ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 996 / C&RL News ■ November 2001 C o l l e g e & R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s s New Report on the National Information Literacy Survey Documenting progress throughout the United States by Gabriela Sonntag W hat do w e know about campus infor­m ation literacy programs? Librarians are caught u p in a w hirlw ind of activity. Fac­ ulty are aware of the num erous and varied information sources that are available. There are m ore requests for instruction, and librar­ ians are reaching a larger num ber of students than ever before. Disciplinary faculty and li­ brarians are m ore attentive to the need to teach students the m ethods for accessing and critically evaluating information. Students are required to use a greater variety of sources w h e n writing papers. At the cam pus level, academ ic senates have ad opted information literacy resolutions, comm ittees have estab­ lished information literacy requirements in the curriculum, and varied exam ples of the re­ form of general education show inclusion of information literacy. More than five years have passed since the first survey of information literacy pro­ grams at higher education institutions was conducted by the National Forum on Infor­ m ation Literacy, (ACRL), C om m ission on Higher Education of the Middle States Asso­ ciation of Colleges and Schools, and Western Accreditation Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities.1 These years have seen trem endous n a ­ tional activity in information literacy. Fore­ most within ACRL was the creation in 1997 of the Institute for Information Literacy2 with its Immersion Program for librarian professional developm ent, and institutional best practice and com m unity partners’ initiatives. More recently, two efforts stand out— the ALA Special Presidential Committee on Infor­ mation Literacy Community Partnerships3 and the developm ent, endorsem ent, publication, and distribution of the “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.”4 Not only have these efforts been w idely ap­ plauded, but their impact can be seen in the explosion of activity within the institutions of higher education as evidenced by presenta­ tions at professional conferences. The National Information Literacy Survey provides an updated snapshot of information literacy program m ing in higher education in­ stitutions. D eveloped by ACRL and supported by the American Association of Higher Edu­ cation (AAHE), this survey was e-m ailed to the vice presidents of academ ic units at ap­ proxim ately 2,700 institutions in May 2001; a rem inder notice was sent two w eeks later. Responses w ere subm itted electronically using a W eb-based suivey form. Of the p os­ sible respondents, 710 institutions or 26 per­ cent responded to the survey. Compilation of data used 664 valid submissions. These About the author Gabriela Sonntag is an instruction librarian at California State University, San Marcos, and A CRL Inform ation Literacy consultant, e-mail: gsg@csusm.edu mailto:gsg@csusm.edu C&RL News ■ November 2001 / 997 figures are comparable to the 1994 survey in which 834 or 20 percent of the 3,236 institu­ tions responded. Institutions were classified according to the Carnegie Classification sys­ tem. M a in goals o f th e survey What information did we want to gather with the National Information Literacy Survey? The main goals o f the survey are to gather reli­ able data to support information literacy pro­ gram development; compare information lit­ eracy experiences across various types of institutions; and document success in estab­ lishing information literacy within the curricu­ lum. Specifically, the survey asks respondents to define information literacy. What aspects o f the definition are particularly important? W hat groups on campus are discussing infor­ mation literacy? Are some disciplines more focused on information literacy than others? Are non-faculty groups also discussing infor­ mation literacy? Is there a match between those groups that discuss information literacy and those that adopt standards or develop a for­ mal charge for teaching information literacy? Gathering this information can assist those institutions that are developing a program to know which campus groups might be ap­ proached. A second focus was on the different mod­ els being used to integrate information literacy. Do most institutions distinguish between in­ formation literacy and computer literacy or technology use? Are institutions adopting the standards? Which groups of students within a university are targeted for information literacy instruction? How many institutions have a formal information literacy requirement and/ or information literacy charge? How long has the requirement or information literacy pro­ gram been in existence? The higher education accreditation asso­ ciations, both general and disciplinary-spe­ cific, are aware of and embracing informa­ tion literacy, and are either c o n s id e rin g o r h ave adopted inform ation lit­ eracy standards. Therefore, another set o f questions looked for a m atch be­ tween the accrediting body and those institutions that have an inform ation lit­ e ra c y re q u ire m e n t or charge. Are the accrediting bodies that have embraced information literacy facili­ tating the discussion on campus? Lastly, the survey asked