This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch] On: 05 November 2014, At: 03:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Medical Reference Services Quarterly Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmrs20

The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education: Implications for Health Sciences Librarianship a

Maureen Knapp & Stewart Brower

b

a

Rudolph Matas Library of the Health Sciences, Tulane University , New Orleans , Louisiana , USA b

Schusterman Library, The University of Oklahoma-Tulsa , Tulsa , Oklahoma , USA Published online: 14 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Maureen Knapp & Stewart Brower (2014) The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education: Implications for Health Sciences Librarianship, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33:4, 460-468, DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2014.957098 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.957098

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33(4):460–468, 2014 Published with license by Taylor & Francis ISSN: 0276-3869 print=1540-9597 online DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2014.957098

INFORMATICS EDUCATION

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

Toni Hoberecht and Kimberly Pullen, Column Editors

The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education: Implications for Health Sciences Librarianship MAUREEN KNAPP Rudolph Matas Library of the Health Sciences, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

STEWART BROWER Schusterman Library, The University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

The Association of College and Research Libraries is developing a new framework of information literacy concepts that will revise and replace the previously adopted standards. This framework consists of six threshold concepts that are more flexible than the original standards, and that work to identify both the function and the feelings behind information literacy education practices. This column outlines the new tentative framework with an eye toward its implications for health sciences libraries, and suggests ways the medical library community might work with this new document. KEYWORDS ACRL framework, Association of College and Research Libraries, educational competencies, health sciences librarians, information literacy, threshold concepts

# Maureen Knapp and Stewart Brower Comments and suggestions should be sent to the Column Editors: Toni Hoberecht ([email protected]) and Kimberly Pullen ([email protected]). Address correspondence to Maureen Knapp, Rudolph Matas Library of the Health Sciences, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112. E-mail: mknapp2@ tulane.edu 460

Informatics Education

461

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

INTRODUCTION Fifteen years ago, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) issued a game-changing document: ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education’’ (the IL standards).1 The standards, which outlined specific learning objectives students should meet when conducting research, responded to the growth of online information and resulted in changes across the practice of librarianship. They gave voice to the tacit understanding that students of higher education should be able to identify, locate, retrieve, and incorporate research into their respective disciplinary studies. The standards established five learning objectives that could be shared with faculty to encourage cross-pollination and collaboration in the development of information literacy, and officially recognized librarians who had long been instructing students in how to find and use resources for research. In the decade since their creation, many disciplines have utilized the IL standards in revisions of discipline-specific learning objectives, including nursing, physical therapy, and the social sciences. But the standards are a living document. Just as academic disciplines must continually evaluate practices and curriculums to retain accreditation, so must librarianship review and reassess its own information literacy standards for relevancy. That time has come. The ACRL convened the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task Force in August 2012. The charge: Update the Information literacy competency standards for higher education so that they reflect the current thinking on such things as the creation and dissemination of knowledge, the changing global higher education and learning environment, the shift from information literacy to information fluency, and the expanding definition of information literacy to include multiple literacies, e.g., transliteracy, media literacy, digital literacy, etc.2

As explained in the Framework’s introduction,3 the revision is due in part to changes in educational structure and the emergence of a more interconnected, online world. It is also a response to constructivist theory and adult learning principles: that information literacy and information fluency is as much about feelings as it is findings. Finally, it is a response to the growth of professional Master’s degree programs, which expect incoming professionals to be able to find and digest information quickly and strategically. Several drafts of the new ‘‘Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education’’ circulated for comment in the library community in early 2014. The most recent draft Framework (as of this writing) was released June 17, 2014 and will solicit another round of comment from the library community through the end of 2014. The remainder of this column will examine the

462

Informatics Education

structure of the revised standards and associated concepts, as well as explore implications of the changes for health sciences librarians. Keep in mind, the finalized standards may very well undergo another metamorphosis beyond what is presented here.

