ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


3 2 1 C&RL News ■ January 2003

A C R L  S T A N D A R D S  & G U ID E L IN E S

Characteristics of programs 
of information literacy 

that illustrate best practice

A draft

ACRL's Institute for Information Literacy

O verview
The “Characteristics o f programs o f informa­
tion literacy that illustrate best p ractices” at­
tempt to articulate elements o f exemplary in­
formation literacy programs for undergraduate 
students at four-y ear and tw o -y ear institu­
tions.

T h e characteristics identify and describe 
features notable in information literacy pro­
grams o f excellence. The characteristics are not, 
however, descriptive o f any one program, but 
rather represent a metaset o f elements identi­
fied through exam ination o f many programs 
and philosophies o f undergraduate informa­
tion literacy.

In addition, though guided by the defini­
tions found in the “Final rep ort o f the ALA 
presidential committee on information literacy” 
(1989) and the “Information literacy co m p e­
tency standards for higher education” (2000), 
the characteristics themselves do not attempt 
to define information literacy per se. Instead, 
the focus is on defining the elem ents o f best 
practices in information literacy programming.

Although an attempt was made to catego­
rize and organize the characteristics for ease 
o f use and logical presentation, the order does 
not reflect any judgment o f priority.

P u rp o se  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, li­
brarians, administrators, and technology pro­
fessionals, as well as others involved in infor­
m ation literacy programming at a particular 
institution.

Individuals involved with information lit­
eracy programming are encouraged to use the 
characteristics in a variety o f ways. These char­
acteristics present a set o f ideas that can be 
used when establishing, developing, advanc­
ing, revitalizing, or assessing an information 
literacy program. The characteristics also pro­
vide a framework within which to categorize 
the details o f a given program and to analyze 
how different program elements contribute to 
attaining excellence in information literacy pro­
gramming. Because the characteristics are de­
scriptive in nature and the result o f a m eta­
analysis o f many programs, they may also be 
useful for benchmarking program status, im­
provement, and long-term development.

It is important to note, how ever, that no 
program is expected to be exemplary with re­
spect to all characteristics; the list is not pre­
scriptive. Rather, individuals are encouraged 
to consider the characteristics as well as library 
and institutional contexts in establishing in­
formation literacy program goals and strate­
gies.

Librarians are also encouraged to make use 
o f the “Guidelines for instruction programs in



C&RL News ■ January 2003 / 33

History

The characteristics were developed through 
a multiphase process which involved profes­
sionals from multiple sectors o f higher edu­
cation, including librarians, faculty, adminis­
trators, and p ro fessio n al organizations. 
Beginning in April 2000, suggestions for an 
original draft o f the Characteristics were gath­
ered through a Web-based Delphi polling tech­
nique. Members of the Best Practices Project 
Team and Best Practices Advisory Panel then 
wrote a document based upon these sugges­
tions and revised 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 o f that meeting the characteris­
tics were further refined. The revisions culmi­
nated in this final edition.

Background information on the project is 
available on the Web at http://www.ala.org/ 
acrl/nili/bestprac.html.

Questions and comments about the docu­
ment can be directed to Tom Kirk at e-mail: 
kirkto@earlliam.edu.

academic libraries’’ for specific guidance o n  library 
involvement with information literacy programs.

C ategory 1: M ission
A m issio n  statem en t fo r a n  info rm atio n  lit­

eracy program:
• in c lu d e s  a d e fin itio n  o f  in fo rm a tio n  lit­

eracy;
• is c o n s is te n t w ith  th e  “In fo rm a tio n  lit­

eracy co m p ete n cy  standards for h igher ed u ca ­
t i o n ” ( h ttp :/ / w w w .a la .o rg / a c rl/ ilc o m sta n . 
htm l);

• co rresp o n d s w ith th e m ission  statem ents 
o f  t h e  in s titu tio n ;

• c o rre s p o n d s  w ith  th e  fo rm a t o f  re la ted  
institutional do cu m ents;

• clearly reflects the contributions o f  and e x ­
p ected benefits to all institutional constituencies;

• appears in appropriate institutional documents;
• assum es the availability o f and p articipa­

tio n  in  re le v a n t life lo n g  le a rn in g  o p tio n s  fo r 
all— faculty, staff, an d  adm inistration; an d

• is review ed periodically and, if necessary, 
revised.

