Developing a ‘teacher identity’

‘Once an individual has accepted and internalised expectations for a role as part of his or her identity, that identity becomes a cognitive framework for interpreting new experiences’ (Colbeck, 2008: 10).

In Chapter 1, we observed that ‘teaching librarian’ remains a varied and subjective role that defies a ‘one-size-fits-all’ description and is heavily influenced by the tremendous changes occurring within the profession and society at large; however, it was also noted that it is important for a professional who is currently filling that role to develop a clear sense of purpose, an understanding of how the role fits with other information work, and feelings of competence and confidence in order to perform effectively. To teach well, librarians benefit from constructing a personal ‘teacher identity’, which could best be described as an individual framework of beliefs, values and attitudes that offer a context for evaluating and developing your instructional work. Not having such a framework can have a negative effect. As Walter states, ‘Lack of a consistent teacher identity among academic librarians may hinder their effectiveness in meeting these expanding instructional responsibilities in a changing organisational environment’ (2008: 65). It is also important to try to resolve any conflict between the ‘teaching’ and ‘librarianship’ roles, where it exists – Colbeck suggests that ‘when two identities with contrasting meanings and expectations are activated at the same time, an individual is likely to experience stress’ (2008: 10).

So, is fostering a teacher identity among librarians essential, or does it really make a difference? There are a number of strong arguments in favour of encouraging teaching librarians to think about what their role means:

The daily experiences of teaching librarians are only partly understood. To date, there has been very little research into librarians’ ‘teacher identity’, and the general conceptualisation of the role is largely shaped through anecdotal evidence or expert analysis and predictions about the ‘future of the librarian’. However, two very recent empirical studies offer welcome insights into the perceptions and subjective experiences of teaching librarians in practice. Walter’s study (2008) analysed the interview testimony of six academic librarians who were heavily involved in instruction in their institutions, while Julien and Pecoskie’s research (2009) engaged a wider sample of 48 librarians, who participated in semi-structured interviews. In both studies, the findings show that the teaching librarian’s experience can be rewarding, although equally challenging and frequently stressful.

The first, Walter’s study (2008), discovered five key themes which ran through the experiences of the librarians who were interviewed. These themes are likely to be familiar to practising librarians, who undoubtedly experience the same challenges and rewards:

Julien and Pecoskie (2009) found that the librarians in their study were wholly preoccupied by their relationships with the academics in their institutions, rather than the mechanics of teaching or their own information skills: ‘the faculty/librarian relationship is so critical that sometimes instructional success was defined … as successful faculty negotiation and relations, rather than in terms of students’ learning’ (2009: 151). Their research points to three major themes which characterise this relationship:

While these studies represent the first systematic forays into the subjective world of the teaching librarian, they offer an initial, although limited, framework for exploring and understanding the role. As the teaching role expands, it will become ever more crucial to deepen this sense of identity. Understanding how professional identity is constituted is a necessary first step. In writing about school teachers, Beijaard (1995) conceptualises traditional teacher identity through the intersection of three distinct categories, namely:

For teaching librarians, the complexity is increased by the multidisciplinary nature of the work, the inconsistency of the teaching schedule itself and the underlying need to ‘prove’ oneself as a bona fide teacher. The process of identity formation has largely been neglected in pre-service LIS education. Reflective practice, discussed below, offers a means for exploring these issues further. Other means of identity construction will be discussed later in this book.

Reflective practice

‘If we are going to address the issues of librarians’ roles within educational endeavours systematically, we, as a discipline, need to foster reflective, creative, critical habits of mind regarding pedagogical praxis within ourselves, our libraries and our campuses’ (Jacobs, 2008: 256).

In Chapter 1, the dual elements of becoming a teaching librarian were described – namely, the importance of understanding and developing one’s own information-literate identity, as well as the pedagogical skills and knowledge required to foster an IL identity in students. Despite their training as information professionals, many librarians lack confidence in their own information expertise and wonder how they can possibly be qualified to instruct students in this area. Focusing on the tools and mechanics of teaching is unlikely to resolve any confusion they are feeling about their instructional role: ‘Simple mastery of basic instructional competencies […] will not help librarians to develop the sort of teacher identity that research in teacher education suggests is important to their ongoing professional development’ (Walter, 2008: 60). This is echoed by Jacobs (2008: 257), who suggests that, unless the pedagogical skills and knowledge gained ‘are used in relevant ways, and developed in reflective, creative environments’, they may not help librarians feel any more prepared for the teaching they have to do. Teaching librarians, Jacobs argues, should also develop an understanding of pedagogical theory, as well as the broader educational objectives in their institutions in order to contextualise their work more effectively and provide a greater sense of purpose.

The desirability of a holistic approach to one’s work as a librarian, not just as a teaching librarian, is a topic of increasing interest to the information professions – looking inwards, as well as outwards, is now viewed as a critical component of professional development. Several recent publications have called for those involved in the information professions to construct a ‘theoretically informed praxis’ to inform the work of the profession (Elmborg, 2006; Jacobs, 2008). As a result of this recognition, ‘reflective practice’ is a theme which features more and more in the library discourse, especially in relation to teaching (Thomas et al., 2004; Grant, 2007; Jacobs, 2008). Borrowed from the field of education, reflective practice ‘involves thoughtfully considering one’s own experiences in applying knowledge to practice while being coached by professionals in the discipline’, and has a long history in both pre-service and in-service teacher training (Ferraro, 2000).

