nov04c.indd ACRL STANDARDS & GUIDELINES Guidelines for distance learning library services Approved by the Board of Directors, June 2004 by the Distance Learning Section Guidelines Committee Introduction Library resources and services in institutions of higher education must meet the needs of all their faculty, students, and academic sup­ port personnel, regardless of where they are located. This is the undergirding and uncom­ promising conviction of the “Guidelines for distance learning library services.” The prin­ ciple applies to individuals on a main cam­ pus, off campus, in distance learning or re­ gional campus programs, or in the absence of a campus at all. The principle likewise applies to courses taken for credit or non­ credit, in continuing education programs, in courses attended in person or by means of electronic transmission, or any other means of distance learning. The guidelines delineate elements necessary to achieving this and the other closely related precepts provided in the philosophy section. Concern for ensuring the delivery of equiva­ lent library services to college and university faculty, students, and other personnel in re­ mote settings has indeed been the primary motivation for establishing and maintaining the guidelines, since their original inception in 1963, and throughout their more than four decades of revision, expansion, and use. These guidelines have been under particularly frequent revision and expansion in the past decade. Incentive to adapt and expand the guidelines has stemmed from the following increasingly critical factors: nontraditional study having rapidly become a major element in higher education; an increase in diversity of educational opportunities; an increase in the number of unique environments where educational opportunities are offered; an increased recognition of the need for library resources and services at locations other than main campuses; an increased concern and demand for equitable services for all stu­ dents in higher education, no matter where the “classroom” may be; a greater demand for library resources and services by faculty and staff at distance learning sites; and an increase in technological innovations in the transmittal of information and the delivery of courses. To these may be added shifts away from central campus enrollments, the search for more cost­effective sources for post­secondary education, and the appear­ ance and rapid development of the virtual or all­electronic university, having no physical campus of its own. The guidelines are intended to serve as a gateway to adherence to other ACRL standards and guidelines in the appropri­ ate areas and in accordance with the size and type of originating institution. The most recent editions of these standards and guide­ 604 / C&RL News November 2004 Revising the guidelines Today’s guidelines are the culmination of the following series of documents, the first of which originated in processes initiated in 1963: “Guide­ lines for library services to extension students,” 1967; “Guidelines for extended campus library services,” 1981; “Guidelines for extended campus library services,” 1990; “Guidelines for distance learning library services,” 1998; “Guidelines for distance learning library services,” 2000. Why the short span from 1998 to 2000? The 1998 guidelines were approved with the proviso from the ACRL Standards and Accreditation Committee (SAC) that efforts be undertaken im­ mediately upon their final approval to make the guidelines more outcomes­oriented through a minor rhetorical revision that would not require as complete a subsequent approval process as would a more thorough revision. This minor outcomes revision was actually initiated during the 1998 approval process, when the Distance Learning Section (DLS) Guidelines Committee members began reviewing the draft document for possible outcomes additions and then Chair Harvey Gover, Washington State University Tri­ Cities, prepared an additional precept for the guidelines philosophy section acknowledging the importance of instilling lifelong learning skills through information literacy instruction for students in extended academic settings. With the approval of SAC, that precept was incorporated into the final draft of the 1998 guidelines. The outcomes revision continued through ALA Annual Conference 2000, when it was ap­ proved by SAC and the ACRL Board of Directors. Those Guidelines Committee members who participated actively in the outcomes revision throughout this time included Committee Chair Jean Caspers, Oregon State University; Geral­ dine Collins, University of North Florida; Linda Frederiksen, Washington State University­Van­ couver; Lisa Hinchliffe, Illinois State University; Mae O’Neal, Western Michigan University; Bill Parton, Oklahoma Tech University; and Bernie Sloan, University of Illinois at Urbana­Cham­ paign. Susan Maltese, Oakton Community Col­ lege, then liaison from SAC to DLS, and Barton Lessin, Wayne State University and chair of SAC, also contributed suggestions and guidance. Harvey Gover, DLS chair and consultant to