ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 732 / C&RL News ■ N ovem ber 2002 ACRL STANDARDS & GUIDELINES ‚ Guidelines for Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries The final draft by th e Policy C om m itte e o f ACRL's Instru c tio n Section Pream ble Academic libraries work together with other mem­ bers o f their institutional communities to partici­ pate in, support, and achieve the educational mis­ sion o f their institutions by teaching the core com­ petencies o f information literacy— the abilities involved in identifying an information need, ac­ cessing needed information, evaluating, manag­ ing, and applying information, and understanding the legal, social, and ethical aspects o f informa­ tion use. The systematic delivery o f instructional programs and services should be planned in con­ ceit with overall strategic library planning, includ­ ing die library’s budgeting process. Such planning may also involve strategizing with other campus units to deliver collaboratively designed program­ ming To best assist academic and research librarians in preparing and developing effective instructional programs, the following guidelines are recom ­ mended. I. P rog ram design A. Statement ofp urpose H ie library should have a written mission state­ ment for its instructional program that: • articulates its purpose for the instruction pro­ gram in the context of the educational mission of the institution and the needs of the learning com­ munity, • involves its institutional community in the formulation o f campus-wide information literacy goals and general outcomes, • aligns its goals with the “Information Lit­ eracy Competency Standards for Higher Educa­ tion,” and clearly states a definition of informa­ tion literacy, • recognizes the diverse nature of the learning community through the identification o f a vari­ ety of learning styles, attitudes, educational lev­ els, life experiences, cultures, technology skill lev­ els, and other learner variables such as proximity to the campus itself (distance learning students), • recognizes that instruction programs prepare learners not only for immediate cunicular activi­ ties, but also for experiences with information use beyond the classroom— in work settings, careers, continuing education and self-development, and lifelong learning in general, and • reflects changes in the institution and learn­ ing community through regular review and revi­ sion when appropriate. B. Identification ofc onte n to fi nstruction While each institution will determine instruc­ tional content based on the needs o f its learning community, die library should have a clearly ar­ ticulated set o f learning outcomes. The institu­ tion- or campus-wide set o f learning goals should be congruent with the “Information Literacy Com­ petency Standards for Higher Education,” which provide the framework for institutional planning for information literacy content through a care­ fully delineated set o f standards, perfomaance in­ dicators, and outcomes. The library’s specific learn­ ing outcomes should be aligned with die “Objec­ tives for Information Literacy Instruction,” which are designed to assist instruction librarians in ex­ panding upon the more generic “Competency Stan­ dards,” and in specifying discrete, assessable out- C&RL N e w s ■ N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 / 733 G u id e lin e s , g u id e lin e s , a n d m o re g u id e lin e s F or the past year, the Instruction Se ctio n ’s (IS) Policy' Committee has be en charged with updat­ ing the “Guidelines for Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries.” This process involved dis­ cussions on the purpose o f the document and the intended audience. W hen the guidelines w ere originally written in 1996 the “Inform ation Lit­ eracy Com petency Standards for Higher Educa­ tio n ” had n o t b e e n revised and th e “N ational Information Literacy Institute’s B est Practices in Information Literacy” had not b e e n created. It w as d e cid ed that th e g u id elin es sh ou ld b e a “read-me-first” document for librarians and administrators interested in setting up or formal­ izing instruction programs. Notable changes in­ clude removing the background section, adding com es in the context o f both the library’s and the institution’s information literacy goals. The “Com­ p etency Standards” and the “O bjectives” should b e used together: the “C om petency Standards” for discussion s o f inform ation literacy co n tent with campus administrators and academic profes­ sionals outside the library; and the “O bjectives” for programmatic planning and design within the library itself. T h e “C haracteristics o f B e st P ractices P ro ­ gramming” offer the possibility for measurement in developing content for programs, while these guidelines offer the basic theoretical outlines for programs. C. Identificationo fm odes o f instruction Instruction takes p lace in m any ways using a variety o f teaching methods. These may include, but are not limited to: • advising individuals at reference desks, • in-depth research consultations and appoint­ ments, • individualized instruction, • electronic or print instruction aids, • group instruction in traditional or electronic classrooms, • Web tutorials and W eb-based instruction, • asynchronous m odes o f instmction (e-mail, bulletin boards), • synchronous modes o f instruction (chat soft­ ware, videoconferencing), • course management software, and • hybrid or distributed learning o r distance language o n collaborating and new