CUNY Libraries Faculty Collaboration for Information Literacy Project Survey 2014

This is a report by the CUNY Office of Library Services, prepared for the Interim Dean of Libraries, November 2015.

Report prepared by Barbara Gray, Chief Librarian, and Associate Professor at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, and Galina Letnikova, Assistant Professor, and Coordinator of Library Instruction at the Library Media Resources Center at LaGuardia Community College.

Acknowledgements

The original questionnaire was created by Professor Carl R. Andrews, Reference & Instruction Librarian at Bronx Community College Library, Curtis Kendrick, then the CUNY Dean of Libraries and Information Resources, and Irene Gashurov, Communications Writer, Office of the Dean of Libraries and Information Resources. Both Professor Gray, who was brought on as principal investigator for the survey, and Professor Letnikova, also contributed to survey revisions. Thanks to Mariana Regalado, Associate Professor, and head of Information Services at the Brooklyn College Library, and Catherine Walsh Essinger, Architecture and Art Library Coordinator, Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies Librarian, General Humanities Selector, University of Houston Libraries, at the University of Houston, both of who contributed extensive feedback and revisions towards shaping the survey. Special thanks for support and feedback on the survey, to CUNY’s Council of Chief Librarians, chaired at the time by Kenneth Schlesinger, Professor and Chief Librarian, at Leonard Lief Library, Lehman College, and to the co-chair at the time Daniel Cherubin, Chief Librarian and Associate Dean, Hunter College Libraries, as well as to the CUNY Library Information Literacy Advisory Committee (LILAC) and co-chairs at the time, Amy Stempler, Assistant Professor, and Coordinator of Library Instruction at the College of Staten Island Library, and Robert Farrell, Assistant Professor, and Coordinator of Information Literacy and Assessment, at Leonard Lief Library, Lehman College.

Introduction

CUNY, one of the largest urban universities in the United States, comprises eleven senior colleges, seven community colleges, five graduate and professional schools, and an honors college. The University’s system is a federation of 31 libraries, with more than 350 faculty and professional staff. As faculty members, CUNY librarians provide students and departmental faculty with a high level of professional library services, at the same time doing research, publishing, teaching, and leading information literacy programs. In the fall semester of 2013 the CUNY Office of Library Services decided to conduct a university-wide survey to explore and identify best practices for collaboration between University faculty and librarians teaching Information Literacy in subject courses. Previous research has shown that collaborative relationships between library and subject faculty is a fundamental key to creating effective student-centered Information Literacy (IL) programs. The students value IL more when it is presented within the disciplinary environment, and their ability to learn IL skills is linked directly to the disciplinary context in which they learn them[i]. We believe that librarians who collaborate with faculty have a greater chance to develop IL instruction that is resonant with the course objectives and make a greater impact on student learning.

The survey was aimed to study the different outreach, teaching, and assessment strategies at CUNY Libraries. These included pedagogies that took place inside and outside the classroom, such as working with small groups, providing individual consultations, aligning content to disciplinary IL instruction and providing materials that facilitate student engagement, such as LibGuides and Blackboard pages. The survey also explored the frameworks in which embedding, as well as other pedagogies and marketing strategies, involve collaborative relationships with faculty at CUNY Libraries. The objective of this overview was to glean insights that could be translated into best practices for the different ways in which librarians collaborate with faculty. The barriers to such collaboration were investigated from the point of view of librarians and subject faculty (as it was presented by librarians).

Our particular interest was in learning about the culture shift that may ensue when librarians assume a co-teaching role in the classroom and some issues that may arise from librarians co-teaching with faculty. This is a relatively new strategy called an “embedded librarian.” The term comes from embedded military journalism and involves “embedding” or delivering beyond general library instruction. The librarian becomes an integral part of the class, maintains an ongoing relationship with the class and delivers customized instruction based on the needs of information seekers in the context of the class[ii]. Librarians are embedding themselves with research groups, faculty members and courses, and deliver services that range from co-teaching with faculty to facilitating research-related discussions with students on the course Blackboard page[iii]. LaGuardia Community College, for example, has embedded a librarian in its paralegal program and in its English courses, to teach students how to write a Wikipedia entry. Librarians from BMCC and John Jay College talked about their experiences as embedded librarians in their presentation, “The Librarian is Present: Embedded Librarians in Blackboard and Beyond,” at John Jay[iv]. Other CUNY Libraries, as well, have an experience with embedding librarians within credit courses.

The Association of College and Research Libraries states that, “Successful collaboration requires carefully defined roles, comprehensive planning and shared leadership,”[v] and our overall survey results presented a case for articulating the areas of strategic realignment of the instruction librarians’ role in the scholarly information environment. The most effective ways for constructing and initiating collaboration with the teaching faculty have been outlined herein in order to equip CUNY librarians with the insights that they need to develop formal and informal partnerships with their own colleges’ faculty and administration.

Methodology

Before beginning our research, the principal investigator obtained approval from CUNY Institutional Review Board to conduct this anonymous survey for the purposes of analyzing and improving best practices at CUNY Libraries. Several librarians who have conducted similar surveys inside and outside CUNY reviewed and helped the survey administrators to refine the questionnaire. Later, the questionnaire was submitted to CUNY Library Information Literacy Advisory Committee (LILAC) for suggestions. The final revised and approved questionnaire comprised 31 questions: two of questions were statistical, twelve related to the IL programs’ marketing and faculty outreach, seven questions asked about practices of embedding IL into the course curriculum, and one question required the respondents to suggest names of subject faculty which could be further surveyed. On September 16, 2013 the survey coordinator sent a letter to all CUNY Chief Librarians introducing the goals of the project. Chief Librarians were asked to identify the members of their library (library instruction faculty and administrators) who were the people most suited to respond to the survey. On January 15, 2014, an anonymous two-part, online survey was emailed to one hundred CUNY information literacy instruction librarians, who were identified by their respective Chief Librarians, as information literacy librarians or their supervisors.

There were eighteen respondents to the survey by the deadline of February 28, 2014, for a response rate of 18%. The Chief of one CUNY library asked that only the individual who managed the instruction services for that library be surveyed, and not each of the instruction librarians. Another Library Instruction Coordinator asked if the library’s whole instruction team of six librarians could respond to the survey as a group, which they did. One of the respondents didn’t answer the second portion of the survey. Professors Gray and Letnikova used the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose.com, and Google Sheets to code and analyze the survey data for this report. For the purposes of this report, questions are not presented in the order they were asked, but were instead grouped by subject topic.

Survey Analysis

Every one of the respondents identified their title as “Library Faculty.” At the time the survey was taken 17% of respondents reported having taught classes both online and onsite, 56% taught onsite-only classes, and no one was teaching online only classes.