the Guidelines Committee, monitored the entire outcomes revision process and prepared the final revision draft submitted to SAC just prior to ALA Annual Conference 2000. The fi nal revi­ sion draft was based upon a draft insert that had been prepared by Jean Caspers and submitted to the Guidelines Committee for review on June 6. Gover’s final draft consisted largely of an incor­ poration of Caspers’ insert throughout the entire 1998 guidelines text and was forwarded to Susan Maltese on June 9 for submission to SAC. During the approval process for the outcomes revision, it was suggested by members of SAC that the guidelines introduction needed strengthen­ ing and recommended that an additional minor revision be prepared, rewriting the introduction. During the process of revising the introduction, it became evident that the “Revising the guidelines” section would also require some corresponding strengthening and revision. These efforts were initiated and prepared by Harvey Gover, Wash­ ington State University Tri­Cities, consultant to the Guidelines Committee, with input from members of the Guidelines Committee: Linda Frederiksen, chair, Washington State University­Vancouver; Betty K. Bryce, University of Alabama Librar­ ies; Deborah F. Cardinal, WiLS OCLC; Catharine Cebrowski, ITESM­Tec De Monterrey; Geraldine Collins, University of North Florida; Marie F. Jones, East Tennessee State University; Melissa H. Koenig, DePaul University; Debra Lamb­Deans, Cornell University; and Bernie Sloan, University of Illinois at Urbana­Champaign. From the beginning, those undertaking prepa­ ration or revision of the guidelines have sought the widest possible input from everyone involved in all aspects and on all levels of distance teaching and learning in higher education. The decision to revise the 1990 guidelines was made initially by the DLS Guidelines Committee. Then the offi cial mandate came from the DLS Executive Board at C&RL News November 2004 / 605 Revising the guidelines (continued) its final 1996 Midwinter Meeting. The revision of the 1990 “Guidelines for extended campus library services,” which produced the 1998 “Guidelines for distance learning library services,” was pre­ pared by Harvey Gover, then chair of the DLS Guidelines Committee. The revision was based upon input from members of the Guidelines Com­ mittee, members of the DLS Executive Board, the general membership of DLS, and other librarians and administrators involved in post­secondary distance learning programs from across the nation and around the world. Members of the Guidelines Committee who ini­ tiated or contributed to the revision process for the 1990 guidelines included: Stella Bentley, University of California­Santa Barbara; Jean Caspers, Oregon State University; Jacqueline A. Henning, Embry­ Riddle Aeronautical University; Sharon Hybki­ Kerr, University of Arkansas­Little Rock; Gordon Lynn Hufford, Indiana University East; Ruth M. Jackson, West Virginia University; Chui­Chun Lee, SUNY­New Paltz; G. Tom Mendina, University of Memphis; Virginia S. O’Herron, Old Dominion Uni­ versity; Mae O’Neal, Western Michigan University; Bill Parton, Arkansas Tech University; Mercedes L. Rowe, Mercy College; Dorothy Tolliver, Maui Community College Library; and Steven D. Zink, University of Nevada­Reno. Others outside the committee who contrib­ uted significantly to the cycle of revision of the 1990 guidelines included: Thomas Abbott, University of Maine­Augusta; Janice Bain­Kerr, Troy State University; Nancy Burich, University of Kansas, Regents Center Library; Anne Marie Casey, Central Michigan University; Tony Cavana­ ugh, Deakin University­Victoria, Australia; Monica Hines Craig, Central Michigan University; Mary Ellen Davis, ACRL; Tom DeLoughry, Chronicle of Higher Education; Jill Fatzer, University of New Orleans, ACRL Board, Task Force on Outcomes; Jack Fritts, Southeastern Wisconsin Information Technology Exchange Consortium (SWITCH); Barbara Gelman­Danley of SUNY Monroe Com­ munity College, Educational Technology, and the Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems; Kay Harvey, Penn State­ McKeesport; Maryhelen Jones, Central Michigan University; Marie Kascus, Central Connecticut State University; Barbara Krauth, Student Services Project Coordinator for the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication of the West­ ern Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE); Eleanor Kulleseid, Mercy College; Rob Morrison, Utah State University; Kathleen O’Connor, Gonzaga University; Alexander (San­ dy) Slade, University of Victoria­British Columbia, Canada; Mem Catania Stahley, University of Cen­ tral Florida­Brevard Campus; Peg Walther, City University­Renton, Washington; Virginia Witucke, Central Michigan University; Jennifer Wu, North Seattle Community College and College Librarians and Media Specialists (CLAMS). Special recognition is due Virginia S. (Ginny) O’Herron who served throughout the cycle of revision for the 1990 guidelines as both a member of the Guidelines Committee and as chair of SAC. In this dual role, O’Herron was