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

EXPLANATION OF THRESHOLD CONCEPTS=‘‘FRAMES’’ The format of the new Framework is strikingly different than the old. As opposed to concrete behavioral objectives (i.e., ‘‘The information literate student will . . .’’), the new edition presents a ‘‘cluster of interconnected core concepts, with flexible options.’’3 Note that all further quotes are from the ACRL Framework, Draft 2 (reference #3), unless otherwise specified. Six broad ‘‘Frames’’ replace the five original information literacy learning objectives. Each Frame is comprised of a larger philosophical idea called a ‘‘Threshold Concept’’: ‘‘those ideas in any discipline that are passageways or portals to enlarged understanding or ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline.’’ Threshold concepts are further delineated by ‘‘Knowledge Practices’’ and ‘‘Dispositions,’’ elements which describe specific abilities and personal attitudes involved in the practice of information literacy. The six threshold concepts of the new Framework outlined in Table 1 below represent overarching ideas meant to be applicable to many academic disciplines. TABLE 1 Information Literacy: Then and Now Six Threshold Concepts Anchoring the New Framework for Information Literacy (2014) Threshold concepts are defined as ‘‘those ideas in any discipline that are passageways or portals to enlarged understanding or ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline.’’3 1. Scholarship is a conversation, 2. Research as inquiry, 3. Authority is contextual and constructed, 4. Format as a process, 5. Searching as exploration, and 6. Information has value.

Five Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) The 2000 standards outlined five abilities an information literate student will possess.

The information literate student . . .1 1. Determines the nature and extent of the information needed, 2. Accesses needed information effectively and efficiently, 3. Evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system, 4. Uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose, individually or as a member of a group, and 5. Understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

Informatics Education

463

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

Scholarship as Conversation ‘‘Scholarship is a conversation’’ refers to the idea that producing academic output is an act of discourse with a community, ‘‘with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of competing perspectives and interpretations.’’ Example knowledge practices for this concept include: identifying ‘‘the contribution that particular articles, books, and other scholarly pieces make to disciplinary knowledge,’’ summarizing ‘‘the changes in scholarly perspective over time on a particular topic,’’ and contributing ‘‘to scholarly conversation at an appropriate level.’’ From a health sciences perspective, ‘‘scholarship as conversation’’ could include tracing the development of infectious disease theory for yellow fever, or evaluating the evidence concerning vaccination and autism. Dispositions include suspending judgment, valuing user-generated content, and understanding ‘‘the responsibility to scholarly discourse that comes with entering the conversation.’’ Basically, not behaving like a closed-minded jerk.

Research as Inquiry For health science disciplines, ‘‘Research as inquiry’’ could be renamed ‘‘The Scientific Method.’’ Research as inquiry refers to ‘‘an understanding that research is iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex questions whose answers develop new questions or lines of inquiry in any field.’’ Example knowledge practices for this concept include: conducting ‘‘research through the lens of inquiry,’’ formulating ‘‘questions for research based on gaps in information or data available,’’ and communicating effectively and engaging ‘‘in informed, self-directed learning.’’ Dispositions for Frame 2 include valuing ‘‘persistence, adaptability and flexibility,’’ practicing critical thinking, and recognizing that learning and discovery is a process built upon mistakes. Most strikingly relevant for health sciences libraries is the inclusion of lifelong learning as a knowledge practice. Lifelong learning is a skill consistently mentioned as a behavioral objective for physicians, nurses, and other health sciences professionals.

Authority Is Contextual and Constructed ‘‘Always question authority’’ has been a mantra for the disenfranchised from Copernicus to neo-punks, and it seems the idea is about to be codified by libraryland. ‘‘An understanding of this concept enables learners to critically examine all evidence—be it a Wikipedia article or a peer-reviewed conference proceeding—and ask relevant questions about origins, context, and suitability for the information need of the moment.’’ Knowledge practices include: identifying ‘‘markers of authority when engaging with information, understanding that many disciplines have acknowledged authorities,’’ and recognizing ‘‘that authoritative content may be packaged formally or

464

Informatics Education

informally’’ (including user-generated information). Dispositions toward authority and its constructs include maintaining an open mind, being ‘‘aware of the importance of assessing content critically,’’ and recognizing ‘‘that there are potential problems with traditional notions of granting authority.’’ An implication for the health sciences is the now common practice of funding disclosures and conflicts of interest statements in publications and presentations. Who is funding the research? What are they not reporting?