One of the purposes of the survey was to ascertain how effective CUNY Libraries and librarians were in engaging faculty collaboration in IL Instruction, and what their strategies for engagement, overcoming barriers, marketing and assessment were, with the goal in mind of using the information toward the development of best practices for successful faculty collaboration in IL instruction. 71% of the IL instruction librarians’ surveyed rated their success in getting faculty onboard for collaboration and embedded librarianship as “successful, but with room for improvement,” 24% of librarians (two from community colleges, one from a four-year college with a graduate program, and one from a graduate program only), considered their rate “successful,” one community college librarian rated their success of getting faculty onboard with IL instruction as “unsuccessful,” and none considered themselves “very successful.”

Librarians said that lack of time and faculty’s lack of knowledge about library services and IL instruction were the greatest barriers to faculty collaboration in IL instruction, and that building and nurturing successful relationships and partnerships with faculty, are among the best ways to overcome those barriers, and are effective tools to help librarians with IL instruction marketing and outreach, and faculty engagement. As one librarian said: “Collaboration with professors is a good way to market our skills. I partner with several professors to help their students find excellent research and collaborate writing articles and giving presentations.” However, emails still tied with face-to-face conversations as the top marketing venues for 72% of librarians surveyed, even though 18% of librarians cited the lack of effectiveness of emails, as one barrier to faculty collaboration. One librarian put it in terms of a common refrain at academic institutions, “No one at my institution actually reads their email.”

Attending school-wide events and meetings ranked high for the librarians surveyed, 39% use them as marketing venues, as well an effective tool for outreach and faculty engagement.

Another message we got from the librarians surveyed was: be responsive to faculty, or as one respondent said: “I keep asking, ‘What can the library do for you?’” 22% of librarians said that being responsive to faculty was a good way to market yourself as a teaching partner, 100% of respondents aligned their IL instruction in some way to the course’s curriculum, 67% of the librarians surveyed adapted their teaching style to sync with faculty, 39% stressed the importance of trying to understand the goals and culture of the class, and 17% of respondents supported classes in Blackboard.

The survey was also aimed to assess how many libraries had embedded librarians teaching IL. Four of the librarians surveyed (22%) were embedded or had an embedded librarian program at their school, three of these librarians were from community colleges, and one was from a graduate only program. These results warrant further conversation about developing best practices for embedded librarianship at CUNY.

Analysis of the survey also identified two more areas where establishing best practices for CUNY-wide libraries might address particular needs: using emerging technology for outreach efforts, and IL instruction assessment.

When asked how emerging technology has impacted outreach efforts for IL instructors, the results were surprisingly mixed. 56% of librarians said emerging technology hasn’t impacted their efforts, or that the question was not applicable, and 6% of librarians said that they wanted to use emerging technology more in their outreach efforts, while 47% of librarians surveyed said that emerging technology has impacted their outreach efforts positively, and mentioned using tools like social media. Given these mixed results, this area may provide an opportunity for CUNY Libraries to develop best practices around marketing, outreach and pedagogy using emerging technologies.

Librarians reported a variety of methods to assess student IL competencies: quizzes, tests, questionnaires (41%), faculty feedback (24%), student assignments (24%). However, three librarians said that the assessments were up to individual librarians, which could mean that changes effected as a result of assessment weren’t made program-wide, and unfortunately, one librarian said that the results of assessment weren’t shared with her. Focus groups or interviews with CUNY librarians, about IL instruction assessment strategies may be a useful follow-up to hear what strategies individual librarians think are the most effective or useful, or which strategies for assessment are most reliable and when, and which strategies we should experiment with, toward developing best practices to assess IL instruction.

In regard to the use of rubrics, the results for this question were mixed, librarians said that it’s easier to successfully use a rubric when you are teaching a course, verses a one-shot session that lasts for one hour. Perhaps LILAC can provide some guidance about how to apply the LILAC rubric for assessment of IL skills, or a modified version, for one-shot sessions.

Q 2. Please indicate your primary work responsibilities, e.g., reference, instruction, liaison, manager, etc.

Multiple free-text responses were possible per respondent. Here’s what the librarians self-identified as their primary work responsibilities:

Group I. Marketing Library Information Literacy Programs to the Faculty

1.1 (Q.3) How do you market yourself as a knowledgeable teaching partner?

Most of the librarians surveyed marketed themselves through face-to-face meetings with faculty and students, many of them during IL sessions, at committee meetings and networking events. Marketing IL services by partnering with faculty on curriculum, presentations, and articles, is suggested as a way librarians can break down barriers to faculty collaboration on IL instruction. Partnering with faculty is a theme that runs throughout this survey. Librarians cited that being responsive, and keeping your materials (and knowledge) relevant were marketing tools that foster partnerships with faculty.

Responses:

“I keep asking, ‘What can the library do for you?’”

“1. Inform my subject and English Composition coordinators and their faculty (and other programs we liaise with) every semester of my availability to teach their classes about information literacy and doing research; 2. Try to arrange regular assessment opportunities to hear how the Instruction Program (which I coordinate) is doing. This can be a survey, a luncheon late in the semester, a student forum, etc.; 3. Work at keeping my GUIDES up-to-date so that students and faculty will find them useful; 4. Inform them of new databases and e-book collections we are acquiring in their field with an offer to demonstrate them; 5. Meet regularly with the directors of English Comp. to ascertain their students’ needs and how to deliver library instruction to their classes.”

“Teach a section or sections (depending on year) of required course to all incoming graduate students, so this helps with establishing us as a “knowledgeable teaching partner.” In addition, also frequently guest lecture in other courses throughout the curriculum, which reinforces our value with doctrinal faculty.”

“The library has a tradition of doing instruction for all Division of Education research courses. The ed. faculty contact the library to arrange the presentations. Word of mouth among ed. faculty also generates a LOT of other requests.”

“Through liaison contact with my departments, largely email. And any time I am with any faculty in person.”

“Emails to faculty, students, student organizations, and alumni about research sessions; strong integration of research component into the curriculum; required research course for the first year, advanced legal research.”

“Conversation, email, colloquia/workshops held for discipline faculty by librarians.”

“The college requires 1 library instruction session for each English Composition I course, which also provides us with an opportunity to outreach to English faculty. Additionally we offer information about our information literacy/instruction program on our website and in materials sent to new faculty. We occasionally have the opportunity to speak at faculty development programs, too. (Subject liaisons reach out to their departments as well.)”

“Email colorful handouts, meet with teaching faculty before and after classes, teach multiple sessions, tailor class accordingly. Keep in touch, hand out business cards.”

“College events; presentations; partnership with teaching center; orientations for undergrad and grad students; membership in the curriculum committee; joint events with FYE programs etc. Plus the traditional: instruction info on the library website, memos to college-wide faculty and individual departments.”

“F2f [face-to-face] and online conversations with faculty; interdepartmental workshops, meetings and seminars are a good place to start these conversations.”

“Collaboration with professors is a good way to market our skills… Library newsletter gets our message across to the college and the rest of CUNY. I also partnered with the former Director of the Writing Center on ways to collaborate to help students write better papers. I make videos about what the library offers and giving research and login advice. I liaison with other faculty at Faculty Interest Groups and college training sessions to start new projects. I serve as an embedded librarian in English classes that help connect with students to offer help.