instrumental in securing the placement of the guidelines draft on the agendas not only of SAC, but also of the ACRL Board and the ALA Committee on Standards. In addition to her considerable contribution to the revision process as a member of the Guidelines Committee, O’Herron was then the primary facilita­ tor of the final approval process. Major portions of the input for revision of the 1990 guidelines came from two open hearings: the first held on February 17, 1997, at ALA’s Midwinter Meeting in Washington, D.C. and the second on June 28, 1997, at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco, California. In response to requests for revision sugges­ tions—which appeared in widely read national academic and library publications, distance edu­ cation electronic lists, through the DLS Web site, and print publications—numerous other individu­ als, consortia, and representatives of professional and accrediting associations provided informa­ tion on their own efforts to ensure excellence of library services for post­secondary distance learning programs. 606 / C&RL News November 2004 Among the groups responding were: C a n a d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g e a n d University Libraries of the Canadian Li­ brary Association; CLAMS; Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges; Consortium for E d u c a t i o n a l Te c h n o l o g y f o r U n i v e r s i t y lines may be found at www.ala.org/ala/acrl /acrlstandards/standardsguidelines.htm. The audience for the guidelines includes administrators at all levels of post­secondary education, librarians planning for and manag­ ing distance learning library services, other librarians and staff serving distance learning students or working with distance learning program staff, faculty, and sponsors of aca­ demic programs, as well as accrediting and licensure agencies. Defi nitions Distance learning library services refers to those library services in support of college, university, or other post­secondary courses and programs offered away from a main cam­ pus, or in the absence of a traditional cam­ pus, and regardless of where credit is given. These courses may be taught in traditional or nontraditional formats or media, may or may not require physical facilities, and may or may not involve live interaction of teach­ ers and students. The phrase is inclusive of courses in all post­secondary programs des­ ignated as: extension, extended, off­campus, extended campus, distance, distributed, open, flexible, franchising, virtual, synchronous, or asynchronous. Distance learning community covers all those individuals and agencies, or institutions, directly involved with academic programs or extension services offered away from a tra­ ditional academic campus, or in the absence of a traditional academic campus, including students, faculty, researchers, administrators, sponsors, and staff, or any of these whose academic work otherwise takes them away from on­campus library services. Systems; Interinstitutional Library Coun­ cil of the Oregon State System of Higher Education; Libraries and the Western Gov­ ernors University Conference; the South­ ern Association of Colleges and Schools; and Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications of WICHE. Originating institution refers to the entity, singular or collective, its/their chief adminis­ trative officers and governance organizations responsible for the offering or marketing and supporting of distance learning courses and programs: the credit­granting body. Each institution in a multi­institutional cluster is responsible for meeting the library needs of its own students, faculty, and staff at the col­ lective site. Library denotes the library operation direct­ ly associated with the originating institution. Librarian-administrator designates a librar­ ian, holding a master’s degree from an ALA­ accredited library school, who specializes in distance learning library services and who is directly responsible for the administration and supervision of those services. Philosophy The guidelines assume the following pre­ cepts: • Access to adequate library services and resources is essential for the attainment of superior academic skills in post­secondary education, regardless of where students, fac­ ulty, and programs are located. Members of the distance learning community are entitled to library services and resources equivalent to those provided for students and faculty in traditional campus settings. • The instilling of lifelong learning skills through general bibliographic and information literacy instruction in academic libraries is a primary outcome of higher education. Such preparation and measurement of its outcomes are of equal necessity for the distance learn­ ing community and those on the traditional campus. C&RL News November 2004 / 607 www.ala.org/ala/acrl • Traditional on­campus library services themselves cannot be stretched to meet the library needs of distance learning students and faculty who face distinct and different chal­ lenges involving library access and information