Andrew Pollard (2008), who has written extensively about reflective teaching in the school context, notes that the concept derives from the work of Dewey in the 1930s, who described the difference between ‘routine action’ and ‘reflective action’; while the first tends to be static and guided by tradition and habit, the latter ‘involves a willingness to engage in constant self-appraisal and development [and] implies flexibility, rigorous analysis and social awareness’ (p. 14). The term itself was defined by Schön in the 1980s, and the concept was developed more fully; Baker (in Thomas et al., 2004) articulates Schön’s idea of reflective practice as a ‘way of being professional that looks much more like artistry than science’ (p. 2). Defined in this way, reflective practice encompasses a rolling, continuous process of self-questioning and observation, framed by an honest awareness of how one deals with the daily anomalies that crop up in teaching. Pollard (2008) describes teaching as a series of frequent dilemmas, requiring the execution of judgement on the teacher’s part. He explores the possibilities of using evidence to resolve such dilemmas, suggesting that ‘a practical problem in the classroom can helpfully be considered in terms of the issues that might underlie it’ (p. 10). For the teaching librarian, dilemmas can arise in a number of distinct dimensions, which are not quite the same as those faced by school teachers:

The tools of reflective practice, such as teaching portfolios, when adopted wholeheartedly, offer the means for teaching librarians to learn how to resolve dilemmas more effectively. These will be explored in Chapter 5.

Developing a personal teaching philosophy and pedagogical knowledge base

According to Liles (2007), effective teaching does not derive from individual mastery of methods and tools, but is based instead on an ‘understanding of how learners learn’ (p. 116). How the student learns determines everything that a teacher must do to facilitate and foster this learning; absolutely everything flows from this basic understanding. Biggs and Tang (2007) describe this as a ‘student-centred model of teaching’, which focuses on what the student, rather than the teacher, does and whether the intended learning outcomes are achieved (p. 19). So, while teaching librarians might be, and often are, tempted to measure their teaching competence in terms of the methods and tools they have mastered, unless their use is accompanied by a solid understanding of how learning occurs, they only tell part of the story. The key message must always be: start with the student.

This is a crucial observation. Liles (2007: 116) suggests that teaching librarians should reflect on three key questions to provide a basis for their instruction, namely:

Biggs and Tang (2007) also recommend a period of personal reflection on one’s own teaching and learning philosophies, in order to uncover beliefs and attitudes that may be subconscious, but which have the potential to influence all instructional decision-making. They suggest that a teacher should simply ask themselves ‘What is learning?’ and ‘What is teaching?’ Bruce et al. (2006) propose that teaching librarians should also ask themselves ‘How is information literacy seen in your context?’ as the variation in perception can also differ widely here.

What do librarians believe and understand about teaching and learning? Is it possible to identify a common conceptual framework? This question has been explored by a number of authors. In 1999, Leckie and Fullerton compared the different ‘pedagogical discourses’ of academics and librarians as one means of explaining the role misconceptions that exist between them. Through analysing the literature relating to academic librarianship and information literacy, they identified five dominant librarian pedagogical discourses, which they suggest represent the differing perceptions of IL instruction held by librarians. Each discourse heavily influences the teaching approaches employed by its adherents. The discourses are described as follows. Readers of this book should examine their own beliefs and conceptions about pedagogy in the light of the authors’ frameworks:

While some of these conceptions might still persist, it is likely that they have evolved over time, as the student body and instructional approaches have changed. Seven years later, Bruce et al. (2006) proposed their ‘Six Frames for Information Literacy Education’ model as a framework for interpreting and understanding the different ways in which individuals perceive information literacy, learning and teaching. The six frames were developed as a ‘conceptual tool to help participants in the IL education arena to reflect on, and analyse, the varying implicit or explicit theoretical influences on their contexts’ (p. 3). Each frame represents a different view of teaching and learning, information, content and assessment:

Bruce et al. observe that the aim of teaching librarians should be to help students in ‘developing new and more complex ways of experiencing information literacy’ and should focus on both content and process (2006: 6).

Although not aimed specifically at librarians, Biggs and Tang’s ‘levels of thinking about teaching’ constitutes another framework for interpretation (2007). However, they suggest that, rather than categorising the differing views held by individual teachers, each level represents a point in the evolution of all teachers’ thinking and practice, moving from a relatively limited viewpoint to a more balanced one, which happens over the course of a career:

As teaching librarians, you can use these frameworks to enhance your understanding of your own pedagogical conceptions and beliefs. They are not definitive, but offer a basis for contemplation. Understanding basic pedagogical philosophy is a first step in developing a sense of oneself as an effective teacher that should not be skated over.