“Preparing and being responsive to faculty.”

“Collaboration with professors is a good way to market our skills. I partner with several professors to help their students find excellent research and collaborate writing articles and giving presentations.”

1.2. (Q.4) What venues do you use for marketing?

Even though throughout this survey librarians reported that email was not effective as a marketing tool, because faculty are inundated with emails, email use and face-to-face meetings were tied, with 72% of librarians reporting these as their venues for marketing.

Responses:

“Taking courses in my subject dept (which I am currently doing).

“We arrange for additional research sessions prior to students going out for summer internships which are publicized via email and word of mouth. We have an “ask a librarian” session which has been publicized within the institution via electronic bulletin board.“

“Library embedded in Blackboard LMS; Programs held at our college’s Center for Teaching, Learning and Scholarship led by the library; Our college’s faculty and adjunct listserv; Activities and Videos designed for professors and students, attendance of a subject liaison at a departmental meeting. A print brochure would also be helpful, since a lot of faculty skip reading mass emails.”

1.3. (Q.5) Which of your strategies for engaging subject faculty were most effective?

Once again librarians underscored the value of face-to-face contact, maintaining relationships with faculty, and attending school-wide committee meetings and events to engage faculty. Some librarians organized events to interact with faculty and demonstrate the value of partnering with the library, and one librarian even took a course at the school, which provided a unique opportunity to engage faculty in a discipline.

Responses:

“The most effective way for engaging subject faculty for me is when I develop LibGuides that support the curriculum and their instructional goals. The LibGuides will generally include a list of print and electronic resources available in the library that support student research.”

“Offering new library services such as Embedded Librarianship.”

“The most effective strategies have been personal contact with individual professors or department heads at campus meetings, library instruction courses, committee meetings, and particularly working on scholarly projects with faculty members to design new pedagogical tools or publishing collaborations.”

“Taking a course (several now, both undergrad and graduate) within their department definitely got me noticed, and even led to a library instruction session…As a librarian and a student in the course, I can see whether a library session would benefit them.”

“Participating and organizing conferences and panels have been a good way to foster possible collaborations. Librarians need to be supported in these endeavors, and their research requirements should not be defined and limited to ‘library science.’”

1.4. (Q.6) Do you conduct outreach to teaching adjuncts?

17 out of the 18 librarians surveyed said that adjuncts were included in their regular outreach to faculty. One librarian noted that some adjuncts can be more active than full-time professors, and engaging with them can benefit collection development, spur idea sharing, and lead to IL sessions.

Responses:

“When the opportunity presents itself, yes.”

“There are occasional workshops performed by various library faculty.”

“Yes, as a subject liaison, I send notices to department heads and ask them to forward them to faculty and adjuncts…Contact with adjuncts who request library instruction classes from me or attend meetings at the college is another way to connect.”

“When I meet them I make myself friendly and available.”

“Yes, we are present at adjunct orientations and offer some workshops that satisfy the prof development requirements that adjuncts need to fulfill in certain depts.”

“We consider adjuncts and faculty as one. When I do an email distribution, I include adjuncts whenever possible.”

“When I reach out to my subject adjuncts, some of them are more active than the fulltimers and have good book orders for me and other good ideas, which can lead to a class session on occasion.”

“Yes, we have a librarian who is an outreach librarian to all faculty.”

1.5. (Q.7) What are the barriers to subject faculty involvement?

1.5. (Q.8) How do you overcome them?

Most of the librarians surveyed told us that time was the greatest barrier to faculty collaboration with IL. The other major barrier librarians noted was the lack of understanding of the value of IL sessions, or that they were even offered. Librarians said they overcome these barriers by not giving up, by continuing to reach out, and to nurture relationships and partnerships with faculty. It is worth noting here that a connection could be drawn between harnessing the assessment of IL sessions, and marketing the value of IL sessions based on assessment, as a way to overcome some of the barriers to faculty collaboration with IL.

Responses:

“Time is one barrier, and some faculty feel that the Library component is not essential.”

“TIME! try to show how I will save them time.”

“The barriers are that this is a huge school with hundreds of professors and many faculty do not necessarily open informational emails so one has to not forget about personal contact. One thing that should not be discounted is the fact that a lot of faculty right now are dismayed with the quality of research and papers that their students hand in due to the pervasiveness of Google searching, and are eager to partner with librarians to train students about doing credible research from library sources, including (!) books…I collaborate with individual subject faculty on projects and publications and involve them in that way. Serving the faculty member’s specific research or pedagogical needs is a way to advocate for our library on a daily basis.”

“No one at my institution actually reads their email.”

“Time, lack of knowledge of library services, lack of knowledge that librarians are faculty peers, lack of knowledge of how IL instruction can benefit students.”

“It’s important to have library representation at all of the college orientations and open house events. These venues allow the library to market itself to future students, faculty and outside organizations affiliated with the college.”

“Why is it assumed that I’m in the position of overcoming them? I’m not a psychologist or workplace dynamic/workload analyst — and obviously these things play into faculty involvement. I find the question problematic: once again, librarians are supposed to be the solution, somehow, with no consideration of the context in which they and classroom faculty work.”

“I am not invited to their department meetings which disappoints me. I used to be, along with another library faculty member, but when the chair rotated to someone else, we were dropped off the radar.”

“An hour is very expensive for subject faculty.”

“Faculty often are only on campus for a limited time and it can be challenging to find opportunities for conversation. Ditto with email — some respond, some don’t. All of these issues are heightened with adjunct faculty, of course.”

1.6. (Q. 9) How does emerging technology impact your outreach efforts?

The response to this survey question was surprisingly mixed, given the many opportunities to harness emerging technology to conduct library outreach. Social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, Instagram and YikYak, provide opportunities to engage both faculty and students where they spend much of their time. One of the librarians surveyed was embedded in Blackboard discussion boards, and created video tutorials, reporting his/her service was a hybrid of a human touch and technology. This area may provide an opportunity for CUNY Libraries to develop best practices around marketing and outreach using emerging technologies.

Responses:

“It impacts everything I do, since I am currently designing videos, Softchalk digital activities, and signage that our library uses, not to mention that I am also serving e-learning students in Blackboard connecting through blog posts, videos, links to our library website’s catalog and databases, and connecting with students through Blackboard discussion boards…the things I make are posted to our website, so emerging technology is definitely something that I pay attention to. However, technology does not take the place of a human presence…I would say that my service is a hybrid of the human presence and digital tools.”

“The library actively uses social media though perhaps not as much for instruction as for other library programming and events.”

1.7. (Q.10) What strategies and pedagogies (inside and outside of the classroom) do you use when collaborating with subject faculty?

The librarians’ answers to this question resounded with an emphasis on developing relationships with faculty, customizing your IL instruction and creation of resources to the curriculum and faculty member.