delivery. Special funding arrangements, proac­ tive planning, and promotion are necessary to deliver equivalent library services and to achieve equivalent results in teaching and learn­ ing, and generally to maintain quality in distance learning programs. Because students and faculty in distance learning programs frequently do not have direct access to a full range of library services and materials, equitable distance learn­ ing library services are more personalized than might be expected on campus. • The originating institution is responsible, through its chief administrative offi cers and governance organizations, for funding and appropriately meeting the information needs of its distance learning programs in support of their teaching, learning, and research. This support should provide ready and equivalent library service and learning resources to all of the institution’s students, regardless of loca­ tion. This support should be funded separately rather than drawn from the regular funding of the library. In growing and developing institu­ tions, funding should expand as programs and enrollments grow. • The originating institution recognizes the need for service, management, and technical linkages between the library and other comple­ mentary resource bases, such as computing facilities, instructional media, and telecom­ munication centers. • The originating institution is responsible for assuring that its distance learning library programs meet or exceed national and regional accreditation standards and professional as­ sociation standards and guidelines. • The originating institution is responsible for involving the library administration and other personnel in the detailed analysis of planning, developing, evaluating, and adding or changing of the distance learning program from the earliest stages onward. • The library has primary responsibility for identifying, developing, coordinating, provid­ ing, and assessing the value and effectiveness of resources and services designed to meet both the standard and the unique informational and skills development needs of the distance learning community. The librarian­administra­ tor, either centrally located or at an appropriate site, should be responsible for ensuring and demonstrating that all requirements are met through needs and outcomes assessments, and other measures of library performance, as appropriate, and as an ongoing process in conjunction with the originating institution. Effective and appropriate services for dis­ tance learning communities may differ from, but must be equivalent to, those services offered on a traditional campus. The require­ ments and desired outcomes of academic programs should guide the library’s responses to defined needs. Innovative approaches to the design and evaluation of special procedures or systems to meet these needs is encouraged. When resources and services of unaffi liated local libraries are to be used to support infor­ mation needs of the distance learning commu­ nity, the originating institution is responsible, through the library, for the development and periodic review of formal, documented, written agreements with those local libraries. Such re­ sources and services are not to be used simply as substitutes for supplying adequate materials and services by the originating institution. The distance learning library program shall have goals and objectives that support the provision of resources and services consistent with the broader institutional mission. Management The chief administrative officers and gover­ nance organizations of the originating insti­ tution bear the fiscal and administrative re­ sponsibilities, through the active leadership of the library administration, to fund, staff, and supervise library services and resources in support of distance learning programs. As the principal and direct agent of implementation, the librarian­administrator should, minimally: 1. assess and articulate, on an ongoing ba­ sis, both the electronic and traditional library resource needs of the distance learning com­ 608 / C&RL News November 2004 munity, the services provided them (including instruction), and the facilities utilized; 2. prepare a written profile of the distance learning community’s information and skills needs; 3. develop a written statement of immedi­ ate and long­range goals and objectives for distance learning, which addresses the needs and outlines the methods by which progress can be measured; 4. promote the incorporation of the dis­ tance learning mission statement, goals, and objectives into those of the library and of the originating institution as a whole; 5. involve distance learning community representatives, including administrators, fac­ ulty, and students, in the formation of the objectives and the regular evaluation of their achievement; 6. assess the existing library support for distance learning, its availability, appropri­ ateness, and effectiveness, using qualitative, quantitative, and outcomes measurement de­ vices, as well as the written profi le of needs. Examples of these measures include, but