The virtual learning environment

There is widespread consensus in the literature and amongst the profession that the role and function of libraries has changed radically, and that the chief driver of this change has been technology (Biddiscombe, 2000; Wilson and Halpin, 2006). The digital revolution has the potential to change the way in which learning is facilitated, but the pedagogical uses and applications of technology are still being debated. The increasing popularity of social networking applications in recent years has opened up yet more possibilities within the field of education. At the same time, the danger of appropriating ‘technology for technology’s sake’ is stressed by some authors; for example, Grassian and Kaplowitz (2009) warn against adopting new technologies ‘without careful consideration of why we would want to use them for ILI and how they may or may not enhance teaching and learning’ (p. 294). No matter what methods you use, the message is always the same – Start with the Student. In their book, Webb and Powis deliberately decline to differentiate face-to-face teaching from e-learning, as they believe that ‘the principles of good teaching apply as much in the virtual arena as they do in the physical classroom’ (2004: 118). Advocates of e-learning tools stress their potential for enhancing and deepening students’ learning experience, freeing the learning experience from the restrictions of time and location, increasing active engagement and motivation through the implementation of novel learning activities (e.g. wikis, blogs, chat), and serving as a strategic means for librarians to improve and consolidate their educational role in their institutions (Roes, 2001; Mackey and Jacobson, 2008: 83). A key development, originating in the 1990s, has been the evolution and integration of virtual learning environments (VLEs), defined by Stiles (2000) as web-based systems which are ‘designed to act as a focus for students’ learning activities and their management and facilitation, along with the provision of content and resources required to help make the activities successful’. Well-known VLEs include Blackboard and Moodle. To date, much of the discussion surrounding the relationship between VLEs and libraries has focused on how library and information services can be effectively integrated with virtual classrooms, rather than on how librarians can use them for information literacy instruction. Masson (2009) highlights several of the benefits to library users with respect to VLE library integrations; they include increased awareness of available resources and services, simplification of the user experience, and improved relationships between academics and librarians (p. 220).

However, the teaching librarian’s role involves a much deeper examination of the potential for VLEs, which reaches beyond the question of resource integration. Roes (2001) suggests that library involvement in educational innovation has already resulted in the creation of new jobs, such as academic technology specialist, a ‘hybrid function, combining library and ICT expertise’ (p. 7). Such a role requires a combination of skills and knowledge that has not traditionally been included in pre-service library training, including mastery of e-learning tools, and more importantly, understanding of how learning can be facilitated more effectively in the virtual environment.

Stiles (2000) outlines the most serious missteps that hamper effective learning in VLEs:

All of these errors point to instruction that is planned and delivered without reference to the basic principles of learning; they also warn against simply transferring traditional teaching approaches, such as lectures, into the virtual system – for example, merely uploading PowerPoint slides, class notes and other static pieces of content. However, others describe a strategy in which the VLE is actually used to free up face-to-face classroom time for interactive learning activities; Briggs and Skidmore (2008) refer to the ‘classroom flip’ (also known as the ‘inverted classroom’), which involves ‘moving everything possible from a standard lecture course into the online setting [whereby] class time would be freed up for revision, practice and more active and deeper learning’ (p. 96). This approach subtly endorses the importance of social learning and the personal touch in learning situations, which some feel are lacking in the online environment (Stiles, 2000).

For teaching librarians, technology is important for two reasons:

Teaching a diverse student base

‘Today’s undergraduates are a diverse group of people from a wide range of ages, cultures, languages and socio-economic backgrounds. This diversity calls for a variety of instructional strategies that apply a range of contemporary learning theories’ (McCartin and Feid, 2001: 25)

Much is now written about the increasing diversity of the academic student body (McCartin and Feid, 2001; Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009: 247; Biggs and Tang, 2007). Librarians, especially teaching librarians, are cautioned against imposing a singular model of teaching and learning which may suit some students, but not others. The tendency, in Western nations, has been to focus pedagogically on what we know as the ‘traditional’ student, described by Gold (2005) as arriving on campus ‘at age 18 with a carload of sophisticated technology and supportive family members eager to see their son or daughter take the first transitional steps toward independence’ (p. 467). The image of the young student, making the difficult transition from second-level to higher education, dominates discussions of how best to facilitate learning at this level, and assumptions about their motivation and abilities, positive and negative, heavily influence the instructional approaches that are used.

What are our assumptions and beliefs about the traditional student body? Teaching librarians should examine their own perceptions and beliefs about traditional undergraduates. They might include, amongst others, a conceptualisation of the typical student as:

A general consensus has been that young undergraduates require a stimulating, sensory learning experience, where instructors ‘break material into modules, maintain a brisk pace, include real-life anecdotes and humour, and encourage a high level of interactivity’, as well as providing information in multiple ways, including orally, visually, online and in print (McCartin and Feid, 2001: 13).

Today, however, the picture is further complicated by the perception that the profile of the ‘traditionals’ is also changing, and that instructors must now deal with the ‘new traditionals’, a group whose rapid uptake and use of new technologies in the past decade, particularly social networking and gaming, is perceived to have had a significant impact on their learning and information behaviour and, consequently, on the quality of their academic work. This image is perpetrated in numerous publications and has been given multiple labels: Google Generation, Generation Z, Digital Natives, Millennials, to name but a few (Behen, 2006; Geck, 2006; Guevara, 2007; Barnes, 2009). But are today’s young undergraduates so different from previous generations? In recent years, a number of studies have been carried out in an attempt to understand the current information behaviour and needs of school-goers and traditional undergraduates, including the University of Washington’s ‘Project Information Literacy’ (2009–present) and University College London’s CIBER¹ Report on the ‘Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future’ (Rowlands et al., 2008). The latter, in particular, has attempted to examine some of the assumptions about the behaviour of the so-called ‘Google Generation’ (those born after 1993), and the report’s findings made some interesting observations about the information behaviour and technology use of this demographic.