Responses:

“There is a lot of blended and integrated learning strategies used as a model here. The idea of working the IL into the current course work is beneficial.“

“When the opportunity presents itself, a faculty member will create a space on their course Blackboard page dedicated to the librarian. Once in that space, I will provide all of my contact information for students who have research questions. I will also upload library resources that will supplement what is taught in class. The most important aspect to this is that students have access to the librarian anytime; which in turn makes the research process more convenient for them. Outside of the classroom setting I will develop subject guides that will support the curriculum of an specific academic discipline and post it onto the library’s web page; this is done using subject resource management system (SRMS) software.”

“I ask them for a specific assignment that they are presently working on. I show them how the information literacy class can provide more insight. The students are afforded hands-on searching strategies so that they feel more comfortable beginning their research.”

“Relevance of research instruction to both students and faculty. Shortest demos feasible with the most possible time in “workshop” (i.e. hands-on). Learning more about the topic so I have more facility with the topics of the students. Tapping into larger conversations about learning/writing/etc. whatever interests the faculty member for sure.”

“Personal relationships help a lot…Goal is to provide service or assistance for classroom whenever we’re asked — within reason.”

“Designing information literacy classes to meet the specific needs of the curriculum; keeping lines of communication open.”

“A lot of what I am doing right now involves collaboration with faculty both inside and outside the classroom. Relevance of research instruction to both students and faculty. Shortest demos feasible with the most possible time in “workshop” (i.e. hands-on). Learning more about the topic so I have more facility with the topics of the students. Tapping into larger conversations about learning/writing/etc. whatever interests the faculty member for sure. A triangulated approach between the professor, the writing center, and the librarian is effective for struggling students or even good students who need critical information literacy training…Collaborating in Blackboard is another way to reach students who are confused about the research process, since you can post a video of yourself inviting the students to connect with you for help, instructional videos, blogs, and answer questions on the discussion board. That is still a work in progress though. As far as pedagogy, scaffolding the library instruction into smaller bites that don’t rely on getting everything covered in one hour-long instruction class would be best. Ideally, the freshman students would be given a series of library instruction classes in which they would have the chance to…work on a research assignment that the subject professor assigned, under the guidance of a librarian.”

“When teaching, I use the databases and resources in their field, and try to be as a fluent as I can with them. I also check regularly to see whether they have recently published and then make sure to buy whatever it is for the library…we have faculty bookcases in the library for new publications, which is a good tool for showing the college who is publishing and in what field…I go over every book request they send me, and send them updates esp. if something got cancelled or not ordered. I also make suggestions of books we might want to order in their field. It shows that I am thinking of them.”

“The embedded librarian program at our library has been most effective.”

“Usually I present in the library so I can show off BOTH virtual & “real” resources. I always try to discuss with the subject faculty whether an assignment is connected to the presentation…sometimes obtaining student topics ahead of time so I can use REAL examples instead of hypotheticals that might not interest anyone. I always tell subject faculty they can inject comments, such as mentioning to a specific student that a resource would be GREAT or saying that they have met an author of an article at a conference.”

“Experimentation and risk taking are the key factors here. Also support for individual connections and practices…”

“Discussion via email with subject faculty, face to face meetings with faculty. We have moved away from a general library orientation and strongly encourage (= attempt to require) faculty to bring their students for instruction with a research assignment that they are working on. In the classroom we strive to engage and partner with subject faculty to answer students’ questions and guide their research, though that is highly dependent on the subject faculty member.”

“Need to work with faculty on her/his teaching agenda. Structure projects and goals with faculty member.“

1.8. (Q.20) What reasons does faculty give for their participation?

Most of the librarians surveyed said that when faculty members can understand that IL instruction improves students’ research skills, and research papers, faculty members collaborate with librarians on IL instruction. Hence, our aim should be towards helping faculty understand how we can improve students’ research skills and papers. This again emphasizes the need for assessment best practices at CUNY Libraries to demonstrate to faculty the value of IL instruction, and the need for marketing and outreach best practices, to help faculty understand that an investment in IL instruction means they will see higher quality research papers.

Responses:

“Faculty usually say that they think IL skills are important and that they want their students to learn the importance of avoiding plagiarism whenever possible.”

“Some faculty recognize the value of getting the students involved in research early on in the semester. Others give the excuse of not having enough time in the curriculum to spare to bring students to the Library.”

“Main reason they are participating is the previous papers have poor sources and the students need help with citing.”

“Some faculty also like collaborating with librarians in a team-teaching kind of way because it makes their classes better.“”

“Faculty who do use our services generally feel that we provide efficient instruction in the access and retrieval of information to students in their field. We also have a mandatory set of instruction sessions for the first three freshman courses students take, so all of those faculty participate because they have to.”

“They want their students to do well with their research.”

“They want IL sessions because they want students to cite better, search better, find better info, find higher quality info.”

1.9. (21) What reasons do they [faculty] give for not participating?

Lack of time and control issues are reasons faculty members have given to librarians surveyed, for not participating in IL instruction. Two difficult public relations obstacles for librarians to overcome: previous bad experiences with librarians, and a lack of respect for librarians’ expertise, were reasons faculty gave for not collaborating on IL instruction. Relationship building, assessment and marketing best practices could be mobilized to address these issues.

Responses:

“I’ve also heard faculty say that they are capable of teaching Information Literacy on their own and that they don’t need the help of a librarian. Or, they will say everything is online and that there is no need for a librarian.”

“Others give the excuse of not having enough time in the curriculum to spare to bring students to the Library.”

“Some faculty have admitted to me that they stopped requesting a class if they had a disappointing experience with a particular professor.”

“Lack of time, in terms of not participating, or it does not apply to their specific course objectives.”

“Time. Control issues. Dissatisfaction based on previous.”

1.10. (Q.24) Does the library have a formal outreach program? Please describe. What does your library do to promote IL instruction to subject faculty?

Most of the librarians reported that their library has a formal outreach program, in the form of a committee, liaisons or an outreach librarian. It would be helpful for the individual CUNY Libraries to share more details on these outreach programs, about their best practices for successful outreach to promote faculty collaboration with IL instruction.

Responses:

“I’ve developed an IL flyer for students and we offer a number of workshops on various IL topics. We also have brochures to market the services of the library.”

“Communicate regularly through emails as to new services and reminders about what the library offers; library liaison program.”

“We are in the midst of reassessing ways to outreach to faculty. We have created a “faculty services” program, where periodic emails could be sent to faculty to remind them of our availability.

“The outreach librarian asks each librarian to contact new faculty so that they are aware of Library services.”

“Website, newsletter, word of mouth, meetings with faculty, paper forms at the reference desk, outreach to department chairpersons.”

“Local broadcast. liaison outreach.”

“Yes, we contact faculty in certain programs and on individual bases as needed.”

“No not formal. We all do something, and interact with different people.”

“No. Nothing.”

“Yes. There is an outreach librarian for all faculty.”

“No, but the Instructional Services Librarian is in touch with many of the campus committees that concern library instruction.”

“Nothing formal as yet; the library holds some new faculty events to try and engage people.”