Category 2 : G oals a nd  objectives 
G o a ls  a n d  o b je c t iv e s  fo r  a n  in fo rm a tio n  lit­
eracy program:

• are consistent with the mission, goals, and 
o b je ctiv e s  o f  program s, d ep artm ents, an d  the 
institu tio n;

• establish m easurable o u tco m es fo r evalu­
ation  fo r th e  program ;

• reflect so u n d  pedagogical practice;

• accommodate input from various constitu­
encies;

• articulate the integration o f information 
literacy across the curriculum;

• accommodate student growth in skills and 
understanding throughout the college years;

• apply to all learners, regardless o f delivery 
system or location;

• reflect the desired outcomes o f preparing 
students for their academ ic pursuits and for 
effective 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 fu­
ture opportunities and challenges;

• is tied to library and institutional infor­
m ation technology planning and budgeting 
cycles;

• incorporates findings from environmental 
scans;

• accommodates program, department, and 
institutional levels;

• involves students, faculty, librarians, ad­
ministrators, and other constituencies as ap­
propriate to the institution;

• establishes formal and informal m echa­
nisms for communication and ongoing dialogue 
across the academic community;

• establishes the means for implementation 
and adaptation;

http://www.ala.org/
mailto:kirkto@earlliam.edu
http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan


34 t C&RL News ■ January 2003

• addresses, with dear priorities, human, 
technological and financial resources, current 
and projected, including administrative and in­
stitutional support;

• includes mechanisms for articulation with 
the curriculum;

• includes a program for professional,  fac­
ulty, and staff development; and

• establishes a process for assessment at the 
outset, including periodic review o f the plan 
to ensure flexibility.

Catagory  4:A: dımnistra tive α n d  institutionα lsu pp o rt 
Administration within an institution:

• identifies or assigns information literacy 
leadership and responsibilities;

• plants in fo rm a tion  lite ra cy  in the 
institution’s mission, strategic plan, policies, 
and procedures;

• provides funding to establish and ensure 
ongoing support for

•  formal and informal teaching facilities 
and resources

•  appropriate staffing levels
•  professional development opportunities for 

librarians, faculty, staff, and administrators; and
• 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 information literacy program within 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 academic or 
vocational programs;

• identifies the scope (i.e., depth and complex­
ity) of competencies to be acquired on a disciplin­
ary level as well as at the course level;

• sequences and integrates competencies 
throughout a student’s academic career, pro­
gressing in sophistication; and

• specifies programs and courses charged 
with implem entation.

C a teg o ry  6 : C o lla b o r a tio n  
Collaboration among disciplinary faculty, li­
brarians, and other program staff in an infor­
mation literacy program:

• centers around enhanced student learning 
and the development of lifelong learning skills;

• engenders communication within the aca­
demic community to garner support for the 
program;

• results in a fusion o f information literacy 
concepts and disciplinary content;

• identifies opportunities for achieving in­
formation literacy outcom es through course 
content and other learning experiences; and

• takes place at the planning stages, deliv­
ery, assessment of student learning, and evalu­
ation and refinement of the program.

Category  7: Pedagogy
Pedagogy for an information literacy program:

• supports diverse approaches to teaching;
• incorporates 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 ongoing 

coursework and real-life experiences appropri­
ate to program and course level.

Category 8: Staffing
Staff for an information 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 advo­
cating information literacy and lifelong 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 development and training;

• receive regular evaluations about the qual­
ity o f their contribution to the program.

Category 9 : O utreach
Outreach activities for an information literacy 
program:



C&RL News ■ January 2003 / 35

• communicate a clear message defining and 
describing the program  and its value to tar­
geted audiences;

• provide targeted marketing and publicity 
to stakeholders, support groups and media chan­
nels;

• 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 co ­
sponsoring workshops and programs that re­
late to information literacy for faculty and staff;

• advance information literacy by sharing 
information, methods and plans with peers from 
other institutions; and

• are the responsibility o f all m embers o f 
the institution, not simply the librarians.

C ategory 10:  A ssessm ent/evaluation 
Assessment/evaluation o f information literacy 
includes program performance and student out­
comes and:

for program evaluation:
• establishes the process o f ongoing plan­

ning/improvement o f the program;

• measures directly progress toward meet­
ing the goals and objectives o f the program;

• integrates with course and curriculum as­
sessm ent as well as institutional evaluations 
and regional/professional accreditation initia­
tives; and

• assumes multiple methods and purposes 
for assessment/evaluation

•  formative and summative
•  short term and longitudinal; and

for student outcomes:
• acknowledges differences in learning and 

teaching styles by using a variety o f appropri­
ate outcom e m easures, such as portfolio as­
sessment, oral defense, quizzes, essays, direct 
observation, anecdotal, p eer and self review, 
and experience;

• focuses on student performance, knowl­
edge acquisition, and attitude appraisal;

• assesses both process and product;
• includes student-, peer-, and self-evalua­

tion; and

for all:
• includes periodic review o f assessment/ 

evaluation methods. ■