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

Format as a Process ‘‘Format is the way tangible knowledge is disseminated. The essential characteristic of format is the underlying process of information creation, production, and dissemination, rather than how the content is delivered or experienced.’’ Perhaps this is ACRL’s attempt to acknowledge that nontraditional publishing formats are just as relevant as their print counterparts. To butcher Marshall McLuhan: ‘‘the message is the medium.’’4 It doesn’t matter how content is published, ‘‘whatever form information takes, the expert looks to the underlying processes of creation as well as the final product in order to critically evaluate that information for use as evidence.’’ Knowledge practices include: understanding ‘‘that format and method of access are separate entities,’’ articulating ‘‘the characteristics and purposes of various formats,’’ and identifying ‘‘which formats best meet particular information needs.’’ For health sciences, this could mean debating whether a Wiki or a notebook is better for keeping laboratory notes, discussing the implications of announcing a new cure for cancer via a blog post versus a peer-reviewed journal, or examining how learning about a new surgical technique differs between a tweetcast or a print publication.

Searching as Exploration With the fifth concept, Searching as Exploration, we finally return to the real meat of what we do as librarian instructors: teach students how to identify, locate, retrieve, and record information sources. ‘‘Locating information requires a combination of inquiry, discovery, and serendipity. There is no one size fits all.’’ Knowledge practices include determining ‘‘the scope of the question,’’ identifying sources, constructing search strategies and using citation management and sharing tools as skills, while dispositions include ‘‘persistence, adaptability and flexibility,’’ recognizing ‘‘the value of browsing and serendipitous methods of information gathering,’’ and understanding ‘‘that first attempts don’t always pay off.’’ Searching as Exploration resonates strongly for health sciences librarians, as one can easily imagine traditional bibliographic instruction classes such as PubMed, CINAHL, or citation management tools fitting into this category.

Informatics Education

465

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

Information Has Value The final concept directly addresses intellectual property, open access, and author and publisher rights. If the growth of the information age has taught us anything, it is that information is a commodity. ‘‘Information has Value acknowledges that the creation of information and products derived from information requires a commitment of time, original thought, and resources that need to be respected by those seeking to use these products, or create their own based on the work of others.’’ The three big pieces of this concept are: information can be bought and sold (that’s why it is called ‘‘intellectual property’’); information can be affected by economic, political, and sociological forces; and finally, things that seem free may be paid for by the provision of one’s own personal information shared on a site. Information Has Value . . . and someone has to pay for it. There are retributions for stealing information. Cite the source, respect the original ideas of others, and understand that some individuals or groups of individuals may not be represented.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARIANSHIP Health sciences libraries have not historically endorsed the ACRL standards as a part of their efforts to conduct information literacy education. In fact, a MEDLINE search for keywords of ‘‘Association of College and Research Libraries’’ or ‘‘ACRL’’ only yields three articles of any relevance. By comparison, ‘‘Information Literacy’’ was officially adopted as a Medical Subject Heading by the National Library of Medicine in 2011, and as a keyword phrase yields over 250 results. An article by Patricia Senn Breivik in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association (BMLA) from 1991 called health sciences librarians into service of the concept of information literacy,5 but the term would not appear in another BMLA article title until 1996.6 The health librarianship literature suggests very weak ties to the overall concept of information literacy in our profession, and, in particular, no clear adoption of the ACRL standards. (That being said, there is considerable nursing education literature on the subject of information literacy.) There are several possible reasons that the health librarian community has not fully embraced the ACRL standards for information literacy to this point. One reason in particular is suggested by the nature of the students that health sciences librarians are responsible to educate. Students in the health sciences professions often have two or more years of undergraduate education behind them before starting on a health sciences degree. Most all students in the health sciences professions have had to take an English composition course or two, in which undergraduate information literacy librarians often provide instruction. If the expectation is that most students should receive information literacy education in conjunction with first-year experiences as undergraduates, then the role of the health sciences librarian