“It is part of library services posted on web sites and library guides. Emails are sent prior and beginning of each semester. We speak at faculty orientation.”

“We are starting a formal outreach program with me as co-chair of the Library Marketing and Outreach committee, under the direction of the Chief Librarian”

1.11. (Q.25) What library initiatives aim to teach faculty information literacy instruction? Does this involve instructing adjuncts in information literacy?

The intent of this question was confusing to a couple of the respondents. The phrase “teach faculty information literacy instruction,” within this question, should have instead been phrased “teach faculty information literacy,” to be more precise. That said, most libraries have initiatives to increase awareness, and teach information literacy to faculty.

Responses:

“We bring up research in faculty meetings and new faculty orientations, but research instruction is part of our core curriculum.”

“The IL workshops offered throughout the semester are for students and faculty. Adjuncts are always encouraged to attend.”

“Adjunct refreshers and workshops on new databases.”

“I wish we had more of that.”

“We have held workshops for faculty in certain disciplines about the resources we have on offer.”

“We occasionally offer workshops on such things as Setting up Accts., RefWorks, etc. We also have a New Faculty Orientation where the library is (or used to be) a stop. Nowadays, we (the subject bibliographers) are meeting individually with new subject faculty.”

“We need to develop it.”

“We do offer faculty workshops, in conjunction with our Center for Teaching, on IL instruction and IL generally. They are open to adjuncts.”

1.12. (Q.31) What would you rate your success getting subject faculty onboard with information literacy instruction and embedded librarianship?

Two community colleges, one four-year college with a graduate program, and one graduate program only, considered their rate of success as successful. The one librarian who rated their success of getting faculty onboard as unsuccessful was from a community college.

Group II. Information Literacy and Course’s Curriculum

2.1. (Q.11) How have you aligned IL instruction to the course’s curriculum?

All eighteen of the librarians surveyed re-emphasized the importance of customizing IL instruction to the class, curriculum and faculty member, and said that they have aligned their IL instruction to the course’s curriculum.

Responses:

“I teach heavily to the assignment.”

“The most effective way for me is when I am able to communicate with the faculty member in advance of meeting with their class. If they share their course syllabus, I can develop a LibGuide to support the curriculum.”

“By discussion with subject professor what the scope of the assignment is, and either outlining with them what we will cover, or covering specific material as requested by professor.”

focusing on the databases and other materials that meet the learning objectives for that particular curriculum.”

“Through my collaborations with the professors that request library instruction from me…I tailor the instruction specifically to the topics and assignments…Sometimes if they contact me over the summer, I request books that will support their curriculum if they ask far enough in advance, and when the students start, those books may go on reserve for the students…This is important because if the professor doesn’t know what we have, they will not recommend it to their students…A course long collaboration with a professor with multiple library sessions would definitely be better in terms of the ACRL standards, but our college has not supported that model.”

“We are engaged in a long term project via LILAC to integrate better IL learning opportunities into the disciplinary curriculum through the use of discipline faculty focus groups.”

“I regularly review the websites of my subject disciplines for anything that’s new… if there is a new course or something where the library would have a role — -I speak to the instructor or director of that program to see how the library can be a resource.”

2.2. (Q.12) What are your instructional goals for incorporating ACRL standards into the curriculum?

Of the 33% of librarians who did not incorporate ACRL standards into the curriculum, most of them were waiting for the new ACRL Framework, which was released earlier this year. Nonetheless, most of them incorporated some of the previous ACRL standards into their IL instruction.

Responses:

“My instructional goal is to get students to think…I start my class by telling the students my goal is to get them to think as a researcher.”

“My primary goals for incorporating the ACRL standards into the curriculum is for students to become lifelong critical thinkers in regards to the information they encounter and use for academic research and the world of work.”

“I don’t spell them out but they are deeply integrated in all my classes.”

“These standards, while being fundamental, also need to be translated according to the needs of specific audiences.”

“I support the focus on students’ self-directed learning, and the use of a wide variety of information sources to expand knowledge and sharpen their critical thinking for still further self-directed learning…My goals are to inspire students to become engaged in the experience of learning and mastering new skills.”

“We try to adhere to the American Association of Law Libraries Legal Research Competencies and Standards for Law Students in Information Literacy.”

“We use the LILAC Information Literacy Learning Goals and Objectives to guide us rather than the ACRL standards, as the LILAC document is streamlined and easier to use.”

“I find the current ACRL IL standards to be a hindrance to working with faculty due to their generic nature and do not use them. The next iteration is supposed to be more amenable to a situated conception of IL which is what I favor.”

“Looking forward to the new ones!”

2.3. (Q.14) Is the IL teaching happening on-­site, online or both?

2.4. (Q.15) What is your experience with using instructional technology (i.e., videos and tutorials) in teaching?

Most of the librarians surveyed used some instructional technology, primarily using or creating videos or interactive content. Two of the librarians noted that they prefer face-to-face instruction to online instruction. It might be useful to compare what parts of IL instruction might best be presented using instructional technology, and what parts are best delivered face-to-face.

Responses:

“I have created videos and tutorials for pre-class instruction. Students respond well and they reinforce what we teach in class. Also, students can refer to them at a later date.”

“With instructional technology, I am able to communicate with students and subject faculty efficiently. I can create digital tutorials specific to a course or discipline and share it with multiple students simultaneously. With Blackboard, students have access to the library’s services when it’s convenient for them. “

“Don’t have time or skills to create my own which would be ideal.”

“Have used tutorials in past from third parties and continue to use them on a “suggested if you need additional assistance” type of work. We use a flipped classroom model in our required course, where students observe videos, answer questions, and read prior to class. We use extensive interaction with online legal research systems during actual class time.”

“I have found the students interested in videos. It helps to break up the traditional class structure.”

“We are increasing our use of various technologies of all sorts. I’d say our library is in the forefront of that. Via LILAC we will be working to develop new “Guide on the Side” tutorials and look forward to experimenting with that.”

“Rarely use it. I find that both the students & I enjoy the one-on-one interaction.”

“Have taught online, both fully in library credit classes and partially to support f2f classes. Lots of video tools used for this; creation of short tutorials.”

“We have a number of tutorials available for students that cover basic research, library, and information literacy instruction. We typically recommend these as supplemental info for students, and some faculty link to them from their course websites. We promote them more heavily in the online-only/hybrid sections of the course.”

“This past year we used videos via Ted.ed. The students liked them; find them to be helpful.”

“I have some experience using Desire2Learn, Blackboard, Moodle, video tutorial software but I *prefer* face to face instruction.”

2.5. (Q.17) When in the curriculum does lecture/presentation/hands-­on IL instruction take place?

This question could have been phrased more specifically, and as a result, the librarians answered the question one of two ways: some addressed when IL instruction should occur in a course, while others addressed where it should occur in the curriculum. Either way, most of the librarians surveyed, seven of them, said that the timing varied.