Part of the project involved the researchers in examining the veracity of a number of popular ‘myths’ that circulate about the Google Generation (GG) (Williams and Rowlands, 2007):

Overall, the CIBER report concludes that the information behaviour exhibited by the ‘Google Generation’ is not so radically different from previous generations of undergraduates – the challenges that existed then still exist now and are not exclusive to younger information users. This conclusion is supported by the Project Information Literacy researchers, who explored the information behaviour of university students; they note that ‘when it comes to finding information and conducting research, today’s students clearly favour brevity, consensus and currency in the information sources they seek. This may have been the criterion for some students 20 years ago, too’ (Head and Eisenberg, 2009: 33). Therefore, although information formats are changing, teaching librarians must still deal with the challenges that they have always dealt with – for instance, authority and evaluation of sources, plagiarism and using information, not just accessing it.

Today, although ‘traditional’ students are still in the majority on campuses, the profile of the student body is changing, and more-diverse, ‘non-traditional’ groups are growing in number. Information behaviour notwithstanding, different student bodies have particular instructional needs, based on various contextual factors, including age, ability, culture, language and external life responsibilities. Broadly, it is useful to categorise the student body according to these different groupings, which are defined based on attributes such as nationality/culture, age and special needs.

Each group brings its own set of challenges for the teaching librarian, who must think creatively about how to construct suitable learning activities that will engage and motivate. While each group, naturally, consists of unique individuals, all with their own personalities and preferences, it is possible to identify some characteristics that are common to more or less all members of the group – Grassian and Kaplowitz refer to this as the ‘modal personality’ of a group, which they define as ‘traits that occur most often in a sample of the population’ (2001: 315). Understanding the attributes of each group is a necessity; knowing how to find information about their needs and particular situations is an essential first step.

Adult learners will be discussed in more detail later in this book, along with suggestions about how to incorporate their needs and preferences in learning situations.

Information literacy for graduate students and researchers

‘Graduate students have unique needs with respect to library research, and it can be challenging for librarians to develop instruction programs to meet those needs’ (Hoffmann et al. (2008))

To date, information literacy research and practice in academia has been largely focused on the needs and behaviour of undergraduate students – as the largest cohort, and the group which is typically perceived as having the lowest level of information skill, they comprise a natural target population. A substantial amount is known about their information behaviour and the ways in which they learn (Case, 2007: 301). By contrast, ‘comparatively little study has been done of graduate students as a discrete group’ (Fleming-May and Yuro, 2009: 200), although this is increasing (Hoffmann et al., 2008: 2). A recent report on information training for graduate students, which was commissioned by the Research Information Network in the UK (RIN, 2008), suggests that the role of libraries and librarians in the research activity of their institutions has not been clearly defined; while information training for graduate students does take place, it is often on a ‘piecemeal’ basis and developed ‘as an extension of the provision they offer to undergraduates’ (p. 8) – an approach that may not always be suitable, considering the significantly different information needs that exist between the two groups.

Hoffmann et al. (2008) highlight some of the common themes that have emerged from research into postgraduate students’ information behaviour. They include the findings that:

Fleming-May and Yuro (2009) point out that even within the generic group of ‘graduate students’, expectations and needs vary considerably according to sub-group; in particular, they note that PhD students ‘differ significantly enough from other constituents of academic libraries, including other graduate students, to justify their study as a separate group’ (p. 220). Graduate students, particularly those who are pursuing research-based rather than taught programmes, undergo a process in which they ultimately learn to behave as researchers – Fleming-May and Yuro refer to this as a ‘transformation from student to scholar; a process that includes initiation into faculty and larger academic culture’ (ibid.).

The work of academic researchers, both professionals and graduate students, is guided by a number of criteria, chief among them the need to make an original contribution to the body of published knowledge in their disciplines; their information behaviour is heavily influenced by this requirement. Leckie (1996) suggests that the need for originality ‘requires a thorough knowledge of the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of the chosen field of study, and a strong sense of the various research paradigms evident in the discipline’ (p. 202). Graduate students aspire to the ‘expert researcher model’, also described by Leckie (ibid.), which differs radically from the information strategies required at undergraduate level. The ‘expert researcher’ displays a number of attributes:

David Ellis’s well-known model, which was originally derived from a study of the information behaviour of social science and humanities researchers (1989), outlines several different features of the research process at this level. The different features are described as follows – although in real-world research settings, they are not necessarily followed in sequence:

However, the changing information environment is affecting the ways in which researchers carry out their work. A discussion panel on the future role of research libraries, which was convened by the Council on Library and Information Resources in 2008 (CLIR, 2008), highlighted many current and emerging trends in research practice, which have significant implications for library support. They include an increase in collaborative and cross-disciplinary research projects, a greater reliance on large data sets, and radical changes in digitisation and scholarly communication (p. 2). Courant (2008a) expresses concern that easy and ubiquitous access to information might mean that ‘the special character of scholarly work and understanding can often be skipped altogether, because it is now easy to obtain answers to questions that are “good enough” via any number of tools that are immediately, freely and conveniently available on the web’ (p. 202). He argues that a role of academic libraries should be the fostering and support of ‘scholarly literacy’, defined as an understanding of sources, methods and their use. The RIN report referred to above (2008) suggests that the information skills of researchers have not kept pace with the proliferation of available resources and the changes in scholarly communication; however, the findings of the RIN survey showed that, in their training, most libraries tended to focus only on information-seeking, source citation and the services offered by the library, rather than on the more complex and higher order competencies, such as ‘evaluating, organising, managing, transforming, or communicating information, or of key underpinning issues such as copyright and open access’ (p. 14).

