Volume 8, Issue 2, 2014 [ARTICLE]

HOW WE GOT HERE

A historical look at the academic teaching library and the role of the teaching librarian

Susan Ariew This paper outlines a brief history of the University of South Florida academic teaching library and, in consequence, it examines the changing role of librarians. As part of that history, the paper also discusses distinctions among various terms used to describe instructional activities in teaching libraries, such as “bibliographic instruction” and “information literacy.” Finally, amidst the renewed debates about the changing definition of information literacy and the proposed Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, it attempts to answer the question, “What is a teaching library?”

208 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

INTRODUCTION Jeanne Murdock describes BI in terms of changes throughout three decades: Academic libraries evolved from passive, custodial organizations to more proactive, the first generation of the 1970s engaged institutions; this evolution began in viewed BI as library orientation; the the 1960s. Discussions about the “teaching second generation, the 1980s, saw library” have offered a way to contrast the development of ideas and libraries of the past with the more methods of bibliographic instruction progressive libraries of today and tomorrow. and a growing trend toward defining The question to be addressed is, “What is a BI as a way of teaching patrons how teaching library?” This entails asking, to use research resources; and in the “What is the role of the teaching librarian?” 1990s we are seeing a shift from The history of the teaching library mirrors print-oriented library services toward the changing roles of academic libraries and information profusion in various librarians as it provides insights about what formats, including multimedia for type of libraries or organizational cultures, diverse user groups (1995, p.26). both past and present, foster strong information literacy programs. Thus, in We see a transition from BI to IL as early as reviewing the past, the aim of this paper is 1981 when “a movement arose to teach to identify characteristics of successful problem solving techniques that can be used teaching libraries and strong teaching roles from one research project to of librarians in order to inform the present another” (Salony, 1995, p. 44). Hopkins and the future. (1982) similarly points out tension between those who wanted to teach problem-solving skills versus those who wanted to focus on THE LINK BETWEEN SEMANTICS “general access skills and technical AND PRACTICE bibliographic tools” (Hopkins, 1982). Breivik (1989) and Rader (1990) suggest Phrases such as “bibliographic that bibliographic instruction was a instruction” (or BI), “user education,” forerunner to information literacy and that “library instruction,” and “information most BI programs evolved into information literacy” have been used interchangeably to literacy programs. However, Rader and describe activities that librarians have Coons (1992) stress the differences between engaged in with regard to instruction. them when they state: Information literacy However, the connotations of these phrases is not a synonym for bibliographic are very different; the progression of their instruction…Information literacy adds use over time reflects significant changes in another dimension by representing a broader the development of the teaching library. approach and offering the opportunity to Bibliographic instruction (BI) has been produce students who understand the associated with an earlier period of library importance of information and who have the instruction which focused on library competence to locate, evaluate and manage orientations that were “short-range, library it” (p. 118). centered, print -bound instruction ” (Murdock, 1995, p.27).

[ARTICLE] 209 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Information literacy encompasses both the academic libraries and librarians, as it research and the writing process itself in describes issues about boundaries between academics since it has been defined by the academic faculty and librarians, issues that Association of College and Research echo into the next century. Libraries (ACRL) as a user’s ability to identify an information need, access, locate, In the 1920s and the 1930s librarians began evaluate, and cite or use that information promoting bibliographic instruction appropriately (ACRL, What is information programs and advocating cooperation with literacy, 1996-2013). Information literacy is faculty in creating those programs (Salony, considered to be more complex than BI 1995). Bennett (2009) explains that the because it has always been associated with teaching and learning mission in academic ambitious lifelong learning goals, whereas libraries changed, based on the need to BI seems to be more associated with navigate large print collections. In the early narrower training goals. (Radar & Coons, days of academic libraries, collections were 1992). Part of the ACRL definition of the small and thus library spaces were created term states “information literate people are for readers and their reading experience. But those who have learned how to learn as collections grew and became more because they know how knowledge is unmanageable, “book-centered” library organized, how to find information and how spaces were given over to housing massive to use information in a way that others can collections squeezing out spaces for learn from them” (ACRL, Information students and reading (Bennett, 2009, p. Literacy Defined, 1996-2013). 192). Universities with large collections such as Harvard, Michigan, and land-grant EARLY TEACHING LIBRARIES institutions saw a need for “bibliographic instruction” which then became part of the Libraries have been offering basic public services landscape (Salony, 1995, pp. bibliographic instruction since before the 34–36). American Civil War (Salony, 1995). th st However, if one looks closely at the history In the late 20 and early 21 century, as of academic libraries, one can see that, in digital materials became available, bringing most cases, teaching was not considered a a need for IT support for library patrons, central role for those libraries or a primary libraries moved beyond library-as- role of their librarians until much later. repository to become centers supporting Gunselman and Blakesley (2012) describe a teaching and learning. This trend included rousing debate about the role of librarians in creating classrooms in the library for library teaching bibliographic instruction in the instruction, adding collaborative learning early 1900s between two major figures, areas, study rooms, cafes, and student- librarian John Cotton Dana and Vassar centered spaces encouraging learning. history professor Lucy Maynard Salmon. Bennett (2009) states, “In the twenty-first The debate between Dana who advocated century, we need constantly to affirm that BI, and Salmon, who felt that librarians the most important educational function of should not teach at all, is a paradigm for the physical library space is to foster a culture continuing debate about the teaching role of of intentional learning” (p.192). He goes on