Responses:

“When I have the course syllabus, I can determine the best time to infuse IL into the curriculum. IL instruction can take place anytime during the semester; in a library orientation presentation, the entire workshop is dedicated to IL; hands-on IL can take place at the reference desk, in the library commons; anywhere and anytime a student of faculty member seeks help with utilizing library resources.”

“Ideally right when students are developing topics and need to do research.”

“That depends on the individual professor’s request. If a student happens to never get a professor who requests it, they don’t get library instruction at all. Which is very unfortunate.”

“We are working to ensure that adequate learning opportunities for acquiring disciplinary IL skills takes place across the entire curriculum and across all disciplines. Traditionally, the majority of our work has focused on first year students. We are gradually shifting emphasis.”

“In the course, its usually the 2nd to 3rd month of the course, or weeks 7 to 12. Although some Education classes come right away, at the beginning of the semester.”

“Usually near the beginning of the course, after the teacher has become familiar with the students & described the assignment calling for library resources.”

“We strive for the moment just after a class has received a research assignment, though the realities of scheduling constraints (and, sometimes, subject faculty responsiveness) mean that instruction can vary. Again, the English Comp I session is the only required library session for all students at the college — other courses/majors have required/recommended instruction, but it varies by department.”

2.6. (Q.19) Define your role in a course that you taught.

For some reason three of the librarians who responded to the survey left this answer blank, which made the investigators wonder if the respondents were unclear on their role in the classroom, or found it hard to describe or pin down. The majority of librarians surveyed, however, taught one-shot courses. Almost a quarter of the librarians viewed their role as a supporting role.

Responses:

“Collaborator and expert.”

“I am the support person, the info. specialist, the detective, the quality control person, that is what librarians do!”

“My role as an embedded librarian was to instruct students on how to access the library’s print and electronic resources when they began doing research. After my initial presentation, I provided individualized instruction for students who requested it. I would also follow up with instruction on MLA/APA citation and developing a bibliography.”

“My role is to prepare appropriate handouts for the class and design the handouts so the students can follow steps to learn how to select databases, design a search strategy and determine which results are appropriate for their assignment. My role is to assist the class and they ask questions or become frustrated if articles are not located on their topic.”

“Working with the first year Lawyering Seminar, I have gone in and discussed with students their choices they made in choosing sources for an assignment which I was able to review before meeting them. In class, I asked them what terms they used, their justification for using certain sources, and what information did they learn. From there, I asked them to tell me how they would find additional information based on what they had already found, and reviewed with them ways to find even more information from a single case in a reporter.”

“In a live library instruction session, I am a professor, like the faculty member. In Blackboard, the professor has put me in the course as a teaching assistant so that I am able to build content, make announcements, post blogs, add videos, answer the discussion board questions, but of course do not grade.”

“I taught a 3 credit graduate course the summer of 2013. A subject in my masters area. I co-taught it with another library faculty member from another CUNY school. We revised the syllabus and curriculum together. The syllabus had to show student outcomes. And when in the course they would learn them. It was a good learning experience.”

“Mostly one-shot sessions. It has worked best when there is an established (or newly established) relationship between librarian and subject faculty. Role becomes more of a supportive partnership in those cases.”

2.7. (Q.23) Describe how you have adapted your IL teaching style to be in sync with faculty.

Three of the librarians answered the question, but didn’t answer in a way that we could interpret whether or not they adapt their teaching style. One librarian stated that faculty thinks they [faculty] are the ones who are out of sync, and another simply answered with a question mark. The fact that 12 of the librarians surveyed adapted their teaching style to be in sync with faculty, further supports a theme of customizing your IL instruction, which is repeated throughout these survey responses.

Responses:

“Adapting a teaching style is ongoing because I encounter numerous faculty with varied teaching styles. Being in sync with faculty means constantly being open to new pedagogical ideas and interpretations.”

“There have been times that I have had to lessen lecture time and increase hands-on time. There have been times that some faculty have interrupted while I am teaching to make points. Sometimes, their comments are not accurate concerning library research.”

“I think a lot has to do with personality. Success comes with people who get along and are on the same page.“

“Faculty’s needs are all different…I ask them if they could offer information on their course topics and many of them send a syllabus, course readings, and research assignments to give me some idea of what they want.”

“I contact faculty before class and try to get more information about their classroom environment and structure. I change my topics in order to relate to the subject.”

“Well, when it comes to the world of resources, it’s the classroom faculty who tell us they feel out of sync with us librarians.”

“Being able to forget about library-centric lingo when instructing is important. The phrase “information literacy” is a library construct for the most part — if we’re to be in synch with faculty in the disciplines we need to speak about “research processes” from within disciplinary frameworks.”

“I request their syllabus and research assignment so I know what’s being taught in the class…I try to get into the mindset of the instructor and anticipate what they need even before they do.”

“I don’t really. My style is my style.”

“If I know a faculty member likes to use an interactive white board, I will reserve the library room with that particular technology for her class presentation. If they want no hands on time, I will go for a demo room only.”

“Profs have so many different expectations and approaches. Most challenging are the old school ones that demand emphasis on print resources.”

“It depends on the needs of the subject course and faculty member. We experimented various ways to teach. It is more of a collaboration.”

“I always tailor my classes to the appropriate level (100, 200, 300), the discipline, curriculum, and specific assignment. My classes are never generic.”

Group III. Information Literacy Programs Assessment

3.1. (Q.13) What are you doing to ensure your instructional goals are being met?

The librarians get more specific about assessment strategies in question 3.3 (18) below, but a couple of them answered this question by expressing the desire for help with assessment: more mentorship and training, and more librarians sharing assessment results in the libraries.

Responses:

“As a group, the Library faculty who teach Legal Research continually assess the course we teach, how we teach it, and the legal systems that are available. We create or discuss common goals and objectives for each semester and have almost weekly meetings during the semester to determine how we are progressing through the semester and see how we are each working within the classroom.”

“I work really hard, and I always connect with the professors I collaborate with to “debrief” after a class or in the case of the long term projects I am doing, after the semester ends. I value feedback from students and professors very highly for revamping my practices, and of course from my colleagues as well…My classes evolved fairly soon after I came here, moving from a library lecture to more like a conversation with the students, geared to enhance critical thinking and agency in the student. I would love to have more mentorship and training, if there was time.”

“I coordinate our instruction program, so there is quite a bit of assessment going on that I generate. At least for the credit courses we teach and the English Composition library sessions that we deliver. I do this through a curriculum committee that I am on, along with other elected library faculty.”

“We have a brief assessment for students at the end of each session. Subject library instruction assessment is a bit more personal within my dept. and not often shared with me…In the areas where I can affect change, such as with Eng. Comp. library instruction, I try to get the word out to other library instructors of what we will do differently next time. Sometimes even with the best laid plans, my goals are not met because I’m relying on other people/programs/instructors…We have not engaged in a longer-term assessment project.”

3.2. (Q.16) What have you done to ensure that transfer students have the requisite IL skills?