While there is some discussion in the literature about the threat to the library profession as a result of the new research paradigm in academic institutions, for the most part, discussion focuses on a reframing of service provision and what academic libraries must now do to support and foster excellence in research. Alongside evolving functions such as data curation and digital information management, training features again and again as a key element of the service offering in the ‘new’ research library (RIN, 2008; Courant, 2008b; CLIR, 2008).

Instructional training for librarians

‘On-the-job training remains the most common approach to professional development activities among academic librarians, and a number of studies have demonstrated this to be the case for instructional improvement activities’ (Walter, 2005: 7).

In Chapter 1, we saw how, despite librarians’ increasing commitment to their instructional activities, and the rising demand for that teaching in their institutions, ‘teacher training’ for librarians remains primarily an elective option within pre-service professional education, if it is available at all (Walter, 2005). As the instructional role expands, it is likely that the demand for comprehensive and flexible training opportunities will be driven by teaching librarians themselves, who no longer wish to rely on self-teaching and on-the-job training for the skills and knowledge they need to fulfil their roles. Powis (2008) speaks of the responsibility for teaching librarians to ‘be fully engaged in training for, and maintaining competence in, this aspect of our professional identity’ (p. 1). Teaching librarians require very specific and focused instruction (Powis, 2008); while we can, and do, borrow from the pedagogical knowledge base that informs teacher training for schools, as Liles points out, ‘there is a dearth of teaching information designed specifically with librarians in mind and directed toward the unique circumstances of information literacy instruction’ (2007: 114). Some of the differences between information literacy instruction, and teaching in school and higher education, are outlined in Table 2.1.

The structure of teacher training for librarians is likely to expand to include a combination of formal and informal opportunities, remote and in-person (F2F), synchronous and asynchronous, pre-service and CPD. Teaching librarians will be required to manage their own training and development, while managers have the responsibility to ensure that their staff are aware of, and can avail of, the opportunities that exist: ‘[Managers] can alert staff to appropriate, stimulating learning opportunities, including in-house training, classes, local, state and national conferences, workshops, Web casts, and other online instructional opportunities. They can offer financial support to staff members who wish to improve their skills in relevant arenas’ (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2005: 117). At present, teaching librarians can develop and augment their pedagogical skills base through direct instructional opportunities, or through the less concrete, self-development approach which often has the advantage of helping to foster ‘teacher identity’, an aspect that is frequently neglected during formal education.

The direct instruction menu ideally available to teaching librarians could consist of:

Less obvious, but equally powerful, are the indirect, self-development approaches to learning that contribute to a sense of ‘teacher identity’ in librarians, as well as imparting the practical skills and knowledge required to facilitate student learning. They include: peer-mentoring and/or peer review of instruction; teaching portfolios; self-instruction; availing of grant opportunities for research and instructional innovation; and collaboration with other institutional teaching and learning experts. These and other methods for self-development will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Walter (2005) also refers to the desirability of establishing a ‘culture of teaching’ in academic departments, as a means of fostering instructional improvement. An idea which has been borrowed from the literature on college teaching, a ‘culture of teaching’ creates an environment in which teaching and learning are viewed as central to departmental operations, and around which a number of stimulating activities are established to foster instructional development. He notes that there are a number of elements that define a ‘culture of teaching’, including:

Thus, while formal instructional training is likely to become a core element of pre-service professional education for librarians, a parallel focus on the indirect development of teacher identity will help to bolster librarians’ confidence and sense of self-efficacy as they go about their teaching work.

Action research in practice

‘Critical reflection and systematic investigation of our own practice should become an integral part of our daily classroom lives. In this way, we build professional expertise’ (Pollard, 2008: 49).

The evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) movement constitutes an approach to information work that ‘promotes the collection, interpretation and integration of valid, important and applicable user-reported, librarian-observed, and research derived- evidence’ to improve librarians’ judgements and decision-making on a day-to-day basis (Wallace and Carter, 2008: 1). A problem-oriented model that has been applied for many years in the health sciences, and other disciplines such as business and engineering, as well as education, the call for EBLIP is an attempt to ground the practice of librarianship more deeply in the research base which informs it – to make research ‘useful’, so to speak. It also aims to encourage librarians themselves to carry out formal studies, in order to strengthen the research base of LIS, which has historically been focused on descriptive rather than systematic accounts of practice – this is similar to the notion, within education, of promoting teachers’ direct involvement in classroom inquiry, so that they can ‘take control of their own research and development’ (Pollard, 2008: 8). The practice of EBLIP has been structured in quite a formal way, with Booth and Brice (2004) outlining it as a five-step process:

Librarians can seek evidence from three sources: (1) we can turn to studies that have already been carried out, or other official documentation, to inform our decision-making; or (2) we can engage in a range of informal observational and reflective activities in the classroom, such as journal-keeping, systematic observation, audio/video recordings of sessions, active listening, questioning and concept-mapping (Pollard, 2008: 64–75); or 3) we can undertake the research ourselves. Action research is concerned with the latter; but rather than assuming the traditional researcher’s role as ‘disinterested observer’, the librarian is fully a participant in the process, with the specific aim of resolving a problem that has been identified (Pickard, 2007: 134) – for example, you might notice that a student group seems bored and unmotivated, and wonder if the use of a classroom response system might improve engagement? Action research is particularly suited to teaching environments, where it is important to evaluate the impact of new methods and interventions; for teaching librarians, it has the additional benefit of offering a means of formally documenting the impact of our instruction and, in that way, gaining credibility for our programmes.

Action research can be defined as ‘systematic observations of tests of methods conducted by teachers or schools to improve teaching and learning for their learners’ (Woolfolk et al., 2008: 19). It differs from traditional research in the sense that it is focused on immediate and ongoing action – normally, ‘theoretical’ research includes recommendations for future action that may or may not be implemented. By contrast, in action research ‘practitioners attempt to study their programmes scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and actions’ (Pickard, 2007: 134). Action research also differs from the day-to-day formative processes of ‘trying different approaches’, which we all engage in – rather, it is a highly systematic and rigorous approach which offers valid and reliable findings. However, unlike most published research, it has an immediate practical application.

The ‘action research cycle’ describes the various steps in the process (Pickard, 2007); it is similar to the EBLIP process outlined above:

A similar notion to action research is the idea of using the outcomes from student assessments to inform the development and modification of learning activities; Grassian and Kaplowitz (2009) refer to assessment as an opportunity for ‘improving both learning and teaching’ (p. 199), in the sense that it should not be viewed as just being about student performance. Avery (2003) suggests that the results of student assessment ‘should be used to implement positive changes in the teaching of information literacy’ (p. 2), while Sonntag and Meulemans (2003) view assessment as a cycle, whereby the evaluation of student learning is used to inform and improve the instructional process.

For teaching librarians, research is becoming a core competence, whether it is secondary evidence-gathering through literature searching or undertaking action research projects as described above. Knowing how to use the results of such investigations to inform practice and to promote your work will have a significant influence on the shaping of the instructional role.

Reinvigorated strategies for collaboration

‘The cornerstone of an information literacy program that flourishes and endures on a campus is the powerful partnership between faculty and librarians’ (Curzon, 2004: 29).

Collaboration with academics is at the heart of any serious discussion about curriculum-integrated information literacy instruction; as we concluded in Chapter 1, establishing a functional and enduring working relationship with the academics is the only way for librarians to gain access to the curriculum and to create instructional opportunities that are fully embedded and student-centred: ‘To be truly integrated throughout the teaching and learning activities of our campuses is the core of being a truly embedded librarian’ (Dewey, 2004: 12). We saw how the librarians interviewed in Julien and Pecoskie’s study of teacher identity (2009) defined their successes almost wholly in terms of the extent to which they managed to establish successful relationships with their academic colleagues; equally, a lack of success was also attributed directly to them. The ACRL Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators (2008) lists ‘information literacy integration skills’ as a core proficiency set, which includes the objectives:

Similarly, the ACRL Guidelines for Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries states that ‘planning such active learning strategies and techniques should be carried out collaboratively with faculty in order to increase overall student engagement in the learning process’ (2003). For teaching librarians, the drive to enter into collaborative teaching arrangements with academics is based to a significant extent on the desire to reduce their dependence on so-called ‘academic champions’ and to establish a more consistent approach to information literacy instruction that can continue without the support of individual academics (Loomis, 1995; Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2005; McGuinness, 2007). Traditionally, the majority of information literacy programmes have been founded on a coordinated, rather than a fully collaborative approach. Raspa and Ward (2000) distinguish between the two forms of working arrangement; in coordination, both parties share a common goal (e.g. fostering better information skills in students), but work separately and independently towards the achievement of that goal, with only perfunctory consultation. While a teaching librarian might use course-related examples, instruction is not generally aligned with the learning objectives of the course, and the learning activities can seem de-contextualised and lacking in relevance. This is seen most often in the ‘one-shot’ single information skills session, slotted into a course, and delivered by a librarian. By contrast, in collaborative instructional development, both parties are committed to the development of aligned instruction from the beginning, and a consensual approach to the creation of learning activities and assignments ensures that the contributions of both academics and librarians are directed towards the attainment of the learning outcomes. However, this type of approach requires a level of commitment from both parties that can be challenging to establish.