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

466

Informatics Education

is to work with students who should already have a more advanced understanding of how to find and use information appropriately. Anecdotally, this attitude has been reflected by the teaching faculty as well. The new ACRL framework addresses this issue directly by recognizing that the frames describe threshold concepts that can fit many stages of a student’s scholarly development. For example, the second threshold concept, ‘‘Research as Inquiry,’’ refers to the scholarly research process as an iterative one, where questions and lines of inquiry become increasingly complex over time. This concept has significant impact on the student who is directly engaged in research, at an advanced stage in his or her education. Another threshold concept, ‘‘Format as a Process,’’ recognizes that the format of information is an evolving one, so that the emphasis should be on the content itself, rather than the mechanism of delivery. As information services evolve and change quickly, this concept can be applied at any stage of a person’s education. Information literacy is no longer outlined as a series of objectives to be learned early in one’s academic career. Instead, information literacy forms a framework to sustain an ongoing and increasingly demanding relationship with information over the lifetime of a student. Librarian engagement and instruction of students in any program, at any stage, can be modeled within the new ACRL framework. By working within this framework, health sciences librarians are provided an opportunity to re-examine how information literacy instruction is being conducted. Because the framework does not propose specific outcomes, health sciences librarians can use it to develop learning objectives specific to the discipline and curriculum. The framework can suggest an overall road map for developing information literacy plans when working with teaching faculty, curriculum committees, residency coordinators, department chairs and deans, and other academic officers. The framework can help open a dialogue with those who teach in a variety of health disciplines, and support librarian-led efforts to add educational value to the curriculum. Perhaps the single-largest difference between the previous set of ACRL information literacy guidelines and the proposed framework is the transition from a skill-based focus to one of knowledge-based learning and discovery. Historically, ‘‘bibliographic instruction’’ and even early information literacy programs focused on teaching skill sets needed to retrieve and use information from library resources. Health sciences librarians would demonstrate a litany of skills to students: how to use the library’s OPAC, how to find a term in the MeSH, how to run a keyword search in CINAHL, etc. These skills would be taught through simple classroom demonstrations, sometimes accompanied by limited hands-on practice by the students. The limitations of these efforts have become obvious over time. The value of the OPAC and MeSH to any health sciences student has dropped significantly as physical collections get less use and natural language searching has become more prevalent. Web-accessible resources have morphed into

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

Informatics Education

467

smartphone apps, which are significantly easier to access and use. Graduates lose their access to university-provided discipline-specific resources, reducing their value to alumni who can only access PubMed and Google. The proposed framework suggests a different approach to integrating information literacy education into the health sciences disciplines, emphasizing knowledge and comprehension over the acquisition of specific skills. Additionally, the framework is more flexible than the previous standards. With the health sciences disciplines’ diverse approaches to education, often blending scientific inquiry with practice-based experiences, this flexibility has significant advantages. Skills-based instruction only has temporary value to the learner, but the threshold concepts of the ACRL framework promise a broader, more adaptive understanding of the nature of information, and better lifelong learning as a result.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Health sciences librarians have been historically weak in their adoption of the previous ACRL standards. The Health Sciences Interest Group (part of the ACRL) mapped the original information literacy standards to nursing education criteria last year, but there are few other examples of health sciences librarians embracing the work of the ACRL. Since, at the time of this writing, the new information literacy framework has not been officially adopted by ACRL, it is difficult to make specific recommendations about what the right course of action is for health sciences librarians. Certainly, any librarian who is a member of ACRL should be engaged in the planning and discussion surrounding the new framework. Individual health sciences librarians should closely examine the framework and consider its value as a toolkit for improving information literacy education for their students. Additionally, health sciences librarians should read the most recent draft of the framework, and continue this discussion in their own professional societies. The Medical Library Association is the primary professional home for health sciences librarians in the United States. Those members of MLA with an interest in information literacy education should petition their leadership to create a task force and charge them with a full examination of the final version of the ACRL framework. They should endeavor to find ways the framework might be used in the instruction of health sciences students, and consider its official adoption by MLA for this purpose.

REFERENCES 1. Association of College and Research Libraries. ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.’’ January 18, 2000. http://www. ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 03:24 05 November 2014

468

Informatics Education

2. Association of College and Research Libraries. ‘‘ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task Force.’’ 2014. http://www. ala.org/acrl/aboutacrl/directoryofleadership/taskforces/acr-tfilcshe. 3. ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task Force. ‘‘Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Draft 2. June 2014.’’ 2014. http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-2.pdf. 4. McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Signet Books, 1964. 5. Breivik, P.S. ‘‘Information Literacy.’’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 79, no. 2 (April 1991): 226–229. 6. Fox, L.M., J.M. Richter, and N.E. White. ‘‘A Multidimensional Evaluation of a Nursing Information-literacy Program.’’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 84, no. 2 (April 1996): 182–190.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Maureen Knapp, MA, AHIP ([email protected]) is Research Support & Education Librarian, Rudolph Matas Library of the Health Sciences, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112. Stewart Brower, MLIS, AHIP ([email protected]) is Director, Schusterman Library, The University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, 4502 East 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74135.

The ACRL framework for information literacy in higher education: implications for health sciences librarianship.

The Association of College and Research Libraries is developing a new framework of information literacy concepts that will revise and replace the prev...
97KB Sizes 2 Downloads 4 Views