In this post, Amy McLay Paterson, Benjamin Mitchell, Stirling Prentice, and Elizabeth Rennie share their additional reflections on their article recently published in the Journal of Information Literacy.
There’s no denying that ELIP was structured at least partially as a compromise. Our goal was, of course, a full-semester course in library research. The myriad problems with one-shots were acknowledged and agreed upon; a credit course was the solution. But credit courses take time, and approvals, and certainly more staffing than
ur current librarian complement. And the English department was only too happy to partner with us right away—could we have something ready for the Fall?
So, while I’d like to say that we chose a 3-week tutorial as a result of a methodical dissection of literature on good practices, the truth is that it happened to be a happy medium between what we were doing (which wasn’t enough) and what we wanted to do (which would take more time). It was a step. We would collect evidence, and if we were lucky, we could use that evidence to parlay the program into something permanent, official, and importantly, credited.
It didn’t quite work out that way. We did find ample evidence that the program worked. All participating faculty members agreed (most strongly so) that students benefitted from the program over the usual one-shot. We found evidence that the relationships we had built with the students and faculty contributed to their success. We saw ourselves improving as educators, more in touch with the student journey.
Honestly, ELIP had worked better than I expected. However in addition to evaluating the program, I was also tasked with making recommendations about where our Information Literacy Program should go from here. In reviewing the Information Literacy (IL) literature, one thing that surprised me was how much was taken for granted regarding what the overall goals of IL are or should be. Articles discussing the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of their one-shots or courses often glazed over what was actually taught. Anecdotally, Boolean search strategies loom largest within the IL sessions I have witnessed or taken part in, despite no indication that (particularly first-year) students benefit from this instruction and increasing evidence that Boolean logic is unnecessary for most undergraduate search strategies. Evidence from students, faculty, and the literature all suggested that students want and need further instruction on argumentation and using sources, but our biggest contribution to this topic in the ELIP program (a hands-on paraphrasing exercise) ended up being cut for time.
I decided to step back and think about how the library (and in particular the IL program) is positioned within the academy. First, I considered the library as a Third Place—not home, not school, but something else: a place of discourse, gathering, and community. While ultimately, I believe the Third Place model is more relevant to public libraries than academic, I think there are things to be gained from fore fronting unstructured relationships and gathering. I considered the academic library as a liminal place, with IL as a part of the students’ rite of passage, where everything is questioned, and learning may not happen in a linear fashion. Finally, I considered the library as one of Foucault’s heterotopia’s, simultaneously part of and apart from the academy, situated to at once support and challenge. The common element to these models seemed to be a focus on play, experimentation, and even failure as key elements in the student journey—elements that Information Literacy could provide.
And so, I changed my mind. I no longer see a credit course in library research as the ultimate goal for delivery of Information Literacy concepts. Like many academic librarians, I have often lamented the marginalization of our role within the academy. In many ways, I will likely continue to do so. But the ELIP project cast a light on some of the advantages that comes with marginalization. Not being beholden to a grading system means that students had a space to fail and to experiment without the constant anxiety of losing marks. Not creating our own program in a silo meant that we could concentrate on building partnerships with the faculty we worked with.
One advantage, of course, to a credit course is the structure and sustainability. With ELIP depending largely on our partnerships with faculty, it is currently subject to whims of workloading, course allocation, and availability among other factors. And so, our experiments will need to continue. We have already spoken to other faculties about establishing similar programs, making adjustments and refining our ideas as we go. The IL journey will continue. ELIP was a first step in a good direction, and I’m certain that this will not be our final form.