A great deal has been written about academic–librarian collaboration, primarily from the viewpoint of librarians, and we have already seen how the working relationship is often framed in a negative light, with academics perceived as either apathetic or hostile (Julien and Given, 2003). The barriers to collaboration have been explored in several studies, and have been outlined in Chapter 1. However, underpinning all of the barriers is a fundamental disconnect between the two parties, in terms of how they understand and conceptualise information literacy, and in their beliefs about how learning activities can be designed to foster information literacy in students. Renon et al. (2008) describe this as ‘perceptual dissonance’, which is defined by them as the different ways in which both parties may view the librarian’s role, information literacy and pedagogical practice (p. 36) Academics often believe that students can develop information skills with a minimum of intervention, and that students largely progress through simple engagement with the curriculum as it is, particularly through doing research-based assignments (Markless and Streatfield, 1992; Manuel et al., 2005; McGuinness, 2006). Curzon (2004) illustrates how faculty conceive of collaboration in a much less intense way than librarians: ‘Most faculty feel that they have established a partnership with librarians, if they have thought about it at all, when they have requested a one-hour bibliographic instruction session for their students and given class reading lists to the bibliographers’ (p. 30). Longterm collaboration with librarians is not a priority for academics, but unlike librarians, they do not see this as problematic; Christiansen et al. (2004) refer to an ‘asymmetrical disconnection’ between librarians and academics, whereby ‘faculty perceive no serious problems in relations between the two groups, nor do they identify any negative consequences arising from this disconnection’ (p. 118).

The term ‘faculty problem’ was coined by McCarthy in 1985; 25 years later, there is no real evidence that relationships between the two groups have changed radically (Stevens, 2007: 255). Rentfrow (2008) points out that faculty perceptions have remained constant: ‘The seismic changes that have affected librarianship and the ways in which the profession can and should be intimately involved with advanced research and undergraduate education have, for the most part, not changed how scholars think of the library’ (p. 60).

That said, there have been many more examples of successful collaborations described in the literature, many of them now based on the use of up-to-date ICT and social networking applications (Renon et al., 2008; Briggs and Skidmore, 2008). However, as was the case with most previous collaborations, the interest and motivation of individual academics is almost always a key factor in success – a strategy which we know to be unstable and not conducive to long-term programmes.

Teaching librarians and coordinators tend to move between several different strategic approaches when trying to establish collaborative partnerships with academics:

It is clear that the issue of academic-librarian collaboration is just as pressing – and challenging – as it was a quarter of a century ago. If teaching librarians are to fulfil their mission, they should focus on the strategic approach (Rockman, 2004: xiii) and reflect on how their instructional practices align with the critical issues, not just within education, but in society at large. A reliance on collaborations with individual academics has been shown to be an unstable model for a number of reasons: (1) much depends on the nature of the interpersonal relationship between the academic and librarian, which is a matter of chance, more than anything else; (2) it is difficult to identify those academics who are both ‘library friendly’ and who have the actual leverage to instigate a collaboration; (3) although they are responsible for their individual courses, academics may have very little control over programme structure and face the same barriers as librarians at this level. Bruce (2001) referred to the need for librarians to identify and exploit ‘hooks’ that can capture the imagination of academics and administrators and result in collaborative programmes. Some examples of the general areas in which librarians can forge collaborations with academics include:

Ideally, creating an institutional environment that encourages and supports academic–librarian collaboration should be the goal of teaching librarians, rather than depending on strategies that focus on trying to cajole and persuade academics to join forces with them or endeavouring to enhance their own status in the academy, in order for academics and administrators to ‘take them seriously’. Doskatch (2003) suggests that such an environment requires multiple alliances across campus and that ‘librarians need to think and act strategically’ (p. 118). Both Grassian and Kaplowitz (2005: 50) and Doskatch (2003) stress the need for librarians to frame their requests for collaboration in terms of the needs and interests of the desired partners, particularly those issues of mutual concern, rather than focusing solely on their own needs.

Advocacy – spreading the word

‘The library believes that academic librarians have to be the main advocates to further the information literacy agenda across campus, and that they need certain skills and hooks to help them achieve this’ (Stubbings and Franklin, 2006: 2).

The literature on curriculum-integrated information literacy indicate that, in the main, the agenda has largely been driven from the bottom–up, based on the efforts and promotional activities of librarians at grassroots level; for instance, Stevens (2007) observes that ‘information literacy remains of interest primarily to librarians, and … the term has little cultural currency among the teaching faculty with whom so many librarians would like to collaborate’ (p. 255). Librarians are viewed, from both a positive and negative angle, as the chief drivers of the information literacy movement, and virtually all progress on this front over the past two decades is as a direct result of their activities. Rockman (2004) refers to the convening of the ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, and the subsequent issuing of their seminal report, as a ‘turning point in the visibility and advancement of information literacy’ (pp. 4–5), which ignited an explosion of activity, leading to an increasingly global recognition of the concept, by organisations such as UNESCO and IFLA. However, efforts to have information literacy recognised as an essential educational and life competency have had mixed success, although a significant victory in recent times was the proclamation of National Information Literacy Awareness Month 2009 by the US President, Barack Obama. In the proclamation, which was issued in October 2009, the President refers to a ‘crisis of authenticity’ which has arisen due to the opportunities for personal publishing that have been afforded by new technologies; the proclamation also links information literacy to effective and informed citizenship, stating that ‘the ability to seek, find, and decipher information can be applied to countless life decisions, whether financial, medical, educational, or technical.’ There have been other notable successes in the US, including the inclusion of information literacy as an accreditation standard by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Thompson, 2002), and the recognition of the concept as a learning objective and required standard in a variety of educational policies nationwide (Rockman, 2004). In the UK, a survey carried out by Sheila Corrall (2007) aimed to ‘investigate the extent and nature of strategic engagement with information literacy in UK higher education institutions’ (p. 1). Through examining institutional documents, such as mission statements, from 114 universities, the survey found ‘evidence of engagement’ at 75 institutions, although the specific term ‘information literacy’ was located primarily in LIS documents.

