Information literacy program: achievements and improvements. (On-going Topics).

Abstract

Based on a comparative study of information literacy programs at California State University at Bakersfield and California State University at San Marcos campuses, the article discusses the strengths and limitations of each program. Electronic classroom is a more preferred setting than traditional classroom in teaching information literacy classes. Team-based teaching can strengthen information literacy programs. Periodical program assessment, making information literacy a college requirement, and implementing upper-division discipline-specific information classes can push information literacy programs to a higher level in these institutions.

**********

In today's world, people face vast and ever-increasing quantities of information, a variety of information formats, and the rapid advancement of technology. To be successful in this world, it is critical for students to be information-competent. It is one of the urgent tasks of higher education institutions to help students develop this competency and become literate citizens of this information and technology-laden society.

This situation makes information literacy (IL) programs in higher education institutions more important than ever before. IL programs face the important and challenging task of preparing students for the information age by equipping them with the skills to sort through an overwhelming amount and variety of information. These programs enable students to select and critically evaluate information and to master changing technologies in order to access the information.

Many articles have discussed the importance of developing strong information literacy programs or bibliographic instructions to meet the challenge of the information age (Tiefel 1995, and Sonntag and Ohr 1996). An intensive look at the two programs provides insight on the strengths and limitations of each. The analytical study of the issues in both programs will not only help improve existing IL programs but will also lead to further program development at a higher level.

Background Information

California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) and California State University, San Marcos (CSUSM) are members of the California State University (CSU) system. The CSU is one of the largest higher education systems in the United States. The CSU system boasts 23 campuses, offering bachelor's and master's degree programs in some 240 subject areas and has an enrollment of 360,000 (California State University Office of Public Affairs, 2000). Both CSUB and CSUSM are among the smaller campuses in the system with enrollments around 6000 each (California State University Analytic Studies Division, 2000). Both campuses consist of three colleges -- colleges of Arts and Science, Education, and Business Administration, offering bachelor's degrees in most traditional subject disciplines and some master's programs. Through the effort of librarians, both campuses have overcome the initial obstacles of convincing faculty and administrators of the importance of IL programs, and now have library instruction successfully integrated into the existing lower division curriculum.

Program Comparison

The Library Research Lab, the IL program at CSUB, is an integral component of English 110 Writing and Research Practice, the freshmen composition course. The Lab consists of five eighty-minute sessions spread out over five weeks. The first session starts three weeks after the beginning of a quarter. The final grade of the Lab counts as 10% of the total grade for this course. The Lab covers basic research strategy, search skills, CSUB library resources and services, online catalog, and library journal indexes and web resources. All five sessions are taught in the Library's electronic classrooms, which are equipped with computers and Internet access. The English 110 Library Research Skills Lab Handbook developed by the Lab instructors is used as the official textbook for the Lab.

All librarians at CSUB are involved in teaching the Lab and have great freedom as to how they teach. Each instructor develops his/her own syllabus, handouts, assignments, requirements, content arrangements, and grading system. Aside from using the Lab handbook as general guidance for the Lab, there is no mechanism to check the consistency of instruction for the English 110 Library Lab.

The IL program at CSUSM is incorporated into the component of its general education program entitled General Education: Life Long Learning and Information Literacy (GEL). GEL 101: The Student, the University and the Community has three modules: Information & Society, Health & Wellness, and Career Development & Choices. Information & Society, the IL component, is covered in three consecutive weeks, using a total of 450 minutes class time. Of those 450 minutes, 150 minutes are library lab time, in which classes are held in an electronic classroom and students can have hands-on practice on a computer. While the module introduces students to basic information literacy concepts and skills such as reference sources, book and journal databases, Internet resources and search skills, it emphasizes critical thinking, information evaluation, and research strategies and processes. Students are given several in-class assignments as well as homework. At the end of the module, they are required to develop a pathfinder i.e. a research guide that provides research steps and bibliographic information on a specific topic. They develop their pathfinders on their chosen topics using the strategy, concepts, and skills they have learned in class. The final grade for this module counts for 14% of the total GEL 101 grade.