While half of schools say they don’t do anything in particular to assess IL skills of transfer students, some said they use a flipped classroom model, or a scaffolded research paper guide to assess. Other librarians expressed that although no formal or informal plan currently exists, these students really need help.

Responses:

“I have developed a research paper organizer that acts as a scaffold for students to refer to when they are writing papers. I have developed handouts with general questions students should ask when they are conducting research.”

“Joined transfer student working group, doing tons of outreach, wish for a required transfer student library experience!”

“By having students work through a flipped classroom model, we are trying to ensure that students have the requisite IL skills by working through weekly exercises in the classroom. We also regularly test them via the following methods: We also have them answer review questions at the beginning of each class that addresses the previous week’s class. We have a midterm examination. We give them a final research paper where they need to document their research process, provide analysis of the materials they chose, and answer a legal issue based on their research process and analysis.”

“We treat them just like new students. Our college really has implemented very little library orientation program, which is really too bad because the students here really need it!”

“Neither I nor teaching faculty can ensure transfer students “have the requisite IL skills” prior to joining my institution.”

“This is a continuing problem on our campus. Over the past two years we have worked with the college’s Transfer Coaching Program to hold workshops for transfer students. The Coaching Program itself only reaches a handful of students. This is a problem the college as a whole is attempting to solve.”

“This is a tricky one because we don’t have a firm handle with them…there is no way to know if we reach many most or even just a few of them.”

“We have not specifically targeted that population yet. It has historically been a small population at our college, though it is increasing so we will need to address them soon.”

3.3. (Q.18) What are your assessment strategies to determine if students have mastered IL competencies?

Two of the librarians surveyed took issue with the question using the word “mastery” within the time frame we have to work with students. However, the librarians reported that they employed a variety of techniques to assess mastery of IL competencies: from quizzes and questionnaires, to feedback from faculty and student, and evaluating student. Focus groups or interviews with CUNY librarians, about IL instruction assessment strategies may be a useful follow-up to hear what strategies individual librarians think are the most effective or useful, or which strategies for assessment are most reliable and when, and which strategies we should experiment with, toward developing best practices to assess IL instruction.

Responses:

“A good measure would be via quizzes and skills based assignments.”

“It’s easier to assess student mastery of IL skills when you are teaching a credit bearing library science class over a period of time.”

“Pre and post test. A fill in the blank questionnaire three weeks after the IL class was given. I go to their classroom and give the assessment. I have read papers at the end of the semester and used the rubric developed by LILAC for assessment of instruction.”

“We have a pre and post test that is done each semester.”

“I have a subjective questionnaire about what students have learned. and a clicker ppt quizz.”

“Feedback, scaffolding that rests on smaller skills.”

“Well, we’re not really expecting undergraduates to “master” anything — nor master’s students. Mastery takes a lifetime. Ultimately, we’d like to work with the disciplines to find authentic work assignments that demand some form of disciplinary information use and assess that. I don’t support the use of generic testing.”

“Surveys and focus groups.”

“Face to face contact with the subject faculty, asking if the students have been able to utilize the session. If not, encouraging the subject faculty to refer them back to me.”

3.4. (Q.27) How do you assess what students have learned from the information literacy instruction?

All of the librarians reported that they conducted some assessment to evaluate what students learned from IL instruction. Most conducted their assessment post IL instruction, but 18% conducted pre and post-IL instruction assessment. 60% of librarians surveyed sought feedback from faculty and students as assessment. Question 3.3 (7) below, addresses the changes that libraries or librarians make after assessment.

Responses:

“By listening to the follow up questions they ask after a library orientation and monitoring their ability to locate scholarly and peer reviewed journals without my help.”

“Faculty share results of the papers they received; some “reflection questions” are asked by some of the librarians at the end of the session.”

“I ask questions. Based on their responses, I can tell if they were listening and following instruction given during the class.”

“I give a test at the end outlining IL learning goals within the questions.”

“Feedback at the end of the session.”

“We have conducted various forms of outcomes assessment, including surveys, quizzes, exit tickets, etc.”

“It’s more evident in the credit courses we teach, where we have a lot of assessment taking place. We use a carefully designed rubric, and every semester we tackle a different competency within the rubric.”

“Pre and post tests. Testing a few weeks after the Library session has been completed. Reading papers at the end of the semester and scoring with our IL rubric.”

“From the written assignments and questions asked.”

“Pre/post tests first year /freshman English writing class quizzes, and surveys.”

3.5. (Q.26) How do you assess the research/information literacy skills of freshmen students?

Nearly half of the librarians said that they did some pre-IL instruction testing of freshman students’ IL skills, and 41% specified that they conducted post-IL assessment.

Responses:

“QCC has an ST100 section that most freshman take. They take a tour of the Library with information to familiarize themselves with the entire library. Recently, the Head of Reference and other librarians have developed a survey to assess student responses to the Library and services.”

“We do not specifically assess freshmen students.”

“If you have a class of 30–36 students, and you ask how they find information, and I do in every class I teach, the majority have very low research skills (Google). Generally 2–5 students in a class of 30 freshmen will use books and/or databases for research.”

“I am not sure how my campus assesses them. But I do informal class to class assessment

”“During one-shots, by having them do in-class exercises. At the reference desk, informally.”

“We have assessed second semester freshman comp research papers according to a rubric.”

“Within the Eng Comp. library sessions, we have conducted at various points either questionnaires, pre/post tests, reviewed their research papers using a rubric (to see if the library session made a difference) and held faculty luncheons. In the future we hope to hold student forums.”

“We don’t but we make sure the library has a part of the freshman orientation.”

“The library offers presentations for all English 110 classes. Sometimes the library teaching & learning committee will conduct surveys with them about specific rubrics.”

“Assessment program in the works.”

“Since we teach this required and graded course, we have a good idea of the skill level. Grades are based on drills, midterm and final.”

3.6. (Q.28) What type of evidence do you have of student performance before/after information literacy instruction? Longitudinal studies? Scores?

Librarians stressed the complexities of collecting longitudinal evidence of student performance before and after IL instruction. One librarian said there wasn’t enough evidence collected, and another librarians said development of assessment tools is in the works.

Responses:

“Studies, quizzes, assignments.”

“None at the moment, but I anticipate developing assessment tools soon.”

“We have no idea of the quality or length of information literacy competency prior to law school. We can only grade them on what we have started with at the beginning of our course to the end, and on that, we rely upon grades.”

“We do not have prior knowledge of the student’s ability before an Information Literacy class.”

“Not enough yet. About 60% comprehension rate.”

“This kind of assessment does not seem productive in my view, so we generally don’t engage in it. Pre/post tests simply measure student’s short term memory skills. Longitudinal studies of student success are complicated by so many variables that it is impossible (in my view) to attribute any causality to a minimal number of library instruction sessions to long term student performance. And testing tests generic concepts. We seek to assess actual student work as a measure of students’ acquisition of skills they need to complete information rich assignments.”

“For the credit course, we use a questionnaire that ascertains student information literacy readiness.”

“No longitudinal students. We assess as much as possible. There is no long term projects at this time.”