are not limited to: a. conducting general library knowledge surveys of beginning students, re­offered at a midpoint in the students’ careers and again near graduation, to assess whether the library’s program of instruction is producing more in­ formation­literate students; b. using evaluation checklists for librarian and tutorial instruction to gather feedback from students, other librarians, and teaching faculty; c. tracking student library use through student journal entries or information literacy diaries; d. asking focus groups of students, faculty, staff, and alumni to comment on their experi­ ences using distance learning library services over a period of time; e. employing assessment and evaluation by librarians from other institutions and/or other appropriate consultants, including those in communities where the institution has con­ centrations of distance learners; f. conducting reviews of specifi c library and information service areas and/or op­ erations that support distance learning library services; g. considering distance learning library services in the assessment strategies related to institutional accreditation; and h. comparing the library as a provider of distance learning library services with its peers through self study efforts of the originating institution; 7. prepare and/or revise collection devel­ opment and acquisitions policies to refl ect the profile of needs; 8. participate with administrators, library subject specialists, and teaching faculty in the curriculum development process and in course planning for distance learning to ensure that appropriate library resources and services are available; 9. promote library support services to the distance learning community; 10. survey regularly distance learning library users to monitor and assess both the appropri­ ateness of their use of services and resources and the degree to which needs are being met and skills acquired; 11. initiate dialogue leading to cooperative agreements and possible resource sharing and/ or compensation for unaffi liated libraries; 12. develop methodologies for the provi­ sion of library materials and services from the library and/or from branch campus libraries or learning centers to the distance learning community; 13. develop partnerships with computing services departments to provide the necessary automation support for the distance learning community; and 14. pursue, implement, and maintain all of the preceding in the provision of a facilitat­ ing environment in support of teaching and learning, and in the acquisition of lifelong learning skills. Finances The originating institution should provide continuing, optimum financial support for C&RL News November 2004 / 609 addressing the library needs of the distance learning community sufficient to meet the specifications given in other sections of these guidelines, and in accordance with the appro­ priate ACRL standards and with available pro­ fessional, state, or regional accrediting agency specifications. This financing should be: 1. related to the formally defined needs and demands of the distance learning program; 2. allocated on a schedule matching the originating institution’s budgeting cycle; 3. designated and specifi cally identifi ed within the originating institution’s budget and expenditure reporting statements; 4. accommodated to arrangements involving external agencies, including both unaffi liated and affiliated, but independently supported, libraries; 5. sufficient to cover the type and number of services provided to the distance learning community; and 6. sufficient to support innovative ap­ proaches to meeting needs. Personnel Personnel involved in the management and co­ ordination of distance learning library services include the chief administrators and governance organizations of the originating institution and the library administration and other personnel as appropriate, the librarian­coordinator manag­ ing the services, the library subject specialists, additional professional staff in the institution, support staff from a variety of departments, and the administrator(s), librarian(s), and staff from the distance learning site(s). The originating institution should pro­ vide, either through the library or directly to separately administered units, professional and support personnel with clearly defi ned respon­ sibilities at the appropriate location(s) and in the number and quality necessary to attain the goals and objectives for library services to the distance learning program, including: 1. a librarian­administrator to plan, imple­ ment, coordinate, and evaluate library re­ sources and services addressing the informa­ tion and skills needs of the distance learning community; 2. additional professional and/or support personnel on site with the capacity and train­ ing to identify informational and skills needs of distance learning library users and respond to them directly; 3. classification, status, and salary scales for distance learning library personnel that are equivalent to those provided for other com­ parable library employees while refl