three open-ended questions: How do we know that informa­ tion literacy instruction is beneficial to stu­ dents? What has been the impact of the in­ struction on campus? What are the common barriers to developing information literacy program? Many institutions that have not adopted the term “information literacy” use a different name for the same concept. To obtain a clearer picture of an institution’s definition of infor­ mation literacy, the following question was asked: “When defining information literacy at your institution, what are the three most important elements that you include in the definition?” It was evident that most respondents were familiar with the “Information Literacy Com­ petency Standards for Higher Education,” as they referred to them in their definition. Fo­ cusing on finding or accessing information was important in the definitions o f 18 per­ cent o f the respondents. Fully 28 percent ei­ ther quoted Standard Three (“The informa­ tion literate student evaluates information and its sources critically”) or mentioned critical thinking and evaluation. Another 9 percent mentioned computer literacy or use of tech­ nology, and 9 percent again mentioned de­ fining the need for information (determines nature and extent of information needed). Other definitions include wording such as “course integrated or related,” “integrated into the learning process,” or “student-centered with focus on active learning.” 998 / C&RL News ■ November 2001 Groups responsible for standards im plem entation Number Librarians and library committees exclusively 80 General Education Committee 28 Information Literacy or Information 22 Technology/Computing group Curriculum Committees 12 Specific Departments 11 Academic Senate 11 Planning (Strategic) Committees 5 Administration 5 Assessment Groups 5 System-wide or State-wide 4 Campus Accreditation Committees 1 Faculty not identified with a specific department 3 Academic Deans 1 All campus group 1 The survey results clearly show that a fairly uniform set of standards for information lit­ eracy are widely accepted by higher educa­ tion institutions of all types. There is a desire to make sure that students gain skills that meet these standards. When asked if the institu­ tion had used the “Information Literacy Com­ petency Standards for Higher Education,” the responses that although adopted by ACRL in January 2001, they are already being widely distributed. Most respondents state that they are using the stan­ dards within the li­ brary or that indi­ viduals are using the standards, but that the i n s t i t u t i o n has not im p le m e n te d them. Many of the re­ sponses w ere fo l­ lo w ed w ith co m ­ ments about the li­ brarian efforts to dis­ seminate information throughout the cam­ pus. In fact, this can be seen in the wide response to the ques­ tion regarding group discussion of informa­ tion literacy on campus. In the chart below, we list the various groups that respondents identified when asked: “If your institution has implemented information literacy standards, what commit­ tee, group, or council was responsible?” Re­ sults clearly show that library-based groups are much more involved in the discussion of standards than any other group on cam­ pus. Comparison of Groups that Discussed and Groups that Implemented C&RL News ■ Novem ber 2001 / 999 It is very difficult to develop a program if you face a situation as noted by one survey participant, “Information literacy is viewed as ‘remedial skills’ by faculty. Institution is un­ willing to ‘m andate’ this kind o f curricular change.” O r another “Faculty (and adminis­ tration) acknowledge the need for it, but say they cannot add another requirement because they do not have time to teach what they should now.” The following chart notes how­ ever that there is a variety o f groups discuss­ ing information literacy while implementation is stronger within the library and in curricu­ lum committees. One respondent sums it up for many say­ ing, “Information literacy initiatives will be developed in the future. We are currently re­ evaluating our mission and all policies.” There are varied methods for including information literacy as seen in these responses catego­ rized by the Carnegie Classification or insti­ tution type. Many campuses are including information literacy in a variety o f ways. O f the respon­ dents, 26 percent noted using at least 2 of these methods and 29 percent included 3 of the 4 methods. We can see that some institu­ tions are experiencing success. Some respon­ dents sum it up for us this way, “Information & Technology Competency” (as it is called here) is one o f five campus-wide student learning outcomes.” Another states: “Informa­ tion skills are part o f the college’s culture. Students and faculty skill levels have increased significantly since the program began. These responses demonstrate the range o f success o f librarians developing information literacy programs. The survey asked questions about informa­ tion literacy requirements. One asked respon­ dents if their institutions had a formal charge that mandated the teaching of information lit­ eracy. Only 99 institutions had a formal charge. When asked, “Does your institution have a spe­ cific information literacy requirement?” only 123 institutions stated that they had a specific re­ quirement. The following chart shows the an­ swers to