals have greatly improved the defi nition of information competence. However, in 1995, it was not easy to create a definition that would work across 22 campuses. Defining information competence also was initially stymied, but finally enriched, by the backgrounds of the work group. A few mem bers had never really thought much about the subject before. Even the librarians in the work group had enough variation in background to have different perspectives on the topic. As we hammered out a definition, we also improved our understanding. Moreover, ex periencing the many views on information competence within ourselves gave us an in dication o f what was to come when the pro gram was launched with 25,000 faculty. Finally, the report entitled “Information Competence in the CSU” was issued as we had planned. Credit for much o f the writing of the report belongs to Lorie Roth, a work group member and CSU’s senior director for Academic Services and Professional Devel opment. Issuing the report was a good start. The acceptance o f the report by the commission and the appearance of the report on cam puses and before the CSU Academic Senate gave us a sudden profile. Additionally, it set the stage for ongoing funding for our efforts. Moreover, the long time spent in understand ing the issues o f information competence bonded the work group. The issuance o f the report made us feel as if we had arrived. We do have one ongoing struggle. We found that it is one thing to have a definition o f information competence but it is quite an other to have others understand it. Information competence was confused frequently with computer literacy and, in spite o f our repeated explanations, people did not hear the difference between content and tools. It has only been in the last year that I have heard the term used more precisely. A ssessing student skills Next, we felt that the most powerful argument to win ongoing support of our program would be to demonstrate, statistically, the level of stu dent information competence skills. We in tended to complete this task early on, but it is only now underway. The delay occurred be cause it took us awhile to realize that until we had a definition, faculty awareness of the is sues of information competence, and an agree ment on the strategies for developing a pro gram of information competence, launching a study would not be successful. However, in the spring o f 1999, Kathleen Dunn, assistant university librarian, CSU Pomona, agreed to serve as chair of the In formation Competence Assessment Commit tee. Once again, the challenge was to under stand the task. We had to think about how the results would be used, what and who would be tested, and how the survey would be carried out. At first, this very willing committee was supposed to design and implement the as sessment. However, we became increasingly aware o f the massive amount o f time and effort in implementation. It was at that point that the committee transformed into a steer ing committee and contracted out the imple mentation o f the survey. Our hope is that there will be funding for a longitudinal study to see if our students’ skills are improving over time (see sidebar). The strategy The next task o f the work group was to de velop a strategy for bringing a program of information competence to CSU. CSU is a large institution with a myriad of projects al ways underway. As we were a group with no authority to mandate and a brief history, we recognized early on that we had only our powers o f persuasion. Therefore, we decided that our strategy would be to encourage and nurture a program of information com pe tence. With this in mind, the work group de veloped a four pronged approach. C&RL News ■ Ju n e 2000 / 485 The first approach was to encourage infor mation com petence programs on the cam puses. While the CSU libraries have robust bibliographic instruction programs, there had never b een external support to develop pro grams on information com petence. Moreover, information com petence was mostly the do main o f librarians with few college faculty in volved. We decided that the best way to stir up interest was to take most o f our budget and put it towards the awarding o f grants. To obtain a grant, awardees had to meet requirements that included the creation o f a product at the conclusion o f the grant that could b e shared with other campuses and a Web presence so that other campuses could easily access the information. We awarded only one grant that first year in 1995-96, but it was to five campuses that proposed the creation o f interactive tutorials in information competence. Under the direction o f Paul Adalian at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, this flagship project becam e so successful that it received ACRL recogni tion as one o f the top ten tutorials o f the year by ACRL’s Instruction Section. O nce the academ ic community becam e aware that funding was available, interest in our grants accelerated and eventually 21 o f 22 cam puses had a grant. Additionally, the grants fostered con sid erab le m ulticam pus participation, as many o f the grants involved more than on e campus. Since the first grant, $285,201 has b e e n given out for 30 projects. T h e projects ranged from the creation o f courses in information com petence to the de velopm ent o f discipline-specific skills in in form ation com petence, such as in nursing, music, or journalism. Despite the variation in the projects, the project leaders had their enthusiasm and commitment in furthering in form ation com p eten ce in com m on. Info rm atio n literacy com petency standards endorsed ACRL’s new “Information Literacy Com petency Standards for Higher Education” have been endorsed by the American As sociation for Higher Education. The ACRL Board o f Directors approved the new stan dards at its 2000 Midwinter Meeting The standards are available on the Web at http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html. In 1999, w e also d ecided to offer fellow ships in inform ation