[ARTICLE] 210 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 to emphasize that librarians, too, need to Similarly, in 1971 Swarthmore professor “think more like educators and less like and librarian John Williamson (1971) service providers,” moving from a described a proposal to transform its supporting role to an active one in fulfilling traditional “custodial” library into a the learning mission of the university (p. “teaching library” (p.203). The early 194). teaching library of that day “aimed at providing the student with the library skills The trend from bibliographic instruction and bibliographic sophistication for life- designed to help students navigate print long independent work” (Williamson, 1971, collections to more curriculum-centric p.204). The teaching library proposal for information literacy instruction emerged in Swarthmore was also seen mostly as a the mid 1960s and early 1970s as service for undergraduates and that, like experiments that originated at many liberal Earlham, a philosophy of collaboration arts colleges. Earlham College in particular between librarians and teaching faculty emerged in the library literature as a pioneer would be a key factor. Swarthmore’s in librarian/ faculty collaboration as well as teaching library concept included a course-integrated library instruction as a recommendation to hire two “Divisional core of its academic programs and curricula Librarians,” one for the social sciences and for more than forty years (Ver Steeg, 2000). one for the humanities. These new librarians Other liberal arts college libraries followed would “implement the use of library the Earlham Model including St. Olaf materials as an integral part of courses of College Libraries and Gustavus Adolphus instruction” (Williamson, 1971, p. 205). The among them: humanities and social sciences were targeted as the place to incorporate a A Gustavus librarian from 1944 to stronger teaching of “library skills” in the 1973 believed strongly in the curriculum for these programs, perhaps educational mission of the library. As because of the emphasis on liberal arts. early as 1956 she described the library as ‘an instrument of instruction’ and In the late 1970s into the mid-1980s, the in a 1965 planning document she teaching library became a part of a growing wrote ‘The library is primarily a number of institutional profiles. Robert teaching library’ (Hutchins, Fister & Spencer (1978) describes Sangamon State MacPherson, 2002, p. 6). University Library (now the University of Illinois at Springfield) as a teaching library. Both libraries were ahead of their time in Following the characteristics of terms of the role of the teaching librarian Swarthmore, he describes a liberal arts and the collaborative work they college that is “more of a teaching accomplished with academic faculty. Both institution than a research institution” (p. schools later on, too, made a conscious 1022). He reiterates the theme of lifelong effort to transform their BI program into learning emphasizing that “the library must more robust information literacy programs support students becoming very practical (Hutchins et al., 2002). life-long learners through library usage” (p. 1022). Even though 1977 had not yet seen

[ARTICLE] 211 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 the emergence of the World Wide Web and mainstream and strengthen the educational electronic resources, Spencer recognized the missions of their institutions” (p.2048). important role librarians played in helping students and faculty make sense of the TEACHING LIBRARIES IN THE information universe: “More than most, 1980S librarians recognize the fragmentation of the scholarly world and the student’s quest for In 1979, Guskin, Stoffle, and Boisse enter coherence, for meaningful theory and the conversation about teaching libraries as understandable methodologies” (p.1024). they look toward the future of academic Spencer (1978) also stresses the importance libraries. Like Spencer, these authors of librarians as peers to the teaching faculty recognize that the teaching role of the so that students and faculty will take the academic library strengthens its prominence library seriously. on college campuses. They write:

Another visionary from the mid to late [One] major way in which the library 1970s was Patricia Senn Breivik (1978), can respond to the present challenges who described the “teaching library” from of higher education, maintain itself an administrative perspective. She asserted as a viable campus unit, and realize that library collections are almost worthless its potential is to become a ‘teaching without users who know how to use them. library’ which is itself actively and She asks, “What is the value of good directly involved in implementing collections if most students cannot or will the mission of higher education not use them?”( p. 2047). Breivik also (Guskin, Stoffle, & Boisse, 1979, p. describes new responsibilities that the 283). librarians would need to assume. She describes librarians with expertise that The teaching library described in 1979 and matched curriculum areas. These expanded by the same authors in 1984, still professionals could set instructional included the goal of creating lifelong objectives, create appropriate instructional learners, but also included a commitment to activities, and serve in “expanded the surrounding community (1979). The educational roles” (p. 2048). If you add authors outlined a comprehensive technology skills into this description you bibliographic instruction program that would have Bell and Shank’s (2004) embraced a stronger teaching role than was “blended librarian” of today—i.e., “an mentioned in any of the prior discussions academic librarian who combines the about teaching libraries; this role included traditional skill set of librarianship with the evaluation of instructional programs and information technologist’s hardware/ activities, as well as recommendations for software skills, and the instructional or curriculum analysis to determine where educational designer’s ability to apply bibliographic instruction would be most technology appropriately in the teaching- needed. learning process” (p. 374). Breivik (1978) points out that, “Teaching libraries are those Along with the changes in the development that are fully integrated into the educational of the teaching library in the late 1970s into

[ARTICLE] 212 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 the mid-1980s, one can also see expanded Libraries, in its search over more roles for librarians. Rader (1984) describes than ten years for a more appropriate, the attributes of the teaching librarian as inclusive, and modern name, someone who displays a total commitment eliminated ‘information literacy’ as a to the concept of the teaching library and suitable new name early in its librarians who see themselves as educators considerations, indicating its lack of interested in new technological general acceptance” (Bawden, 2009, developments (p. 236). Rader goes on to p.236). write about the teaching library and the “electronic age” in 1986, describing the use The teaching library of the mid 1990s and of “microcomputers” in the library with into the first decade of the 21st century librarians who offer “discipline specific changed dramatically when academic applications of microcomputers” which libraries developed assessments of student includes online database searching, and learning and evaluations for their using the library’s online automation system instructional programs. Libraries created (p. 403). more student-centered collaborative learning spaces in the form of information THE 1990S: ASSESSMENT, (or learning) commons. Academic libraries began forming stronger strategic INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT, partnerships on campus with other academic AND STUDENT LEARNING units such as writing centers and tutoring and learning services. Edward Owusu- The scope of the teaching library changed Ansah (2004) refers to the change in focus dramatically with the advent of desktop on student learning as pervasive in the computer use for research and teaching, 1990s when he writes: “Whatever methods electronic databases, networked information were being employed, the library’s resources and the explosion of the Internet instructional activities had become so in the late 1980s to the mid-1990s. Despite ubiquitous that by the 1990’s all reference the fact that the term was first coined in job ads in the United States required 1974, it was in the 1990s where the term instructional knowledge” (p.23). In light of “information literacy” came into its own. In the developments in both technology and analyzing the usage of the term and how the changes in academic library priorities many times it is used in library literature, with regard to information literacy, in 1995, Bawden (2009) states, “Information literacy Stoffle and Williams redefined the teaching maintained a low volume throughout the library. They describe the teaching library 1980s, expanding considerably in the as a “transformed library” that would do the 1990s” (p. 230). He points out the following: controversy surrounding the phrase when discussing ACRL’s attempt to grapple with  Focus on teaching as both a direct the term. He writes: activity and a support activity for other disciplines—all units are [The] former Bibliographic involved and all staff see Instruction Section of the US themselves as educators Association of College and Research

