1. Information literacy in action: Florida academic libraries Share their stories and Best practices Nancy Cunningham (University of South Florida) Stephanie Brenenson (Florida International University) Bill Modrow (Florida State University) Renee Montgomery (University of Central Florida) Catherine Lavallee-Welch (USF – Lakeland)

2. PSPC IL Subcommittee • Began in May 2006 • Charge: • Sharing knowledge about resources, research and strategies regarding information literacy/library instruction policies, practices, programs, and services.   The Subcommittee will • Provides an outlet for collaboration among members to explore best practices and share experiences, innovations, and methods and tools for teaching and assessment

3. Survey of 13 member libraries • Staff teaching in your program besides librarians • Yes - 41.7% No - 58.3% • Graduate assistants, 40% Library staff assistants, 60% • All staff in library instruction did other things • Used the ACRL standards to design a course or set of courses and mapped these to course objectives? • Yes – 5 libraries, No – 2 libraries • Working on this – 6 libraries • For-credit class? • Yes – 4 libraries, No – 8 libraries • Any librarian "embedded" in a course or in the curriculum? • Yes – 5 libraries, No – 5 libraries • Working on this – 2 libraries

4. Survey (cont’d) • New organizational structures • USF - Reference & Instruction • UCF – Information Literacy and Outreach • FSU – Undergraduate Information Services • Use & assessment of tutorials • All use some form • Viewlet builder, Camtasia, Captivate • Instruction for distance learners • UCF – developing modules • USF Lakeland – Elluminate • UWF- online library orientation • UF – online tutorials • Assistance in creation of instructional materials? • Yes – 4 libraries, No – 7 libraries

5. Assessment • 7 libraries have a method in place or working on a method • Tool – online & paper surveys, focus groups, and test to measure student outcomes and feedback • SAILS – 3 libraries

6. Faculty Awareness • Library instruction services • Aware/somewhat aware – 11 • No very aware – 2 libraries • Information literacy concepts • Not very aware – 8 libraries • Aware/somewhat aware – 5 libraries • Level of satisfaction with library instruction services • Very satisfied/satisfied – 7 libraries • Somewhat satisfied – 4 libraries

7. Challenges perceived • Staff size, scaling the demand with small and changing staff • Lack of technology support & resources • Lack of teaching facilities • Faculty lack of awareness of our services • Librarian “buy-in”, burn-out

8. Our assets • Dedicated librarians passionate and knowledgeable about instruction and information literacy • Good facilities – wireless, etc. • Supportive faculty • Supportive library administrators • Relationships with outside units willing to collaborate

9. Issues to explore • New technologies to deliver services • Podcasts, blogs, online modules, course management software, chat, etc. • Sharing instructional materials, marketing plans, etc. • Creation of IL modules • Program development (graduate vs. undergraduate) • Assessment

10. Topics covered by members • Instructional Technology Design. • Market information literacy programs • Assessment • Embedded librarians • Information Literacy for undergraduates.

11. ACRL’sCharacteristics of Programs of Information Literacy that Illustrate Best Practices • Do you have a Mission Statement? • Do you have Stated goals & objectives? • How is your Planning process? • Do you have Administrative and Institutional Support? • Does your program provide Articulation with the Curriculum? • Is there Collaboration? • Is there sound Pedagogy practice to the plan? • What will the Staffing be? • What will be the Outreach? • How will Assessment and Evaluation of student outcomes be carried out?

12. Programs in transition • Traditional bibliographic instruction format – “one-shot” • Rely on limited staff & facilities to scale growing demands • Staff numbers can’t keep up • Demand – driven, responding to demand as best we can • Burn-out

13. Librarian-centric method Heavy reliance on “one-shot” Teaching methods limited to lecture, demonstration Little student involvement Limited collaboration with faculty member Focus on teaching limited amount of tools or resources Little to no assessment Content focuses on overarching concepts and critical thinking processes Collaboration with faculty extended Use technology and new vehicles for deliver Librarian as guide and coach Incorporate more learning styles Transitioning programs IL BI