these two questions with a break­ down by institutional type. The survey clearly shows that there is gen­ eral dissatisfaction with the way in which pro­ grams have been im plem ented up to this point. A third question asked, “How long has this requirem ent been in existence?” O f the respondents to this question, 48 percent (64 institutions) had programs that had been in existence 3 years or less. Another 29 per­ cent had programs dating between 4 and 7 years. Only about 80 of the 664 respondents have a formal program in place with a method for 1000 / C&RL News ■ Novem ber 2001 assessing student performance. Among the institutions who accept some information lit­ eracy standards, most have no program imple­ mented, or only a minimal program. Yet nu­ merous respondents stated that a program was being developed or was at the very least, in discussion at the library level. Conclusion As a result, this study makes a fairly strong case that institutions need, and want, guid­ ance on implementing successful information literacy programs. Those who have programs are looking to assess student learning and evaluate the im ­ C&RL News ■ November 2001 / 1001 pact o f their efforts. When asked to share with us “What has been the impact of your campus information literacy program?” one respondent was very clear: “Faculty are more aware o f what librarians can teach and how it relates to what faculty teach. Students have more com plex questions at the reference desk.” Many others contributed similar anec­ dotal evidence and stated their plans to be­ ing assessment in the future. One respondent shares with us: “Apart from my own teaching, information literacy is just being introduced on this campus. So far I am getting a positive response, but we have a long way to go before I would con­ sider that information literacy is even being implemented.” The National Information Literacy Survey will provide librarians with reliable data to support their programs. It gives them ex­ amples o f practice at various types of institu­ tions, and it demonstrates success in establish­ ing information literacy within the curriculum.5 Notes 1. The survey report can be found as an appendix to Patricia Senn Breivik’s book S t u ­ d e n t. L e a r n i n g i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n A g e (Ameri­ can Council on Education/Oryx Press, 1998). 2. For more information see the Institute’s Web page at http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/ nilihp.html. 3 For m ore in fo rm atio n see h ttp :// www.ala.org/kranich/literacy.html. 4. The Standards are available from ACRL. See more information at http://www.ala.org/ acrl/ilcomstan. htm l. 5. For more on the survey, see http:// www.ala.org/acrl/infolit.html (available Nov. 2001). ■ Letter to the editor I had just finished service on a search com­ mittee when I read Philip C. Howze’s excel­ lent article “New librarians and job hunting” (June 2001). I wanted to add a few sugges­ tions to those persons looking for a job: 1. Do not assume that someone will con­ tact you and ask for information you have not yet supplied. . . . It is incumbent upon the applicant to verify that the necessary materials have arrived. 2. Failure to address each and every one of the job requirements may, in fact, remove you from consideration in some circum­ stances. Make sure your letter o f applica­ tion addresses every stated required and desired or preferred qualification . . . 3. Do not address letters o f application to “Dear Sirs.” For all you know, the search committee m ay be made up entirely of women . . . 4. Do not foiward a résumé that lists your “career goals.” . . . We know you have ca­ reer goals, and if you make it to the inter­ view stage, someone is likely to ask you about them. 5. Spell checkers don’t check everything. Have someone— a friend, a colleague, a pro­ fessor, your mentor—read everything before you send i t . . . 6. Regarding references—do not list the “most important” people you know. List people who know you, know your work, and can (and will) comment positively (and enthusiastically) on your skills and attributes . . . 7. If you haven’t heard anything from the search committee and you would like more in­ formation about the status of the search, con­ tact the institution and inquire. However, do not make a pest of yourself. Call once. Do not call before the closing date . . . 8. Be kind to the search committees, even if they aren’t always kind to you. If you ac­ cept a position with Library B before you’ve heard from Libraiy A, send Library A an e- mail or a letter withdrawing your applica­ tion. It is courteous and professional . . . And finally, if you believe that you’ve been treated shabbily by an organization during this process (e.g., you sent every­ thing on time and no one ever got back to you, and you had to telephone to find out that they had already hired someone), don’t take it to heart. . . . This kind of behavior on the part o f an organization may tell you that perhaps this isn’t the place you want to begin your career.— S a r a B . S lu ss , C a li­ f o r n i a S t a t e U n iv e r s it y , L o n g B e a c h , e - m a i l : s b s l u s s @ c s u l b . e d u ■ http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/ http://www.ala.org/kranich/literacy.html http://www.ala.org/ http://www.ala.org/acrl/infolit.html mailto:sbsluss@csulb.edu