[ARTICLE] 213 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

 Focus on user needs by continual environments, and reframing the role of assessment of data libraries as central to the teaching and  Create tools to facilitate learning process. Evaluation, assessment, knowledge creation and research were all activities that had  Offer a physical environment been added into the description of teaching conducive to teaching and library goals; implied, but not stated, in independent and collaborative these goals would be librarian skills that learning included use of emergent technologies.  Create strategic partnerships to However, information literacy at that time facilitate teaching and learning still appears to be viewed as something (1995, p.64). mostly for undergraduates and not part of the agenda of graduate level instruction. It is Users and their needs were now the only after the Association of College and focus of the teaching library and no two Research Libraries (ACRL) Information libraries would have exactly the same Literacy Competency Standards for Higher programs, organizational structure or Education (2000) were written, published, physical arrangement because services adopted, and implemented that academic would have to be customized. Common libraries and librarians turned to creating goals include: more in-depth, discipline specific standards that applied to upper level undergraduates  Creating an information literate and graduate students. undergraduate  Supporting and facilitating a THE ACRL INFORMATION learning-centered curriculum and LITERACY COMPETENCY research programs for specific disciplines STANDARDS FOR HIGHER  Improving the quality of teaching EDUCATION materials and assignments  Improving campus understanding The ACRL Standards Committee’s creation of and participation in local and of the Information Literacy Competency information policy development Standards for Higher Education, written at  Conducting research and the end of the 1990s, was a milestone in the evaluation to improve programs development of teaching and learning in and advance knowledge about and academic libraries. The document defines access to information (Stoffle & information literacy and frames its place Williams, 1995, p. 67). with regard to technology, higher education, pedagogy, and the use of the standards for Absent from the discussion is the priority of librarians. By detailing five major standards service to the surrounding community, the and twenty-two performance indicators, the library as cultural center, and the term document served as a guideline for “bibliographic instruction.” Instead, the librarians and educators in assessing emphasis moves to offering quality information literacy skills and creating teaching, providing user-centered curricular content. In many ways, the

[ARTICLE] 214 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Standards legitimized information literacy 94). Critics who subscribe to a “critical and its place in the academy for librarians information literacy model,” call for an even and library administrators; they became the broader and more inclusive definition of foundation for programs, credit courses, and information literacy and standards that take assessments that followed. For example, in into account such things as sociopolitical 2003, the reference and instruction ideologies and understanding how librarians at Oregon State University used knowledge is socially constructed (Kapitze, the Standards as a “framework for an initial 2003; Troy, 2004). self-study of our instructional practice and for promoting the concept of information Despite complaints about their limitations, literacy at our institution” (Davidson, the Standards helped many institutions to re McMillen & Maughan, 2002, p. 97). -think their mission, re-evaluate their programs, and communicate more clearly to The Standards were not without their academic faculty and administrators the critics, however. Owusu-Anash complains value of information literacy instruction. that the Standards include “excessively Because of the Standards, information exhaustive aspirations” that step “beyond literacy was not just a nice notion a few boundaries of what could be expected of institutions and experts embraced; it became librarians” (2003, p.219). Thus, as librarians an important movement in changing the assumed broader and more central teaching paradigm for academic libraries. Along with roles within the academy, the profession programmatic impact at institutions, the debated about the practicality and Standards also had a dramatic impact on legitimacy of their taking on expanded how individual librarians regarded teaching instructional roles. Hofer, Brunetti and and learning practices in their own Townsend (2013) support Owusu-Anash classrooms; the Standards became a when they point out that the Standards touchstone for creating learning goals, caused “an overload problem” (p.110), assessments, and classroom activities for leaving new librarians confused about how teaching information literacy as seen by the to identify manageable instructional growth of standards-based books and priorities. The Standards, they say, is a articles about effective teaching and combination of both practical and learning (Burkhardt & Rathemacher, aspirational goals that contribute to 2003;Neeley, 2006; Cook & Cooper, 2006). “mission creep and overreach” (Hofer, Townsend & Brunetti, 2013, p.111). ACRL’S STRONG LEADERSHIP Kuhlthau (2013) points out a number of THROUGH IMMERSION different flaws associated with the Standards in that they are too “simplistic, positivist, one-right-answer for all” in their When creating the Information Literacy approach (p.94). Kuhlthau’s (2013) view of Competency Standards, ACRL also the research process itself is that it is recognized the need for instructional complex and recursive, which would improvement for librarians. Most library recommend a holistic approach to teaching schools did not view information literacy students information literacy strategies (p. instruction as a core competency for library science programs and many professionals