A team of instructional librarians teaches the information & Society module. The team develops the syllabus, assignments, handouts, and other course related materials. The team sets up the standard for requirements and grading. The team holds pre-class meetings and a post-class debriefing. Before the module begins, instructors meet to discuss class preparation issues such as assignments and handout modifications. When the module is over, instructors hold a debriefing on the achievements and problems encountered in class.

Observations

Incorporating an IL program into the curriculum has the advantage of institutionalizing instruction in library research as well as reaching more students (Snavely and Cooper 1997). The IL programs at CSUB and CSUSM certainly enjoy these advantages. Both programs are integrated into the curriculum thereby reaching more students. Students learn IL skills systematically. IL as a component of a course creates an atmosphere that makes students take the program more seriously and ensures their attendance at classes. Also, IL instructors know the subject coverage of the course and have more time to plan the class accordingly, which makes their instruction more effective. These are some of the advantages that traditional one-shot bibliographic instruction lacks.

The layout of sessions and the classroom setting are the strong points of CSUB's program. The five-week sessions ensures continuity for both teaching and learning. Instructors have the opportunity to cover the major components of information literacy. Students have one week between classes to digest the content and practice the skills learned in class.

All five of the eighty-minute sessions are taught in electronic classrooms, which are located in the library building. This setting greatly facilitates IL instruction and learning. It not only allows instructors to give effective computer demonstrations, but also gives students the time and opportunity for hands-on practice while concepts and skills discussed in class are still "fresh" in their minds. This setting also enables instructors to catch and correct problems promptly while watching/assisting students' hands-on practice. If a pattern of problems becomes evident, instructors can re-discuss the issues to the class, making sure that class objectives are met. As the electronic classrooms are located in the library building, it is convenient and efficient for instructors to present library services and resources to students. For example, instructors can bring students into the library reference area to discuss and demonstrate reference sources.

Uniformity in implementing the IL program at CSUB would strengthen the program. Aside from using the English 110 Library Research Skills Lab Handbook as the general guide for Lab classes, there is no built-in mechanism to ensure consistency in delivering the program. Each instructor has his/her own syllabus, assignments, and grading system. The inconsistency affects students' learning and assessment. For example, some instructors include print indexes and government documents in their resource discussion and some do not. Some instructors give credit for class attendance, and some do not. Developing some mechanisms to check the content covered and to ensure consistency in grading would definitely enhance the program.

Increasing communication among teaching librarians can strengthen the program. For example, teaching librarians can set up regular meetings to exchange teaching ideas and tips or co-teach some sessions. These exchanges can not only increase the consistency in class delivery but also provide a chance for instructors to share one another's strength and skills, and thus enhance the overall quality of the IP program.

Team teaching is the strength of the CSUSM program. It has the advantage of collective wisdom while it capitalizes on instructors' personal strengths. The team develops the syllabus, and designs standard class assignments, the final project, and the grading system. The team holds meetings before, during, and after the IL program to discuss issues and solve problems. Teamwork ensures the quality, the content, and the consistency of the program. Agreement on a grading standard ensures that students are treated equally. Within the framework of the team, individual instructors can still enjoy the flexibility of using their personal strengths in instruction to the benefit of students while at the same time instructors can share their strengths with one another and thus enhance the program. For example, an instructor who is more familiar with Web resources can recommend good Web sites for students' Web search assignments. Another instructor who has more experience with group activities can share effective methods he/she has used before. Sharing techniques and experiences helps instructors to complement one another's expertise and enhance the instruction of all students.

Besides the peer support discussed above, library instructors at CSUSM also receive strong encouragement and opportunities for formal instructional training from the Library and University in terms of time and money. Librarians are encouraged and supported to attend regional and national teaching institutes, workshops, and professional conferences and pre-conferences.

