ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 544 / C&RL News ■ September 2003 ACRL STAN D A R D S & GUIDELINES Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guideline Approved by the ACRL Board, June 2003 by ACRL’s In s titu te f o r In fo rm a tio n Lite racy O verview The “Characteristics of programs o f information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guide­ line” attempts to articulate elem ents o f exem ­ plary information literacy programs for under­ graduate students at four-year and two-year in­ stitutions. The characteristics identify and describe fea­ tures notable in information literacy programs of excellence. The characteristics are not, however, descriptive of any one program, but rather repre­ sent a metaset of elements identified through the examination of many programs and philosophies of undergraduate information literacy. In addition, though guided by the definitions found in the “Final Report o f the ALA Presiden­ tial Committee on Information Literacy” (1989) and the “Information Literacy Competency Stan­ dards for Higher Education” (2000), the charac­ teristics themselves do not attempt to define in­ formation literacy per se. Instead, the focus is on defining the elements o f best practices in infor­ mation literacy programming. Although an attempt was made to categorize and organize the characteristics for ease o f use and logical presentation, the order does not re­ flect any judgment of priority. Purpose and use The characteristics are primarily intended to help those who are interested in developing, assessing, and improving information literacy programs. This audience includes faculty, librarians, administra­ tors, and technology professionals, as well as oth­ ers involved in information literacy programming at a particular institution. Individuals involved with information literacy programming are encouraged to use the character­ istics in a variety o f ways. These characteristics present a set of ideas that can be used when estab­ lishing, developing, advancing, revitalizing, or as­ sessing an information literacy program. The char­ acteristics also provide a framework within which to categorize the details of a given program and to analyze how different program elements contrib­ ute to attaining excellence in information literacy programming. Because the characteristics are de­ scriptive in nature and the result of a meta-analy sis of many programs, they may also be useful for benchmarking program status, improvement, and long-term development. It is important to note, however, that no pro­ gram is expected to be exemplary with respect to all characteristics; the list is not prescriptive. Rather, individuals are encouraged to consider the characteristics as well as library and institutional contexts in establishing information literacy pro­ gram goals and strategies. Librarians are also encouraged to make use of the “Guidelines for instruction programs in aca­ demic libraries,” for specific guidance on library involvement with information literacy programs. C ategoty 1: M ission A mission statement for an information literacy program: • includes a definition of information literacy; • is consistent with the “Information literacy com petency standards for higher education” (www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html); • corresponds with the mission statements of the institution; http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html C&RL News ■ September 2003 / 545 History The characteristics were developed through a multiphase process that involved professionals from multiple sectors of higher education, in­ cluding librarians, faculty, administrators, and professional organizations. Beginning in April 2000, suggestions for an original draft of the characteristics were gathered through a Web- based Delphi polling technique. Members of the Best Practices Project Team and Best Practices Advisory Panel then wrote a document based upon these suggestions and re­ vised it several times. A working draft was distributed widely for comment and went through a further revision. A penultimate draft was completed in March 2001 and was used as the basis for selecting ten institutions for a national invitational confer­ ence on best practices in information literacy programming, which was held in Atlanta in June 2002. As part of that meeting, the char­ acteristics were further refined. The revisions culminated in this final edition. Questions and comments about the document can be directed to Tom Kirk, kirkto@earlham.edu. • corresponds with the format of related insti­ tutional documents; • clearly reflects the contributions of and ex­ pected benefits to all institutional constitu encies; • appears in appropriate institutional documents; • assumes the availability of and participation in relevant lifelong learning options for all— fac­ ulty, staff, and administration; and • is reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised. Category 2: Goals a n d objectives Goals and objectives for an information literacy program: • are consistent with the mission, goals, and objectives of programs, departments, and the in­ stitution; • establish measurable outcomes for evalua­ tion for the program; • reflect sound pedagogical practice; • accommodate input from various constitu­ encies; • articulate the integration of information lit­ eracy across the curriculum; • accommodate student growth in skills and understanding throughout the college years; • apply to all learners, regardless of delivery system or location; • reflect the desired outcomes o f preparing students for their academic pursuits and for effec­ tive lifelong learning; and • are evaluated and reviewed periodically. Category 3: Planning Planning for an information literacy program: • articulates its mission, goals, objectives, and pedagogical foundation; • anticipates and addresses current and future opportunities and challenges; • is tied to library and institutional informa­ tion technology planning and budgeting cycles; • incorporates findings from environmental scans; • accommodates program, department, and in­ stitutional levels; • involves students, faculty, librarians, admin­ istrators, and other constituencies as appropriate to the institution; • establishes formal and informal mechanisms for communication and ongoing dialogue across the academic community; • establishes the means for implementation and adaptation; • addresses, with clear priorities, human, tech­ nological and financial resources, current and pro­ jected, including administrative and institutional support; • includes mechanisms for articulation with the curriculum; • includes a program for professional, faculty, and staff development; and • establishes a process for assessment at the outset, including periodic review of the plan to ensure flexibility. C ategory 4: A dm inistrative a n d institutional support Administration within an institution: • identifies or assigns information literacy lead­ ership and responsibilities; • plants information literacy in the institution’s mission, strategic plan, policies, and procedures; • provides funding to establish and ensure on­ going support for: mailto:kirkto@earlham.edu 546 / C&RL News ■ September 2003 — form al and informal teaching facilities and resources, — appropriate staffing levels, — professional development opportunities for librarians, faculty, staff, and administrators • recognizes