1. Information Literacy Standards Development Irene Doskatsch Executive Director, ANZIIL irene.doskatsch@unisa.edu.au

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE Development chronology Development chronology Identification of significant milestonesIdentification of significant milestones US processUS process Australian processAustralian process Revision process Revision process Reflections – a critical perspective Reflections – a critical perspective

3. BEFORE NATIONAL IL STANDARDS No common framework for integrating IL into curricula No common framework for integrating IL into curricula No common basis for assessment No common basis for assessment No common starting point for benchmarking No common starting point for benchmarking

4. US MILESTONES 1989 ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy Final report defined 4 aspects of Information Literacy 1990National Forum for Information Literacy established

5. Climate of reform 1990s general education reforms fundamental academic skills across the curriculumfundamental academic skills across the curriculum internationalising the curriculuminternationalising the curriculum using technology to enhance teachingusing technology to enhance teaching learning communities to promote cooperationlearning communities to promote cooperation assessing student learningassessing student learning

6. STAKEHOLDERS in the EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA  American Association for Higher Education  Teaching and Learning with Technology Group  Regional Accreditation Groups  Discipline-Based Accreditation  Association of Educational Communications and Technology

7. WHAT WERE THE DRIVERS FOR THE GENESIS OF IL STANDARDS? Various stakeholders expecting greater accountable for demonstrable student learning outcomes from higher education institutions Various stakeholders expecting greater accountable for demonstrable student learning outcomes from higher education institutions Need for assessment methodologies based upon abilities and performance Need for assessment methodologies based upon abilities and performance Pressure on academic libraries to demonstrate effectiveness in terms of student learning Pressure on academic libraries to demonstrate effectiveness in terms of student learning

8. US MILESTONES 1998 Boyer Commission Report Reinventing Undergraduate Education 1998 American Association of School Libraries & Association of Educational Communication & Technology Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning competencies for students K-12

9. AUSTRALIAN MILESTONES Early 1970 IL advocacy in schools Early 1970 IL advocacy in schools 1990+ Various government reports which implicitly or explicitly highlighted the need for information literacy 1990+ Various government reports which implicitly or explicitly highlighted the need for information literacy

10. AUSTRALIAN MILESTONES 1992+ National information literacy conferences 1994 Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education 1997 Christine Bruce Seven faces of information literacy doctoral research

11. Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards Multi-association Task Force established 1998 Multi-association Task Force established 1998 One year to complete the Standards One year to complete the Standards Budget of $10,000 for travel, to hire an assessment consultant, and to cover expenses of the non-librarians on the Task Force. Budget of $10,000 for travel, to hire an assessment consultant, and to cover expenses of the non-librarians on the Task Force.

12. US Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards The draft was presented at several higher education conferences (one on assessment, one in Australia, one at AAHE). The draft was presented at several higher education conferences (one on assessment, one in Australia, one at AAHE). Strategies for securing endorsement from other higher education associations and accreditation bodies as well as discipline-based groups. Strategies for securing endorsement from other higher education associations and accreditation bodies as well as discipline-based groups.

13. DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY 2000 Jan Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education approved by ACRL & endorsement by American Association for Higher Education 2000 March Alan Bundy lobbies CAUL to develop Australian Information Literacy Standards 2000 Sept Birth of the Australian Information Literacy standards at a national workshop hosted by UniSA Library

14. Information literacy competency standards for higher education The information literate student  determines the extent of the information needed  accesses needed information effectively and efficient  evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system

15. Information literacy competency standards for higher education The information literate student  uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose  understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally

16. BIRTH OF AUSTRALIAN I L STANDARDS Facilitator Mary Jane Petrowski, Associate Professor Head, Information Literacy, Member ACRL Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Facilitator Mary Jane Petrowski, Associate Professor Head, Information Literacy, Member ACRL Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education 62 participants were representative from Australian and New Zealand universities, the school sector, TAFE sector, the Council of Australian State Libraries & ALIA 62 participants were representative from Australian and New Zealand universities, the school sector, TAFE sector, the Council of Australian State Libraries & ALIA

17. BASIS OF THE WORKSHOP Changes in pedagogy Changes in pedagogy Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Critical thinking Critical thinking Australian research in particular the Bruce relational model of Information Literacy Australian research in particular the Bruce relational model of Information Literacy Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education - Who? What? How? When? Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education - Who? What? How? When?

18. Thinking Skills Thinking Skills Higher level cognitive skills - more complex and abstract Lower level tasks Recognizes that knowledge can be organized into disciplines that influence the way information is accessed Explores general information sources to increase familiarity with the topic

19. Information Literacy as Critical Thinking Purpose of Thinking: Standards 1 & 4 Question at Issue: Standards 1 and 2 Information: Standards 1 and 2 Interpretation & Inference: Standards 3 Concepts: Standards 1, 2 Assumptions: Standard 3 Implications & Consequences: Standards 1, 2, 5 Points of View: Standards 1, 3, 4, 5 A critical thinker considers

20. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE US AND AUSTRALIAN VERSIONS US Five standards Five standards Emphasis on competencies Emphasis on competencies Higher education in the title Higher education in the titleAustralian Seven standards Seven standards Omission of the term competency from title - emphasis ways of using information Omission of the term competency from title - emphasis ways of using information Higher education deliberately omitted from title Higher education deliberately omitted from title

21. DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY 2000 Oct CAUL approved the revision of the US standards as Information Literacy Standards 2003 Jan Workshop to review the first edition 2003 Nov The second edition should be finalised

22. Critique of first edition The standards should reflect the language of quality and quality audits. This would leave the way open for individual professions, industries, etc to rework the standards into a "competency standard" specific to that profession or industry.

23. Critique of first edition Terminology and concepts used in the current standards have made it a difficult task to sell the idea of information literacy to the academic community. It is felt that using language more relevant to the academic and professional community would facilitate wider adoption of the standards

24. Critique of first edition The role of the examples is confusing. ‘Examples’ is not a familiar term associated with Standards. What is their function? What is their function? Are they intended to be suggested performance/assessment criteria? Are they intended to be suggested performance/assessment criteria? Should they be clearly measurable? Should they be clearly measurable?

25. Critique of first edition more attention should be given to the wording of the standards and outcomes more attention should be given to the wording of the standards and outcomes examples need to be carefully examined to ensure that they actually flow from the outcome to which they are attached examples need to be carefully examined to ensure that they actually flow from the outcome to which they are attached standards are at present too complex to be user-friendly standards are at present too complex to be user-friendly

26. REVIEW OF THE FIRST EDITION OF IL STANDARDS Facilitator Dr Ralph Catts, an academic from University of New England Facilitator Dr Ralph Catts, an academic from University of New England Review process considered: Review process considered: scope and meaning of each Standardscope and meaning of each Standard how it is writtenhow it is written for whom it is intendedfor whom it is intended

27. Suggestions for the second edition New title - The Australian/NZ Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards & Practice. New title - The Australian/NZ Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards & Practice. Case studies of how higher education institutions using the Standards Case studies of how higher education institutions using the Standards Methods of Assessment: curriculum alignment Methods of Assessment: curriculum alignment Information literacy and staff development Information literacy and staff development

28. REFLECTIONS First edition a pilot First edition a pilot Review process rushed; greater consultation required Review process rushed; greater consultation required Endorsement by a great number of educational and related associations Endorsement by a great number of educational and related associations Lack of involvement of non Library stakeholders Lack of involvement of non Library stakeholders No budget No budget