“Just word from the subject faculty about how well their students fared…& also continued requests from the subject faculty for more presentations.”

“Anecdotal evidence suggests that students who take our 3-credit IL course are better prepared for their major coursework. But we don’t have any long-term studies of our English Comp I or other one-shot instruction.”

3.7. (Q.29) What changes have been made as a result of assessment of information literacy?

Three librarians said that the assessments were up to individual librarians, which could mean that changes effected as a result of assessment weren’t made program-wide, and unfortunately, one librarian said that the results of assessment weren’t shared with her.

Responses:

“More hands on, less lecture.”

“We continually monitor, revise and assess how students are doing weekly and via our grading devices.”

“Results have not been shared with librarians yet.”

“Each individual librarian makes their own adjustments based on BI dept. meetings, a peer’s semester assessment of their teaching, the assessment test information, and of course what we read in the library literature and teaching workshops that some of us attend.”

“We have consistently restructured various workshops based on outcomes assessment. We have also begun introducing flipped classroom activities using videos for the purpose of addressing assessment results that indicated students needed more hands-on time during workshops.”

“We have lessened the number of course objectives for one course, because we realized we were asking too much of students in the timeframe of the course.”

“It is mostly an individual assessment. Information is shared with all faculty when the coordinator of IL presents copies of the assessment.”

“We need to develop this.”

“Unfortunately it seems to be that the results have emphasized a need for greater uniformity and limiting instruction to instruction specialists. I would argue that this contradicts effective pedagogical innovation.”

“We always try to further revise our lesson plans for the freshman college.”

3.8. (30) Have you developed an Information Literacy rubric to monitor student performance?

In regard to the use of rubrics, the results for this question were mixed, librarians said that it’s easier to successfully use a rubric when you are teaching a course, verses a one-shot, one-hour session. Perhaps LILAC can provide some guidance about how to use the LILAC rubric for assessment of IL skills in one-shot sessions.

Responses:

“No.”

“We have adopted assessment goals based on learning outcomes, but if you are teaching one-time library instruction classes, it is not like a course where you can monitor student performance over time, because we only see the students for one hour one time!”

“We have used LILAC’s assessment rubric on several occasions.”

“Not personally, but the library teaching & learning committee is developing.”

“It’s more evident in the credit courses we teach, where we have a lot of assessment taking place. We use a carefully designed rubric, and every semester we tackle a different competency within the rubric.”

Q 22. Can you suggest names of subject faculty we could survey about embedding IL (both those who are onboard and those who are not)?

Eleven librarians declined to provide or could not think of any names of faculty, at the time of the survey. Others suggested some names of professors, whom we may want to interview or survey as a part of next steps to follow this survey. We are not releasing specific faculty member names to maintain librarians’ anonymity.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

An important component of this study was to compare the different perspectives on IL instruction programs at each campus, i.e. marketing and campus faculty outreach strategies, the link between IL programs and course curriculum, as well as the approach to the IL program assessment. Those involved in collaborative relationships and whose objective is to incorporate IL instruction into subject courses (i.e., CUNY library chiefs, IL coordinators, and library and subject faculty) were involved in the query.

One of the most significant outcomes of this survey was the fact that the majority of respondents graded their collaboration initiatives with the campus faculty as “successful, but with room for improvement.” At the same time respondents provided us with the valuable information about different tactics to improve the situation. They reported on the most effective strategies for engaging subject faculty, on how to market IL instruction, and how to overcome barriers to subject faculty involvement.

A subsequent survey of the faculty members would be recommended in order to glean more insight from the point of view of the subject faculty on the collaborative relationships with the librarians and how to improve librarians’ strategies for teaching, outreach to faculty and assessment of discipline-focused IL.

One of the purposes of the survey was to assess how many libraries had embedded librarians teaching IL. Four of the librarians surveyed (22%, three in community colleges and one in a graduate only program) were embedded or had an embedded librarian program at their school, three of these librarians were from community colleges, and one was from a graduate only program. The principal investigator of this survey has a significant embedded librarianship program in her school, and since this survey, embedded librarianship was integrated in a new initiative at the Graduate Center. Thus, the survey investigators would recommend the formation of an Embedded Librarians Working Group at CUNY. The Working Group could be formed under the roof of CUNY Library Information Literacy Advisory Committee (LILAC) and construct an outline of the guidelines and recommendations for further development of embedded librarianship at CUNY.

Analysis of the survey identified two more areas where establishing best practices for CUNY Libraries might address particular needs: using emerging technology for outreach efforts, and IL instruction assessment. When asked how emerging technology has impacted outreach efforts for IL instructors, 56% of librarians who responded, said that emerging tech hasn’t impacted their efforts, or that the question was not applicable, and 6% of librarians said that they wanted to use emerging technology more in their outreach efforts, while 47% of librarians surveyed said that emerging technology has impacted their outreach efforts positively, and mentioned using tools like social media, ePortfolios and Softchalk. These responses indicate that establishment of best practices for IL librarians would be helpful regarding outreach using emerging tech tools. CUNY’s eResources Marketing Committee may provide an example of the type of body CUNY Libraries could establish to develop best practices for using emerging technology for outreach efforts, and producing shared outreach materials, in order to foster faculty collaboration on IL.

Librarians surveyed expressed the difficulties of assessing student IL performance. 38% of librarians did not use a rubric, and some said that it’s more difficult to successfully use a rubric when you are teaching a course, verses a one-shot session that lasts for one hour. Perhaps LILAC can provide some guidance about how to apply the LILAC rubric for assessment of IL skills, or a modified version, for one-shot sessions. When asked about changes made to IL programs, which resulted from assessment, 48% of librarians responded that either: changes were made only by individual librarians, and not program-wide (18%), he or she hadn’t been informed of the results of assessment (6%), it depends (6%), or they did not respond to the question (18%). These results warrant discussion about and development of best practices for CUNY Libraries regarding IL assessment, and how to make program-wide changes based on assessment.

[i] Oakleaf, Megan, “All Together Now: Getting Faculty, Administrators, and Staff Engaged in Information Literacy Assessment.” Libraries and the Academy, vol. 11:3, pp. 831–852.

[ii] Kvenild, Cassandra and Kajsa Calkins, Embedded Librarians: Moving Beyond One-Shot Instruction, American Library Association, 2011

[iii] We are using the term “embedding” as defined by Jake Carlson and Ruth Kneale (in “Embedded Librarianship in the Research Context, College and Research Library News, 72:3, 167–170): “Embedded librarianship takes the librarian out of the context of the traditional library and places him or her in an “on-site” setting or situation that enables close coordination and collaboration with researchers or teaching faculty.”

[iv] Turley, Julie, Glisson, Lane, and Dunham, Janice. “The Librarian is Present: Embedded Librarians in Blackboard and Beyond.” Presentation at Faculty Development Day, John Jay College, New York, NY, January 25, 2013.

[v] “Collaboration” at ACRL http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/resources/collaboration/collaboration