and encourages collaboration among disciplinary faculty, librarians, and other program staff and among institutional units; • communicates support for the program; and • rewards achievement and participation in the inform ation literacy program w ithin the institution’s system. Category 5: A rticulation with the curriculum Articulation with the curriculum for an infor­ mation literacy program: • is formalized and widely disseminated; • emphasizes student-centered learning; • uses local governance structures to ensure institution-wide integration into academ ic or vocational programs; • identifies the scope (i.e., depth and com ­ plexity) o f com petencies to be acquired on a disciplinary level as well as at the course level; • sequ ences and integrates com petencies throughout a student’s academ ic career, pro­ gressing in sophistication; and • specifies programs and courses charged with implementation. Category 6: Collaboration Collaboration among disciplinary faculty, librar­ ians, and other program staff in an inform a­ tion literacy program: • centers around enhanced student learning and the development o f lifelong learning skills; • engenders communication within the aca­ d em ic com m unity to garner support for the program; • results in a fusion o f information literacy concepts and disciplinary content; • identifies opportunities for achieving in­ form ation literacy outcom es through cou rse content and other learning experiences; and • takes place at the planning stages, deliv­ ery, assessment o f student learning, and evalu­ ation and refinem ent o f the program. Category 7: Pedagogy P ed ag og y fo r an in fo rm atio n literacy p ro ­ gram: • supports diverse approaches to teaching; • incoiporates appropriate information tech­ nology and other media resources; • includes active and collaborative activities; • encompasses critical thinking and reflection; • responds to multiple learning styles; • supports student-centered learning; • builds on students’ existing knowledge; and • links inform ation literacy to on g oin g coursework and real-life experiences appropri­ ate to program and course level. Category 8: Staffing Staff for an inform ation literacy program: • include librarians, disciplinary faculty, ad­ ministrators, program coordinators, graphic de­ signers, teaching/learning specialists, and oth­ ers as needed; • serve as role models, exemplifying and ad­ v o catin g inform ation literacy and lifelo n g learning; • are adequate in number and skills to sup­ port the program’s mission; • develop experience in instruction/teach­ ing and assessment o f student learning; • develop experience in curriculum devel­ opment and expertise to develop, coordinate, implement, maintain, and evaluate information literacy programs; • employ a collaborative approach to work­ ing with others; • receive and actively engage in systematic and continual professional developm ent and training; and • receive regular evaluations about the qual­ ity o f their contribution to the program. Category 9: Outreach Outreach activities for an information literacy program: • communicate a clear message defining and d escribing the program and its value to tar­ geted audiences; • provide targeted marketing and publicity to stakeholders, support groups, and m edia channels; • target a wide variety o f groups; • use a variety o f ou treach channels and media, both formal and informal; • include participation in campus profes­ sional development training by offering or c o ­ sponsoring w orkshops and programs that re­ late to inform ation literacy fo r faculty and staff; • advance information literacy by sharing inform ation, m ethods, and plans with peers from other institutions; and C&RL News ■ September 2003 / 547 • are the responsibility o f all members of the institution, not simply the librarians. Category 10: A ssessm ent/evaluation Assessment/evaluation of information literacy includes program performance and student out­ comes and: for program evaluation: • establishes the process of ongoing plan­ ning/improvement of the program; • measures directly progress toward meet­ ing the goals and objectives of the program; • integrates with course and curriculum assess­ ment, as well as institutional evaluations and re­ gional/professional accreditation initiatives; and • assumes multiple methods and purposes for assessment/evaluation ( “Principles…” continuedf r o m p a g e 5 2 7 )’ research output of a given institution) that are created either by single institutions or by groups of institutions working under a cooperative framework; • the development of disciplinary repositories (open access sites that archive research in a disci­ pline according to principles of open access); • self-archiving by scholars of their research and writings in open access repositories; • publishing and copyright agreements that al­ low authors to retain the right to self-archive their peer-reviewed publications in open access reposi­ tories; • maintenance of interoperability standards that facilitate efficient access to content in open repositories; • the development of new models and prac­ tices that will preserve scholarly information in electronic fonn for future use; • implementation of public policies that en­ sure fair use of scholarly infonnation in electronic form; • implementation of public policies that pro­ tect the rights and capacities of libraries to pro­ vide acceptable terms of user access and reach reasonable economic terms in licensing electronic information; • licensing agreements by library consortia and other groups of libraries that maximize their col­ lective buying and negotiating power; • use of innovative and cost-effective elec­ tronic information technologies in publishing, includin — formative and summative: — short term and longitudinal; for student outcomes: • acknowledges differences in learning and teaching styles by using a variety o f appropri­ ate outcome measures, such as portfolio as­ sessment, oral defense, quizzes, essays, direct observation, anecdotal, peer and self review, and experience; • focuses on student performance, knowledge acquisition, and attitude appraisal; • assesses both process and product; • includes student-, peer-, and self-evaluation; for all: • includes periodic review of assessment/evalu­ ation methods. ■ publication of journals in electronic form and the creation of scholarly electronic commu­ nities that serve the needs o f scholars in a disci­ pline in flexible ways; • campus advocacy by librarians, faculty, and administrators to create greater awareness of the need for change in the system of scholarly com­ munication; and • vigorous national advocacy, in cooperation with other groups, in support of the public policy principles enumerated in this document. Note 1. This document, which was developed by the ACRL Scholarly Communications Commit­ tee, is intended to be a foundation statement that provides overall guidance for the ACRL Scholarly Communications Initiative. It was approved by the ACRL Board of Directors on June 24, 2003, at the ALA Annual Conference in Toronto. ■ C o r r e c tio n In the July 2003 issue of C&RL News, an incor­ rect e-mail address was given for Clara Fowler, co-author of “Instructional leadership: New responsibilities for a new reality.” The conect address is: Clara.Fowler@mail.uh.edu. The edi­ tors regret the error. g mailto:Clara.Fowler@mail.uh.edu 548 / C8/RL News ■ September 2003