The Information & Society module of GEL 101 is a strong IL program at CSUSM with a team of active and enthusiastic instructors. However, some external conditions limit the effective delivery of the program. Only one third of the module time is Lab time when classes are held in electronic classrooms. During the rest of the time, classes are taught in traditional classrooms equipped with only a whiteboard and a transparency projector. Class is composed of mostly lecture followed by students' discussion and group activities that do not require computers. Due to the way information is compiled and disseminated currently, using computer technology to access and retrieve information is not an exceptional luxury but rather a standard necessity. Technological advancements affect pedagogy and the way students learn. The trend for library instruction is moving from lecture to computer demonstration followed by hands-on practice (Klavano and Kulleseid 1995). Pointing at a static transparency, explaining to students what they would have seen on an interactive computer screen does not replicate online searching. This situation is frustrating to both the instructor and the students. The nature of the IL program determines that the effective delivery of information classes depends heavily on computer and Internet access for teaching and practicing. As the Chinese proverb goes "Without rice, even the cleverest housewife cannot cook." Without the right equipment, even a highly knowledgeable and experienced instructor cannot recreate the wonder of the electronic information world, using a transparency projector.

CSUSM is a new campus still under development. Insufficient numbers of electronic classrooms make it impossible to schedule all IL sessions in electronic classrooms. The new library building with electronic classrooms is, at this time, only in the planning stage and will not be available for use for several years. However, the IL program cannot wait. The IL instructors need to be creative and find ways to deliver IL courses effectively. One option is to hold some sessions in the Library with several reference computers reserved for class. Teaching assistants can assist the instructor as the reference area is an open area and difficult for one instructor to manage. Another option is to wire traditional classrooms so that a few laptops can be utilized for instructor's demonstration and students' group hands-on practice. An alternative is to consider setting up a few online sessions with Internet instruction technology such as Blackboard, an online instructional system that allows course delivery, instructor-student communication and grading in a virtual environment. In short, it is important to create a setting that is more effective for teaching and learning information literacy concepts and skills. With such a strong team of IL instructors, this can be done.

Future Development

IL programs at both CSUB and CSUSM are in good standing. They are at mature stages as both have been incorporated into the curriculum for several years and long ago passed the initial stage of convincing administration and faculty of the importance of IL.

It is time to consider pushing the existing IL programs a step further so they play a more import role in students' academic life. Aside from the improvements suggested above for the current IP programs, bigger steps may be needed to push the current program forward.

There should be periodic, formal institutionalized assessment of each program. Assessment can highlight the achievements in order to gain further support from faculty and administrators. Assessment will also help discover problems and limitations. Additionally, through assessment, librarians can adjust and update existing IL programs to meet the rapid changing information world.

The Library Research Lab of English 110 at CSUB and Information & Society of GEL 101 at CSUSM both target first year freshman. Both programs miss a whole category of students -- transfer students. Both campuses receive students from local community colleges and other higher education institutions. Some of these students have not been introduced to the concept of IL. Some mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that transfer students learn necessary IL skills. Currently, CSUSM requires the Computer Competency Requirements (CCR) for all its students. Students can fulfill the CCR by taking the CCR exam or by taking courses such as Computer Science 101: Critical Thinking with Computers. (CSUSM general catalog 1999-2000). It would be appropriate to develop a competency requirement for IL in the formation of an Information Competency Exam. Transfer students who have not had IL courses in their former institutions, could either take the IL class at CSUSM or take the Information Competency Exam.

IL programs at CSUSM and CSUB are incorporated into lower level undergraduate courses. The programs cover basic research theory, concepts and skills, and general information resources. Having successfully implemented the IL program for lower level courses, librarians have gained the necessary experience and laid a solid basis for IL competency in the universities. It is appropriate now to try to push the IL program further by incorporating the IL program into upper-level courses in specific disciplines or subject areas. There are many subject specific information resources and research skills, which cannot be covered by the general IL program geared toward lower-level courses. Currently, most library instruction for upper-level subject specific courses is still a one-shot deal in which librarians are given one class session to teach information research process and resources. This type of library instruction cannot keep up with the development of the information world and the needs of information seekers. There is a gold mine of research resources on all academic disciplines in print or online. Librarians need to take responsibility to let our students know of their existence and the way to get to them. For example, finding primary sources has always been a challenge, especially in non-research institutions. Now many primary sources such as "The Online Archive of California" (California Digital Library, 2000) and "Making of America" (MOA, 2001) are available on the Internet. There are also many Web based quantitative data sets for social science research. Instruction is needed to teach students how to access and use these wonderful resources. An IL program integrated into upper-level subject specific research courses is a good way to reach this goal.