[ARTICLE] 215 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 needed help improving their instructional Hutchins et al. (2002) embraced information skills. As Walter (2008) notes in discussing literacy but cautioned readers about the issues of librarianship and teaching, “while acceptance of the term “information librarians (especially academic librarians) literacy”: “If library faculty are not careful find themselves increasingly called upon to to take a disciplinary perspective when act (and to think of themselves) as teachers, discussing developmental research skills few are provided with any training in how to [with academic faculty], the use of teach as part of their professional ‘information literacy’ may be off-putting education” (p.56). Walter also points out and viewed as jargon” (p.12). Another that “the place of teacher training as part of skeptic, Stanley Wilder (2005), wrote an the professional education for pre-service anti-information literacy polemic in the librarians remains marginal” (p.56). In Chronicle of Higher Education, response to the need for teacher training, complaining that teaching information since 1999 ACRL’s Institute for literacy was completely wrong-headed Information Literacy Immersion Program because the assumption that students would has selected 90 participants to join a team of want help from librarians was faulty and nationally recognized information literacy that “information literacy would have experts, offering a teacher and program librarians teach students to be more like track at various locations annually in order them” (p. B13). Wilder (2005) claimed that to fill the gap in training librarians to teach developing effective information literacy (Pullman, 2006, p. 631). Immersion helped programs “would require enormous and librarians improve their classroom coordinated shifts in curricular emphases techniques, knowledge of learning theory, and resource allocation, none of which is leadership skills, and assessments related to either practical or politically realistic” (p. information literacy instruction. The B13). In other words, the task of creating program track focused on “developing, information literate undergraduates was too integrating, and managing institutional and difficult, so why try? Thus, despite the programmatic information literacy emergence of the Standards and the programs” with a view towards identifying influence of the Immersion Program, best practices in terms of “institutional information literacy and the role of the outcomes assessment, scalability, and teaching library was not quite on solid integration of teaching, learning and ground in the early part of the 21st century; technology” (Pullman, 2006, p. 633). Like it was still subject to the politics of the Standards, Immersion was instrumental administrative support, somewhat in creating a culture of leadership that ambivalent attitudes towards the role of impacted the library profession significantly academic librarians, a lack of understanding by improving instruction. about the teaching mission of the academic library, and a disagreement about what Despite the tremendous progress made content should be taught by librarians, if regarding the role of teaching in academic indeed they were teaching at all. libraries both in the 1990s and in the early part of 2000s, there were still skeptics who In contrast to Wilder’s dismissal of the felt that it was the wrong path to take. value of information literacy instruction and

[ARTICLE] 216 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 teaching libraries, many educators argued example, having written a textbook and that information literacy is so important that taught discipline-specific, information it can and should be developed as a separate literacy credit courses. academic discipline and taught in its own right. Jane Kemp (2006) outlines What is encouraging is that whether controversies over the role of academic librarians teach information literacy in face- librarians teaching credit-bearing courses, to-face or online classes for academic saying “there is disagreement within the faculty or whether they teach it by means of profession whether it [librarianship] is to be credit- earning courses, assessment of thought of as a ‘service profession or an student learning has become the gold academic discipline” (p.21). While Kemp standard for best practices and characterizes (2006) argues the value of librarians the teaching library. This is evidenced by teaching classes, she cautions: “While Scott Walter’s (2007) edited volume, The meaningful and valuable for the library and Teaching Library: Approaches to Assessing the academic librarian, classroom teaching Information Literacy Instruction. The book is secondary to their core highlights adaptable information literacy responsibilities” (p.21). Several academic assessment practices from teaching libraries libraries and library science programs have across the country. Walter (2007) offered credit classes related to information emphasizes the importance of the teaching and research skills at the undergraduate and library when he writes, “If libraries are to graduate levels, some related to specific continue to be recognized as vital organs of disciplines, some more generic (Burke, the body academic worthy of significant and 2012). Bill Badke (2005) has written ongoing financial support, then we must be extensively about the need to establish prepared to demonstrate our direct discipline-specific information literacy contribution to student learning in ways courses over one-shot, point-of-need consistent with those that have been training. He writes: accepted as valid across our campuses” (p.6). The most promising and relatively new approach is to embed credit- More recently, we see national-level bearing information literacy courses research on information literacy through within departments. The intention is efforts such as Project Information Literacy to give such courses homes within (PIL). Project Information Literacy was a subject disciplines, where they can collaborative, large-scale, national study be informed by the content that (begun in 2008 with a final report released students with majors require, while in 2012) about the information seeking at the same time having flexibility to behaviors of college students, investigating include a broader philosophy of how they conduct “everyday information as well as the skills to do research” (Head, 2012). The final report informational research beyond a delineates information literacy single subject (p. 74). competencies of college graduates as well as gaps in their education, as these students Badke (2008) himself has followed that transition from college to the workplace.