com p eten ce. T he re quirem ents w ere similar to the grants in that the fellow s had to m ake their results know n through a Web page and create tools that can be used by other cam puses. Four fel low s selected spring 1999 have com pleted their work. T ran sfe rrin g k n o w le d g e Next, the w ork group focused on transfer ring know ledge about information com p e ten ce b etw een m em bers o f the academ ic community. The first o f these efforts was to hold a conference on information com petence. Half way through w e began to realize what an undertaking a con feren ce really was, but we persisted and the con feren ce was held in O ctober 1995 in Long B each with more than 150 attendees drawn from CSU. T he confer en ce lasted a day and a half with keynote speakers, project presentations, and small groups. It was very successful and the con ference aw akened yet m ore interest in infor mation com petence. The next effort was an attempt to have the system -w ide A cadem ic Senate and the local faculty sen ates end orse a resolution in support o f inform ation c o m p e te n c e. This proved to b e controversial and had very m ixed results. Eventually, there was a reso lution from the system -w ide A cadem ic Sen ate and from a few faculty senates, but it was a challeng e to obtain the resolutions. T he resolution stirred up many faculty fears about program s being m andated or addi tional requirem ents bein g added. O n the plus side, our efforts to secure resolutions did get attention and dramatically increased our profile. It helped that two in our w ork group, Professor Kathy Kaiser o f CSU Chico and Professor B o bb y Madison o f CSU Northridge, had been active in the sen ate and provided us with the reasons b e hind faculty con cern s. Not to be deterred, w e focused next on faculty development. We created an oppor tunity for faculty to attend w orkshops that would en h an ce their skills in information com p eten ce. In the sum m er o f 1999, two w o rk sh o p s, u n d er the d irec tio n o f Paul Adalian, w ere held in San Luis O bispo with 40 faculty in attendance. Faculty spent sev- http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html 486 / C&RL N ew s • Ju n e 2000 days learning how to weave the con cepts of information competence into their courses. The workshops were a success and attendees raved about their experience. Another effort that helped us to transfer knowledge about information competence was our Web presence. Initially, I had cre ated a Web site for my own convenience but it proved so useful to people seeking grants or information about our program that we expanded the site. Now for everyone’s convenience, all of the projects, grants, fel lowships and reports of the work group (as well as linkages to other information literacy W eb s ite s ) are a v a ila b le at http:// library.csun.edu/susan.curzon/. The members of the work group also gave a number of speeches about our program. Gordon Smith, director of System-wide Li brary Initiatives for CSU; Patricia Hart, assis tant to the provost at CSU Fresno; and Lorie Roth were among the speakers who shared with others our successes and our challenges. As the chair, I also continually generated reports. A program of information compe tence is rarely a priority against the many issues that confront an academic enterprise. Information competence must constantly be before people or it fades away. Many re ports were issued to inform various groups as to our progress. This high profile was also necessary for us to obtain the funding to achieve our goals. External linkages We also thought it was valuable to establish linkages beyond CSU. Some of this was ac complished through our grant process. Sev eral grants focused on working with schools and community colleges. This provided a forum for librarians to agree upon mutual goals, develop training and share successes and challenges. Another area of activity for us was the new California High School Exit Examina tion. At this point information com petence is one of the areas to be tested. The pres ence o f information competence on an exit examination is critical to us because teach ers will begin teaching about the exam and, hopefully, student information competence skills will increase as a result. We have s e n t d o c u m e n ts a b o u t in fo r m a tio n (con tin u ed on p a g e 491) Inform ation Competence Skills Assessm ent underw ay at CSU Key purposes of the assessment are to: 1) establish a baseline of information com petence skills in the CSU; 2) gather reliable data as support for programs of informa tion skills in the CSU; 3) gather reliable data as support for programs of information com petence on all of the campuses; 4) provide data to create targeted information compe tence instructional experiences. The assessment, important to the CSU as well as to like institutions across the na tion, is now a reality through the focused efforts of CSU Information Competence As sessment Task Force. During April and May 2000, the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at CSU San Marcos conducted telephone suiveys of approximately 3,000 students represent ing all campuses to arrive at a baseline evaluation of information competence skills. The survey instrument incorporates a unique nonlinear approach to competence assessment by posing hypothetical scenarios to determine how students find, evaluate, and use information. The assessment also includes questions about library usage and experiences, use of information resources, use of technology for class assignments and research, and attitudes toward class writing assignments. Next steps for the Assessment Task Force are to analyze the results to chart baseline competence and posit a profile of an infor mation competent student, and to study de ficiencies in order to provide direction for library instruction programs at CSU. Task force members will share the results of this assessment in a variety of professional fo rums. For more information, please contact Kathleen