educational technologies, and providing a reference list. M any than ks are ex te n d e d to the 2 0 0 1 -0 2 and 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 IS P o lic y C om m ittee m em b ers: Craig G ibso n , Ja n e t B rew er, J a n G uise, Sheril Hook, Barbara Kern, J o Ann Calzonetti, Jennifer Cox, Valerie Feinm an, Paula McMillen, R o cco Piccinino, and Phillip Powell. During the upcom ing Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia, a hearing will b e held on Saturday, Janu ary 25 at 4 :3 0 p.m . to discuss th e changes and to hear your input regarding the guidelines. Copies o f the original guidelines and the revised draft are available at http://www.ala.org/acrl/ guides/index.html under the heading “Instruc­ tio n .” learning, employing combinations o f the previous methods. The m odes selected should b e consistent with the co ntent and goals o f sou nd inform ation lit­ eracy instruction. W here appropriate, more than on e mode o f instruction should b e used based on know ledge o f the w ide variety o f learning styles o f individuals and groups. For suggestions and e x p la n a tio n s o f m o d es o f instructio n, s e e the Sourcebook ofB ibliographic Instruction. W hen possible, instruction should employ ac­ tive learning strategies and techniques that require learners to develop critical thinking skills in co n ­ cert with infom ation literacy skills. Planning such active learning strategies and techniques should b e carr i ed out collaboratively with faculty in or­ der to increase overall student engagem ent in the learning process and to extend opportunities for a more reflective approach to information retrieval, evaluation, and use. For useful examples o f course- specific active learning exercises, see “Designs for A ctive Learning: A S o u r c e b o o k o f C lassroom Strategies for Inform ation Education.” Planning an instruction program should draw o n the expertise o f a w ide variety o f personnel, depending on local needs and available staff. Ex­ amples o f available expertise may include: • instructional design/teaching methods: faculty development offices, teaching/learning centers; « technology integration: technology support centers; » assessment, surveys: teaching/learning cen­ ters, institutional research/assessment offices; and http://www.ala.org/acrl/ 7 3 4 / C&RL News ■ N ovem ber 2002 • student demographics/characteristics: in­ stitutional research, campus/student life o f­ fices. D.Programs tructures Each institution will develop its own overall approach to instruction programming, but a suc­ cessful comprehensive program will have the fol­ lowing elements: • a clearly articulated structure, described in readily available documents, showing the relation­ ships among various components of the program; • an integral relationship with key institutional curricula and initiatives (e.g., general education, writing programs, etc.) so that there is horizontal breadth to the program; and • a progression of information literacy learn­ ing outcomes matched to increasingly complex learning outcomes throughout a student’s academic career so that there is vertical integration in the program. Information literacy programming should reach beyond the first year or general education courses and be present in discipline-specific coursework, or courses in the majors. To meet these general guidelines, instruction programs should identify curricular structures al­ ready in place or under development on their cam­ puses that support an evolving, “tiered" approach to information literacy programming. Instruction librarians themselves should also seek opportuni­ ties for collaborative engagement in new institu­ tional initiatives and redesigned curricula that al­ low for a deeper interplay between the library’s instruction program and the total campus learning environment. Examples o f c urricu lar and program structures with which instruction programs can become en­ gaged include (but are not limited to): • first-year seminars; writing-across-the-cur- riculum programs; • general education core requirements; • research methods courses in disciplinary ma­ jors; • capstone courses, learning communities and cohorts; • undergraduate research experiences/intern­ ships; • linked credit courses; and • experiential learning/service learning courses. E.Evaluation anda ssessment Evaluation and assessment are systematic on­ going processes that should gather data to inform decision-making regarding the instruction pro­ gram. Data gathered should give an indication that the instruction program supports the goals set forth in its mission statement or statement of purpose. • There should be a program evaluation plan addressing multiple measures or methods of evalu­ ation: such measures may include needs assess­ ment, participant reaction, learning outcomes, teaching effectiveness, and overall effectiveness o f instruction. • The criteria for program evaluation should be articulated in readily available documents per­ taining to the program’s mission, description, and outcomes. • Specific learning outcomes should be ad­ dressed and specific assessment methods should b e identified. • Coordination of assessment with teaching faculty is important because learning outcomes are a shared responsibility. • Data for both program evaluation and assess­ ment of specific learning outcomes should be gath­ ered regularly and brought into the program revi­ sion process so that the program can be improved continuously, and specific learning deficits ad­ dressed in an ongoing, formative