[ARTICLE] 217 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Many of the findings of this research have formulaic approach to understanding a informed teaching libraries about what skills complex information ecosystem” (lines 776 are needed for students to be successful as –777). The hierarchical structure of the lifelong learners (Head, 2012). Standards appears to be one-size-fits-all because, according to the Framework, it THE DEBATE CONTINUES— “conveys a fixed conception of how information literacy can be realized in INFORMATION LITERACY, THE varied curricula” (lines 778–779). The STANDARDS AND THE Framework criticizes the Standards as being FRAMEWORK too librarian-centric by not explicitly acknowledging the importance of librarian- After years of debate about the usefulness of academic faculty collaboration. They information literacy, the library profession “valorize the ‘information literate student’ has embraced its importance. Librarians as a construct of imagined accomplishment, work to develop authentic assessments of at the endpoint of a set of learning student learning, using the ACRL Standards experiences, without the involvement of as a guide. That being said, the definition of peers, tutors, coaches, faculty advisors, or information literacy and implementation of other collaborators.” (Framework, Appendix teaching continues to be a moving target. 1, 2014, June 17, lines 789–791). Currently, in 2014, ACRL is in the process of replacing the Information Literacy The Framework seeks to remedy some of Competency Standards for Higher the limitations in the Standards identified by Education (2000) with the Framework for the ACRL Framework Task Force. For Information Literacy for Higher Education example, the Framework emphasizes (2014, June 17). ACRL plans to “sunset” information literacy as a collaborative the Standards one year after the new effort, not one that is bifurcated or separate Framework document is finalized and from other academic pursuits. Therefore one accepted for use (Framework, Appendix 3, sees the use of the words “integrated 2014, June 17, lines 1213–1214). The new learning,” with courses, the curriculum, ACRL Framework thrusts the academic digital projects, etc. as a major theme of the library and librarians more emphatically document. Thus, information literacy mostly into the teaching and learning role of exists within the contexts of disciplines, academic institutions. In Appendix I, The professions or what is referred to as the Task Force outlines the paradigm shift from “information ecosystem” and not as a students-as-consumers of information to discipline unto itself (Framework, Appendix students as “creators and participants in 1, 2014, June 17, lines 823–825 & 835– research and scholarship” (lines 708–709). 837). The revised definition of information The 2000 Standards, though specific and literacy is the place where the new direction clear, are considered problematic because begins: they are old-fashioned and because they “focus attention on the objects of Information literacy combines a scholarship as mostly textual ones.” (lines repertoire of abilities, practices, and 779–780). They are also characterized as dispositions focused on flexible decontextualized with a “limited, almost

