SLILC (Student Learning and Information Literacy Committee)

Abstract: During summer 2019, the four reference librarians at the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), an HBCU in the nation’s capital, met weekly to review and discuss each part of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. With our student population in mind, we had two goals: establishing a team-wide shared analysis of each frame and developing a collection of student-centered active learning activities, rooted in the Framework’s concepts, that could be mixed and matched during one-shot and embedded library instruction. Prior to this project, the librarians were using a limited group of library instruction activities that were not necessarily related to the Framework. During the project, the librarians found the Framework to be highly theoretical, making it challenging to identify concrete learning activities. However, by deeply engaging with the Framework, it was possible to create student-centered instructional activities that were rooted in the theory, and we were able to expand our repertoire of activities used in library instruction. We were also able to provide faculty with firm examples of how library instruction engages their students in information literacy and lifelong learning.

Abstract: The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education encourages librarians to engage students with big ideas related to information creation, access, and use. One way that librarians may be able to do this is through a small teaching approach. In Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning, James M. Lang uses insights from educational research to highlight small instructional interventions that support student learning. Although Lang does not specifically call out librarians as instructors, some of these strategies could be used to engage students with Framework concepts, even within a single session.

In this essay, I focus on strategies in four areas—retrieving, predicting, connecting, and self-explaining. These were selected because they seem most applicable to a one-shot setting. For each, I describe models recommended by Lang and demonstrate how they could support increased understanding of Framework concepts. While none of these interventions by themselves may seem revolutionary to experienced instruction librarians, for some they may represent a new approach to intentionally teaching the Framework. While I have chosen to highlight only one Framework concept per category, there are likely ways to connect each strategy with any frame.

Abstract: At the community college level, rethinking library instruction in light of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education often feels like a puzzle. But like many things we do at the library, it all comes back to helping our most vulnerable students. In this column, we outline our library’s outreach efforts to engage with two intersecting and underserved groups: returning adult students and students in the LGBTQ+ community. As job markets become more competitive, older adults are returning to community colleges in order to obtain degrees and earn credentials. As awareness and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community increases, so does the need to provide supportive services for these students. At our library, engaging with the Framework provided an opportunity to design innovative instruction and programming.

Abstract: Just after our university published its Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Strategic Plan, I found myself driving home from the “Engaging with the ACRL Framework” Roadshow. My head was full of converting knowledge practices into learning outcomes when the frames began to emerge through a DEI lens, and threshold concepts became questions. The very asking of a question inherently invites diverse, individual perspectives. Published before current higher education DEI efforts, the Framework prompts us to ask questions and pursue answers, especially from unheard or systemically silenced voices. It encourages us to challenge elitism, racism, sexism, ableism, and biases within the entire information ecosystem.