Conclusion

Today, educators of higher institutions all face the challenge of producing a generation of information literate life-long learners who can succeed in the information era. Developing and implementing effective IL programs is a critical step for universities toward achieving this goal. While this article focuses on the IL programs at two CSU campuses, the achievements, problems and suggestions discussed here can provide valuable information for instructors at other universities. Campuses whose IP programs are in beginning stages may find the successful experience of the two CSU campuses applicable to their institutions and they may consider intergrading IL programs into curriculum. Or they may find the discussion will help them to foresee the problems they will encounter such as inadequate electronic classrooms and thus they can take appropriate preventive actions. For other campuses whose IL programs are at a matured stage as CSUB and CSUSM, the article may serve as an open forum for sharing experience and exchanging ideas to lead existing programs to become more successful. In this fast-paced and ever-changing electronic era, an IL program as a whole and its components must be constantly assessed and updated to reflect the changes of the information world and address new needs of our students. Only a "live" IL program can withstand the challenges of time.

Reference

California Digital Library. (2000). Online Archive of California. Retrieved March 31,2001 from World Wide Web: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/.

California State University Analytic Studies Division. (2000). CUS Analytical Studies Statistical Report: Statistical Reports 1999-2000. Retrieved March 31, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.calstate.edu/tier3/as/stat_reports/1999-2000/.

California State University Office of Public Affairs. (2000). About the CSU. Retrieved March 31, 2001 from World Wide Web: http://www.calstate.edu/tier3/PubAffairs/info/System.html.

California State University San Marcos. (1999). General Catalog 1999-2000, J-18. San Marcos, California: California State University San Marcos.

Daragan, P. and Stevens, G. (1996). Developing Lifelong Learners: An Integrative and Developmental Approach to Information Literacy. Research Strategies 14(2): 68-81.

Dupuis, E. (1997). The Information Literacy Challenge: Addressing the Changing Needs of Our Students Through Our Programs. In The Challenge of Internet Literacy: the Instructor-Web

Coverage, ed. L. E. Martin 93-111. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Greenwood, T. Frisbie, J. (1998). Library Instruction That's Out of This World! Information Literacy at Fort Lewis College. Reference Services Review 26(3/4): 45-50.

Higgins, C. and Face, M. (1998). Integrating Information Literacy Skills into the University Colloquium: Innovation at Southern Oregon University. Reference Services Review 26 (3/4): 7-31.

Klavano, A. and Kulleseid, E. (1995). Bibliographic Instruction: Renewal and Transformation in One Academic Library. Reference Librarian 51-52, 359-383.

MOA. (2001). Making of America. Retrieved March 31, 2001 from World Wide Web: http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/.

Snavely, L. and Cooper, N. (1997). Competing Agendas in Higher Education: Finding a Place for Information Literacy. Reference and User Services Quarterly 37(1): 53-62.

Sonntag, G. and Ohr, D. (1996). The Development of a Lower-Division, and General Education, Course-Integrated Information Literacy Program. College and Research Libraries 57 (4): 331-338.

Sonntag, G. (1999). Using Technology in a First Year Experience Course. College & Undergraduate Libraries 6(1):1-16.

Tiefel, V. (1995). Library User Education: Examining Its Past, Projecting Its Future. Library Trends 44 (2): 318-338.

Ury, C. (1994). A Tiered Approach to Bibliographic Instruction: the MEDAL Program. Research Strategies 12 (4): 247-250.

Hua Yi, California State University, San Marcos, CA

Hua is Social Sciences Librarian. She received her Master of Library and Information Science from University of Kentucky, and MA in Sociology from Vanderbilt University.