[ARTICLE] 218 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

engagement with the information Framework embraces a broader, more ecosystem, underpinned by critical holistic approach and intends to use self-reflection. The repertoire threshold concepts as a vehicle for involves finding, evaluating, accomplishing it. Ultimately, the interpreting, managing, and using Framework states that the goal is no longer information to answer questions and to create information literate undergraduates develop new ones; and creating new but instead to teach information literacy knowledge through ethical through six threshold concepts, which are participation in communities of defined by the document as “’gateway’ or learning, scholarship, and practice. portal concepts within a discipline, (Framework, Appendix 1, 2014, June profession or knowledge 17, lines 848–852). domain” (Framework, Appendix 1, 2014, June 17, lines, 889–891). It is with threshold This revised definition of information concepts that the Framework has thrust the literacy emphasizes the importance of library community into unknown territory discourse communities within academic and it is the theory behind threshold disciplines and the need for placing concepts that has met with the most information literacy in the proper context criticism from the library community. within those communities. Instead of the specific, prescriptive Standards, one sees Lane Wilkinson (2014) characterizes the “foundational” or “core concepts” which theoretical underpinnings of the Framework should “position information literacy on a as “intentionally vague, conceptually higher plane, as an integral part of the muddled, agent-relative, and learning process within disciplines and reductionist” (n. p.). First, there is the across them” (Framework, Appendix 1, question of whether disciplines have a 2014, June 17, lines 875–876). Because of unified body of knowledge around which the emphasis on collaboration with many you can determine those “portal concepts” stakeholders outside the library, such as or not. As Wilkinson (2014) puts it, “even academic faculty, information technologists, within a single discipline, there are often instructional designers and other partners on radically incompatible views held among campus, the implication is that academic practitioners.” He goes on to argue that librarians’ roles, need to include strong reducing disciplines to threshold concepts subject expertise and understanding of how implies that there is only one reputable research is conducted and disseminated in school of thought within that discipline and specific academic disciplines, along with a that whoever controls the dominant clear sense of where information literacy narrative within a discipline decides instruction fits into the “information threshold concepts. Just as critics of the ecosystem.” This is a tall order for Standards pointed out that they were librarians, particularly if those librarians are fashioned around some idealized generalists rather than subject specialists. information literate undergraduate student, Lane Wilkinson (2014) points out that In place of identifying specific performance “threshold concepts have a way of reducing indicators and learning outcomes, the new our students to a single idealized student

[ARTICLE] 219 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014 who learns a particular way” (n. p.). Clearly, a paradigm shift from the past role as since the Framework is under development, repositories of information to a more active it is not yet determined how much it will role involved in teaching and learning, influence the library and academic requiring librarians to become community until is reviewed, approved, and collaboratively embedded into the curricula finalized by ACRL. How it is embraced and and to assume strong teaching roles within implemented by librarians and academic their institutions (Bennet, 2009; Lewis, faculty is yet to be decided. What is 2007; Oakleaf, 2012). It appears that, encouraging when looking at the debates despite debates about how information about information literacy instruction is that literacy concepts are organized and taught in it has come to be viewed as essential to the academy, information literacy higher education across the disciplines and instruction is here to stay along with the role their curricula. Despite the fact that initially of academic librarians as active stakeholders information literacy is viewed as having in the teaching and learning mission of their been “a librarian-driven process, often institutions. Finally, if one looks at the past without explicit buy-in from academic and present trends, one can define the departments” (Framework, Appendix 1, teaching library, at the most basic level, as a 2014, June 17, lines, 981-982), it is now the library that values collaborative integration subject of intensive discussions about of information literacy instruction into implementation across the curriculum and curricula, the use of evidence-based how to accomplish that. assessments to measure student learning, and an acceptance of librarians as teachers CONCLUSION and partners who bring much value to advance student success within academic In a presidential proclamation, President communities. Obama named October 2009 National Information Awareness Month, saying: ENDNOTES “Though we may know how to find the information we need, we must also know 1. The Australian and New Zealand how to evaluate it. Over the past decade we Institute for Information Literacy have seen a crisis of authenticity (ANZIIL) similarly define emerge” (2009, p.1). These points are information literacy using language reinforced in the 2010 report, The Value of that is almost identical to the ACRL Academic Libraries, which presents survey definition (Bundy, 2004). The UK data collected from over 80,000 respondents Society of College, National, and between 2005 and 2012. It answers the Universities Libraries (SCONUL) question of what services and resources are defines the phrase when they state, important to academic library constituents, “Information literate people will how well do organizations deliver them, and demonstrate an awareness of how how effectively libraries communicate with they gather, use, manage, synthesise campus constituencies (Oakleaf, 2012). The [sic] and create information and “student learning” section of the document data in an ethical manner and will emphasizes that libraries are in the midst of have the information skills to do so