Dunn, chair of the CSU Informa tion Competence Assessment Task Force, e- mail: kkdunn@csupomona.edu. — Kathleen Dunn, CSU P am on a mailto:kkdunn@csupomona.edu C&RL N ew s ■ J u n e 2 0 0 0 / 48 7 I N F O R M A T I O N I N T E G R I T Y i n t e l l i g e n t l y o r g a n i z e d r e l e v a n t p u r e a c c u r a t e c u r r e n t b a l a n c e d f a i r Is t h e m o n u m e n t a l c o l l e c t i o n y o u ’v e w o r k e d so b a r d to b u i l d G E T T I N G T H E A T T E N T I O N IT D E S E R V E S ? If your users are not taking full advantage o f your library’s Group or third-party databases or creating links to database collection, its time to expand their online world. your favorite Web sites. With Info Trac Total Access,™ you can create a fully C U S T O M I Z A B L E C O V E R A G E integrated electronic library that wont be ignored. Not Now all your databases will receive equal status with only are you able to merge all your internal and external In fo Trac Total Access. This multi-faceted online databases for at-a-glance referencing, you can also search tool allows you to select the search and results modes your entire online collection with a single query. that best fit your users’ needs, set up categories and define the database interface subjects. In fo T rac S H O W Y O U R U S E R S Total Access also enables users to retain the full T H E B I G P I C T U R E search functionalities to every database accessed. With InfoTrac Total Access, your users can simultane ously search all your online holdings, accessing For more information on how In fo T rac Total Access the entire collection at once - not just the first one or can revolutionize the way your patrons access online two databases they come across. And that’s not all. information, call your Gale Group Representative In fo Trac Total Access lets you customize the interface today at 1-800-877-G A LE. Review our full-line by highlighting your OPAC, pointing users to Gale product catalog at www.galegroup.com. I N F O T R A C T O T A L A C C E S S ™ O n e i n t e r f a c e O n e s e a r c h M o n u m e n t a l r e s u l t s W h i l e a t A L A , v i s i t u s a t b o o t h # 1 5 0 2 . http://www.galegroup.com C&RL N ew s ■ Ju n e 2 0 0 0 / 4 91 English and A m erican Literature (EALS) Adoption of Proposed Name Change: Yes (110) ADOPTED; No (15). Vice-chair/Chair-elect: K ristine A n d erson (62); Carol A. McAllister (52). S e creta ry (1 -y e a r term ): S a ra S e te n B erghausen (61); Margaret Borgeest (48). Member-at-Large (1-year term): Je a n n e A. Pavy (58); Steven R Harris (54). Instruction (IS) Chair 2001: K aren Williams (728); Write-In (5); Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Beth S. W oodard (396); Elizabeth Dupuis (357). Secretary (1-year term): Je n n ife r L. D orner (395); Jon R. Hufford (299). Member-at-Large (3-year term): Lisa Jan ick e H in ch liffe (372); Diana D. Shonrock (357). Law and Political Science (LPSS) Adoption o f Proposed Bylaws: Y es (105) ADOPTED; No (2); Y es (105) ADOPTED; No (2); Y es (101) ADOPTED; No (6); Y es (1 0 1 ) ADOPTED; No (5 ); Y e s (1 0 1 ) ADOPTED; No (4); Y es (102) ADOPTED; No (4); Y es (101) ADOPTED; No (3). Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Lisa R. Stimatz (60); Barbara P. Norelli (49). Member-at-Large (2-year term): Gwendolyn Halford (61); Dennis K. Lambert (48). Rare Books and M anuscripts (RBMS) Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: M. SusanTaraba (205); N oraj. Quinlan (115). Member-at-Large (3-year term): Mary A. Lacy (180); L. Manon Theroux (129). Science and Technology (STS) Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Jo A n n DeVries (169); Richard D. Llewellyn (121). Secretary/Member-at-Large (2-year term): Jean n ie P. Miller (146); Janet A. Hughes (143). Slavic and East European (SEES) Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: S and ra Levy (32); Marek Sroka (26). Secretary (2-year term): Jacqueline Byrd (38); Kristin M. Johnson (19). M em ber-at-Large (1-y ear term ): T e re s a E.Tickle (40); Jared Ingersoll (17). University Libraries (ULS) Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: Ju lia A. Zim m erm an (594); Jeanne E. Boyle (435). Member-at-Large (3-year term, 2 to be elected): S haron C. Bonk (521); K athleen Gun ning (568); Beau David Case (352); Mary H. Munroe (411). W estern European Specialists (WESS) Adoption o f Proposed Bylaws: Y es (106) ADOPTED; no (6). Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: B arbara Walden (85); Reinhart Sonnënburg (49). Secretary (1-year term): Emily J . H om ing (75); Dennis K. Lambert (46). Member-at-Large (1-year term): H elene S. Baum ann (75); Fred W. Jenkins (50). W omen’s Studies (WSS) Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect: C on n ieL. Phelps (74); Sandra A. River (50). Secretary (1-year term): Marcia B. Evans (87); Melinda F. Brown (38). Member-at-Large (1-year term): M ary M. Nofsinger (65); Julie N. Miliman (62). ■ ( “D eveloping . . cont. fr o m p a g e 4 8 6 ) competence to the committee chairs to urge the inclusion o f information competence in the exam. We also became involved in the changes in standards that are underway with the West ern Association o f Schools and Colleges (WASC). These changes could have an impact on information competence and libraries in general. Carl Bengston, 1999 president of CARL, the California chapter of ACRL, organized a response group that was joined by a number of CSU participants in information competence who are also members of CARL. Our fu tu re At this point, we are preparing for the next phase o f development of our program as the CSU Council of Library Directors has just issued a revision to its strategic plan. One of the goals, o f course, is information com pe tence. Although we have traveled far, thanks to so many, we still have even further to go in realizing a full program o f information com petence. In particular, it is our dream that every student will graduate from CSU with a mastery of information com petence. ■