ecting the compensation levels and cost of living for those residing at distance learning sites; and 4. opportunities for continuing growth and development for distance learning library personnel, including continuing education, professional education, and participation in professional and staff organizations. Facilities The originating institution should provide facili­ ties, equipment, and communication links suf­ ficient in size, number, scope, accessibility, and timeliness to reach all students and to attain the objectives of the distance learning programs. Ar­ rangements may vary and should be appropri­ ate to programs offered. Examples of suitable arrangements include but are not limited to: 1. access to facilities through agreements with a nonaffi liated library; 2. designated space for consultations, ready reference collections, reserve collections, elec­ tronic transmission of information, computer­ ized database searching and interlibrary loan services, and offices for the library distance learning personnel; 3. a branch or satellite library; and 4. virtual services, such as Web pages, Internet searching, and using technology for electronic connectivity. Resources The originating institution is responsible for providing or securing convenient, direct phys­ ical and electronic access to library materials for distance learning programs equivalent to those provided in traditional settings and in sufficient quality, depth, number, scope, cur­ rentness, and formats to: 1. meet the students’ needs in fulfi lling course assignments (e.g., required and supple­ 610 / C&RL News November 2004 mental readings and research papers) and enrich the academic programs; 2. meet teaching and research needs; 3. facilitate the acquisition of lifelong learn­ ing skills; and 4. accommodate other informational needs of the distance learning community as ap­ propriate. When more than one institution is involved in the provision of a distance learning program, each is responsible for the provision of library materials to students in its own courses, unless an equitable agreement for otherwise provid­ ing these materials has been made. Costs, services, and methods for the provision of materials for all courses in the program should be uniform. Services The library services offered to the distance learning community should be designed to meet effectively a wide range of information­ al, bibliographic, and user needs. The exact combination of central and site staffi ng for distance learning library services will differ from institution to institution. The following, though not necessarily exhaustive, are essen­ tial: 1. reference assistance; 2. computer­based bibliographic and infor­ mational services; 3. reliable, rapid, secure access to insti­ tutional and other networks, including the Internet; 4. consultation services; 5. a program of library user instruction designed to instill independent and effective information literacy skills while specifi cally meeting the learner­support needs of the dis­ tance learning community; 6. assistance with and instruction in the use of nonprint media and equipment; 7. reciprocal or contractual borrowing, or interlibrary loan services, using broadest appli­ cation of fair use of copyrighted materials; 8. prompt document delivery, such as a cou­ rier system and/or electronic transmission; 9. access to reserve materials in accordance with copyright fair use policies; 10. adequate service hours for optimum access by users; and 11. promotion of library services to the distance learning community, including docu­ mented and updated policies, regulations and procedures for systematic development, and management of information resources. Documentation To provide records indicating the degree to which the originating institution is meeting these “Guidelines” in providing library ser­ vices to its distance learning programs, the library, and, when appropriate, the distance learning library units, should have available current copies of at least the following: 1. printed user guides; 2. statements of mission and purpose, poli­ cies, regulations, and procedures; 3. statistics on library use; 4. statistics on collections; 5. facilities assessment measures; 6. collections assessment measures; 7. needs and outcomes assessment mea­ sures; 8. data on staff and work assignments; 9. institutional and internal organization charts; 10. comprehensive budget(s); 11. professional personnel vitae; 12. position descriptions for all personnel; 13. formal, written agreements; 14. automation statistics; 15. guides to computing services; 16. library evaluation studies or docu­ ments; 17. library and other instructional materials and schedules; and 18. evidence of involvement in curriculum development and planning. Library education To enable the initiation of an academic pro­ fessional specialization in distance learning library services, schools of library and in­ formation science should include in their curriculum courses and course units in this growing area of specialization within librari­ anship.  C&RL News November 2004 / 611