1. RIDLs criteria a collective approach to describing, reviewing and assessing IL training interventions in higher education Stéphane Goldstein Research Information Network Moira Bent Newcastle University Geoff Walton Staffordshire University / Northumbria University i³ Conference – Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen 26 June 2013 1

2. What is RIDLs? A coalition of partners working together to promote the value of information and research data literacy for academic researchers A collectively-run programme to enable activities which help to advance LIS knowledge and skills Grant-funded by HEFCE for one year initially (June 2012 – May 2013) Important premise: Partners not limited to the academic library world: others players have a stake! Important to build a network that provides that capitalises on different outlooks Academic librarians, data management specialists, career & professional development experts, information sciences researchers… 2

3. Who is involved in RIDLs? Funded by: Managed by: 3

4. RIDLs programme Providing networking opportunities for partners Criteria for describing, reviewing & assessing training interventions Identifying & promoting cases of good practice in IL training interventions Promoting RDF inasmuch as this applies to IL Thematic workshops Research project on training & skills in open data International engagement Contribution to FP7 bid on training in open access 4

5. Describing, reviewing and assessing practice in IL training interventions (courses and other resources). Two broad aims: Helping those who design and deliver training interventions to describe and review them in a structured and consistent manner, allowing for easy comparison between courses/resources Providing a simple means of assessing training interventions, particularly with regards their suitability and usefulness as transferable resources Criteria take the form of structured questions set out in logical sequence How the criteria have been used in practice to date: RILADS DaMSSI-ABC project (research data management) Relationship with Jorum Rationale for the criteria 5

6. Part 1 of the criteria Describing and reviewing training interventions Importance of ensuring consistent approach Three sets of questions: Who are the interventions designed for, and why? What knowledge, skills and competencies are they intended to provide? How are the interventions delivered? Are these the right sort of questions? 6

7. Part 2 of the criteria What are the benefits that the training interventions bring about Quantitative data stemming from interventions Feedback from learners Outputs, outcomes, impact Problems encountered Not easy to derive such information – outcomes and impact require longer- term views Are these the right sort of questions? Assessment or evaluation? 7

8. Questions to address Two broad questions: How useful and applicable are the criteria? What is their value as a benchmark? We wish to get a critical view from round table participants about: Whether the criteria represent a genuinely useful resource that can be disseminated and promoted as a recognised and trustworthy tool Any modifications required to reflect the needs and concerns of communities represented at i³ 8

9. How useful and applicable are the criteria? Reflect on how criteria might relate to participants own experiences and institutional circumstances How might criteria be used in practice? Do they have value beyond HE? Is anything missing? Is anything wrong? 9

10. What is the value of the criteria as a benchmark? Could their use be generalised across institutions as a consistent means of describing, reviewing and assessing training interventions? How might they be disseminated and endorsed? Or is this just a waste of time? 10

11. References RIDLs criteria: http://www.researchinfonet.org/infolit/ridls/strand2/http://www.researchinfonet.org/infolit/ridls/strand2/ RILADs project: http://rilads.wordpress.com/http://rilads.wordpress.com/ DaMSSI-ABC project: http://damssiabc.jiscinvolve.org/wp/http://damssiabc.jiscinvolve.org/wp/ Jorum: http://www.jorum.ac.uk/http://www.jorum.ac.uk/ 11

12. Thank you for taking part! Stéphane Goldstein stephane.goldstein@researchinfonet.org Moira Bent moira.bent@newcastle.ac.uk Geoff Walton G.L.Walton@staffs.ac.uk 12