1. Hold the door: Crossing the threshold from ACRL Information Literacy Standards to the new Framework OCULA Spring Conference 2015 Nancy Birch & Christopher Popovich

2.  University of Guelph and Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning (ITAL) combined in 2002 to create University of Guelph-Humber  Current enrollment is 4150 students across 7 undergraduate programs  Library and Learning Commons staff 6 full-time 2 part-time

3.  Learning Outcomes  U of G = UUDLEs  Key Performance Indicators  Humber = KPIs  Small team  Adapted Liaison Plus Model = Many functions  Liaison, IL, Collection Development, Reference (common to all librarians)  Additional functions in selected roles: Learning Objects, Reporting, Marketing/Communication, Website, Assessment

4. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Framework-MW15-Board-Docs.pdf IL Standards 1. Determine the extent of information needed 2. Access the needed information effectively and efficiently 3.Evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base 4. Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose 5. Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally IL Framework Threshold Concepts 1. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual 2. Information Creation as a Process 3. Information Has Value 4. Research as Inquiry 5. Scholarship Is a Conversation 6. Searching Is Strategic

5.  Differences IL Standards  Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals… IL Framework  Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing…  Why does it matter?

6.  Ways of communicating with stakeholders InformalFormal surveys one-on-one curriculum committee email social media hallway conversations Embedded librarian in Program

7.  1. Analyze existing curriculum with respect to threshold concepts  2. Highlight gaps based on needs/gap analysis  3. Adapt curriculum to address gaps

8.  1. Analyze IL session evaluations with respect to threshold concepts  2. Ensure impact can be measured in alignment with institutional requirements and culture (i.e.: learning outcomes)  3. Adapt evaluation to address gaps

9. Selected References Adams, N. E. (2012). A comparison of evidence-based practice and the ACRL information literacy standards: Implications for information literacy practice. College & Research Libraries, crl12-417. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2012/12/19/crl12-417.full.pdfhttp://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2012/12/19/crl12-417.full.pdf American Library Association (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframeworkhttp://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework Birch, N., & Popovich, C. (2014). Three-part harmony: Assessing information literacy learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Ontario Library Association SuperConference 2014. Bury, S. (2011). Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: a study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of information literacy, 5(1). Diller, K. R., & Phelps, S. F. (2008). Learning Outcomes, Portfolios, and Rubrics, Oh My! Authentic Assessment of an Information Literacy Program. Portal: Libraries & The Academy, 8(1), 75-89. Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192-199. Kaye Hensley, M., Carbery, A., DiNardo, C., Gibson, C., Miller, S. (2015). The Framework for Information Literacy and its Impact on Student Learning. ACRL Conference 2015, Portland, OR. Koufogiannakis, D., Wiebe, N. (2006). Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1( 3), 3-43. Lacy, M., & Chen, H. L. (2013). Rethinking library instruction: using learning-outcome based design to teach online search strategies. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 126-148. Mery, Y., Newby, J., & Peng, K. (2011). Assessing the reliability and validity of locally developed information literacy test items. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 98-122. O'Connor, Lisa G. (2008) The Diffusion of Information Literacy in Academic Business Literature, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(2), 105-125. Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents’, (2005). Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Level Expectations. Retrieved on January 24, 2014 from http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/university-undergraduate-degree-level-expectationshttp://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/university-undergraduate-degree-level-expectations Schilling, K., & Applegate, R. (2012). Best methods for evaluating educational impact: A comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 100(4), 258–269. Nancy Birch Christopher Popovich Head, Library Services Special Projects Librarian nancy.birch@guelphhumber.canancy.birch@guelphhumber.ca christopher.popovich@guelphhumber.cachristopher.popovich@guelphhumber.ca