A recent success in Europe has been the extensive work and awareness-raising performed by the members of the Scottish Information Literacy Project, which concluded in 2010 after a five-year span. Based at Glasgow Caledonian University, the original aim of the project was to develop an information literacy framework linking secondary and higher education in order to ‘produce secondary school leavers with a skill set which further and higher education can recognise and develop or which can be applied to the world of work directly’ (Information Literacy Skills Project, 2004-5²). However, the project expanded to include a range of research, development and strategic activities, which are documented in the Scottish Information Literacy Project Weblog, located at http://caledonianblogs.net/information-literacy/. One of the key strategic achievements of the team has been the creation and development of a National Information Literacy Framework, covering all educational sectors, including lifelong learning, learning in communities and within the workplace. Advocacy and promotion accounted for a great deal of the project members’ time and an important outcome has been the creation of a ‘community of information literacy activists’ in Scotland, which arose through the identification of project partners within the various sectors to contribute to the project’s aims. Advocacy work carried out within the project included a host of outreach activities, including presenting at national and international conferences, seminars and workshops, writing articles for relevant publications, holding face-to-face meetings with interested individuals and groups, facilitating visits from external parties and participating in remote, electronic discussions. Although the project ended in April 2010, work is continuing and various forthcoming publications will describe elements of the project in greater detail.

Teaching librarians, thus, are required to engage in promotion and advocacy for information literacy on two levels:

While the challenges of promoting information literacy internally have been extensively debated in the literature, the teaching librarian’s role as global advocate has not been addressed to the same extent. Yet, it is clear that librarians have been filling this role for many years, even before the information literacy movement became visible at the beginning of the 1990s. However, librarians’ activism for information literacy has been dismissed by some as an attempt to increase their own status and visibility, ‘by inventing a social malady with which librarians as “information professionals” are uniquely qualified to deal’ (Foster, 1993: 346). More recently, Wilder reiterated the sentiments expressed by Foster, suggesting that librarians have exaggerated the challenges posed by the Internet: ‘Simply put, information literacy perceives a problem that does not exist’ (2005: B13). In spite of these, and a small number of other dissenters (e.g. Williams, 2006; Eadie, 1990), it is now widely accepted that the challenges are real (Powis, 2008) and that information literacy is an important tool for empowerment. However, as no other groups have taken up the mantle of advocacy, librarians still find that they must promote the agenda as before, but in the context of a changing infosphere, which raises both challenges to, and opportunities for, reinvigorated promotional strategies.

How can librarians effectively advocate for global recognition of information literacy? Key strategies they have used in the past, and continue to use today, include:

A major criticism of librarians’ promotional strategies has been that they focus almost exclusively on the library and information community. Weetman Dacosta (2007) and Stevens (2007) discuss the relative lack of articles about librarians and information literacy in publications outside the LIS field, as well as the absence of material on information literacy that is authored or co-authored by academics. Librarians appear to be talking primarily to each other, rather than attempting to establish a presence in journals and newsletters that may be read by those with whom they are trying to collaborate. Stevens suggests that ‘perhaps … it is also necessary for librarians to go beyond preaching to the choir, reaching out to faculty rather than lamenting that faculty do not understand what they “have not been taught” and “never had a reason to think about” ‘ (2007: 257). Stevens’ own study of 54 non-library journals reported in the paper revealed that of the content searched ‘only a tiny fraction of them mentioned libraries, and fewer still focus on IL and library instruction’ (p. 261). Weetman Dacosta (2007) suggests that librarians should target both educational and discipline-specific journals with their papers on the pedagogy of information literacy, as well as casestudy descriptions that will showcase their work. Educational conferences are suggested as another potentially useful channel that is not currently being exploited by librarians. She also suggests that teaching librarians should put themselves forward for institutional and national teaching awards and fellowships, in order to demonstrate their expertise and commitment to non-library colleagues who might not be aware of the teaching work that they do. These points are reinforced by Powis (2008), who emphasises visibility as an important strategy for teaching librarians, through sitting on panels and committees, applying for awards and fellowships, and obtaining teaching and learning qualification equivalent to the academics – ‘In short, become visible, collaborate, demonstrate your competence in your subject and make teaching and learning a key element in your continuing professional development (CPD)’ (p. 2).

Social networking applications offer teaching librarians another channel with a potentially global reach. Blogs and RSS feeds are already used by many librarians to promote information literacy (e.g. Sheila Webber’s Information Literacy Weblog, Peter Godwin’s Information Literacy meets Web 2.0 blog). Facebook, YouTube and other social media are increasingly being used to support and promote libraries and education, and to create vibrant interest groups. An extremely interesting use of Twitter has been the trend for ‘live tweeting’ from conferences, which non-attendees can follow through using the hashtag search function that conscientious tweeters attach to their conference updates. All of these efforts, and more, will continue to enhance the global profile of information literacy; as teaching librarians, the role of advocate is an important one for us, and exploiting any and all possible channels of communication will help to ensure the inclusion of information literacy as a strategic priority in multiple contexts.

Exercises and reflections