manner. D. H um an resou rces To achieve the goals set forth in the library’s mis­ sion statement for information literacy, the library should employ or have access to sufficient person­ nel with appropriate education, experience, and expertise to: • teach individuals and groups in the campus community; • use instructional design processes, and design a variety of instruction programs and services; • promote, market, manage, and coordinate diverse instruction activities; • collect and interpret assessment data to evalu­ ate and update instruction programs and services; • integrate and apply instructional technolo­ gies into learning activities when appropriate; • produce instructional materials using avail­ able media and electronic technologies; • collaborate with faculty and other academic professionals in planning, implementing, and as­ sessing information literacy programming; and • respond to changing technologies, envir on­ ments, and communities. Many instruction programs will have a desig­ nated program manager, or a coordinating/over­ sight group, with expertise in pedagogy, instruc­ tional design, assessment, and other instructional C&RL News ■ N ovem ber 2002 / 735 issues. Those with primary managerial/coordina­ tion oversight for instructional programs should have clearly written and delineated position de­ scriptions setting forth the scope of their respon­ sibilities. III. Support Support for a successful instruction program has many interdependent facets. The level of support necessary will depend on the scope and size of the program, as well as its connection with other in­ stitutional units. A. Instructional fa c ilities The library should have, or should have ready access to, facilities o f sufficient size and number that are equipped to meet the goals of the instruc­ tion program and reach the instructional learning community. The instructional setting(s) should duplicate the equipment and technology available to users. At a minimum, the facilities should allow the in­ structor to demonstrate information systems avail­ able to the library’s users. It is desirable that the facilities provide individual hands-on experience for those being instructed. It should be flexible enough to accommodate active learning and stu­ dent collaboration w hen appropriate. B. S taff w ork facilities The library should provide convenient ac­ cess to the equipment and services necessary to design, produce, reproduce, and update instructional materials in a variety o f formats. There should b e sufficient space for the prepa­ ration and storage o f instructional materials. C. F in an cial support • T he instructional program should have adequate funds identified to attain the stated goals o f the program. • The funding for an instruction program should cover all personnel costs connected with the pro­ gram, including, but not limited to, student, cleri­ cal, and technical assistance. • The funding should cover supplies and mate­ rials; equipment or access to equipment; design, production, reproduction, and revision of mate­ rials; and promotion and evaluation o f the in­ struction program, as well as other identified costs. • The budget allocation process should allow for equipment and software replacement and en­ hancement as changes occur. • The funding should provide for training and continuing education o f those involved in the instruction program. • Collaborative instructional projects with other campus units should involve sharing bud­ getary responsibilities when appropriate. • Whenever possible, instructional personnel should use the expertise o f development officers and those institutional staff persons with exter­ nal fundraising responsibilities to further expand or enhance the program. D. Supportf o r s ta ffc ontinuing education, training, an d developm ent Support for continuing staff development helps to establish an atmosphere conducive to in­ novation and high morale. It is recommended that the library: • provide a structured program for orientation and training of new instruction personnel, • develop a program o f continuing education or make available continuing education opportu­ nities, and • whenever appropriate, identify opportuni­ ties for release time for staff to engage in continu­ ing education and/or project development in tech­ nology applications, surveys, and other instruc­ tion-related projects. B ibliography Su p p o rtin g d o cu m e n ts o f ACRL and ACRL’s Instruction Section. Characteristics o fB est Practices Programming. Ed. Tom Kirk. ACRL. Available at http:// www.earlham.edu/discus/. Accessed 7 Ju n e 2 0 0 2 . Designsf o r Active Learning: A Sourcebook o f Classroom Strategies fo r information Education. Ed Gail Gradowski, Loanne Snavely, and Paula Dempsey. Chicago: ALA, 1998. “M odel Statem ent o f O b jectiv es for Aca­ demic Bibliographic Instruction,” in R ead This First: An Owners Guide to the New Model State­ ment o f Objectives fo r Academic Bibliographic In­ struction, Ed. Carolyn D usen bury, M onica Fusich, Kathleen Kenny, and Beth Woodard. Chicago: ALA, ACRL, B IS, 1991. Objectives fo r Infom ation Literacy Instruction.A Model Statement forA cademic Librarians. ACRL In­ struction Section, 2001. Available at: http:// www.ala.org/acrl/guides/objinfolit.html. Ac­ cessed 7 June 2002. Sourcebook fo r Bibliographic Instruction. Ed. Katherine Branch, Carolyn Dusesnbury, Bar­ bara Conant, Cynthia Roberts, and Kimberly Spyers-D uran. C hicago: ALA, ACRL, BIS, 1993. ■ http://www.earlham.edu/discus/ http://www.ala.org/acrl/guides/objinfolit.html