[ARTICLE] 220 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

effectively” (Bent & Stubbings, Association of College and Research 2011). Libraries. (2000). Information literacy 2. For a look at the emergence of the competency standards for higher education. earliest references to bibliographic Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ instruction in the library literature, sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/ see Hopkins (1982) and Salony standards.pdf (1995). 3. The shift to a broader, focus was Association of College & Research considered controversial by some Libraries. (2000). Information literacy librarians even in the early 1990s; defined. Retrieved from they did not see the point of http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/ teaching information literacy files/content/standards/standards.pdf concepts as students struggled to navigate mostly print sources in a Association of College & Research world where computers, CD-ROM Libraries. (2000). What is information indexes, and newly-formed online literacy? Introduction to information library catalogs were unfamiliar literacy. Retrieved from territory (LaGuardia, 1992). http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/ LaGuardia (1992) complains about files/content/standards/standards.pdf “concepts first” BI as being too difficult and impractical. Her Badke, W. B. (2004). Research strategies: discussion reflects the tension and Finding your way through the information shift from teaching local tools and fog (2nd ed.). New York: I-Universe, Inc. collections as opposed to teaching broader IL concepts as seen in Badke, W. B. (2005). Can't get no respect: earlier discussions in the early Helping faculty to understand the 1980s. educational power of information literacy. 4. It is interesting to note that in a Reference Librarian, (89), 63–80. recent article, Wilder (2013) doi:10.1300/J120v43n89_05. backtracked quite a bit in his acceptance of information literacy Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital and the teaching role of librarians. literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. REFERENCES doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083.

Association of College & Research Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. (2004). The blended Libraries. (June, 17, 2014). Framework for librarian: A blueprint for redefining the information literacy for higher education teaching and learning role of academic draft 2. Retrieved from http://acrl.ala.org/ librarians. College & Research Libraries ilstandards/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/ News, 65(7), 372–375. Retrieved from Framework-for-IL-for-HE- Draft-2.pdf. http://crln.acrl.org/content/65/7/372.full.pdf.

[ARTICLE] 221 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Bent, M., & Stubbings, R. (2011). The information literacy: 35 practical, SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information standards-based exercises for college Literacy: Core Model for Higher Education. students. Chicago: American Library SCONUL Working Group on Information Association. Literacy. Retrieved from http:// www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ Cook, D., & Cooper, N. (2006). Teaching documents/coremodel.pdf. information literacy skills to social sciences students and practitioners: A casebook of Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: applications. Chicago: Association of A history of paradigm change. Portal: College and Research Libraries. Libraries & the Academy, 9(2), 181–197. doi: 10.1353/pla.0.0049. Davidson, J. R., McMillen, P. S., & Maughan, L. S. (2002). Using the ACRL Breivik, P. S. (1978). Leadership, information literacy competency standards management, and the teaching library. for higher education to assess a university Library Journal, 103(18), 2045-2048. library instruction program. Journal of Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ Library Administration, 36(1), 97–121. eds/. doi:10.1300/J111v36n01_07.

Brevik, P.S. (1989). Information literacy: Gunselman, C., & Blakesley, E. (2012). Revolution in education, in Coping with Enduring visions of instruction in academic Information illiteracy: Bibliographic libraries: A review of a spirited early instruction for the information age. In twentieth-century discussion. Portal: Mensching, G. E., & Mensching, T. B Libraries and the Academy, 12(3), 259–281. (Eds.), Papers presented at the seventeenth doi: 10.1353/pla.2012.0027. national LOEX library instruction conference (pp. 1–6). Ann Arbor: Pierian Guskin, A. E., Stoffle, C. J., & Boisse, J. A. Press. (1984). Teaching research and service: The academic library's role. New Directions for Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Teaching and Learning, no. 18, 3–14. Zealand information literacy framework. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219841803. Principles, standards and practice. Retrieved from http://www.literacyhub.org/ Guskin, A. E., Stoffle, C. J., & Boisse, J. A. documents/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf. (1979). The academic library as a teaching library. Library Trends, 28, 281–296. Burke, M. (2011). Academic libraries and the credit-bearing class. Communications in Head, A.J. (December 5, 2013). Learning Information Literacy, 5(2), 156–173. the Ropes: How Freshmen Conduct Course Retrieved from http:// Research Once They Enter College. Project www.comminfolit.org. Information Literacy Research Report. Retrieved from: http://projectinfolit.org/ Burkhardt, J. M., MacDonald, M. C., & images/pdfs/ Rathemacher, A. J. (2003). Teaching pil_2013_freshmenstudy_fullreport.pdf.

[ARTICLE] 222 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Hofer, A. R. 1., Brunetti, K., & Townsend, Murdock, J. (1995). Re-engineering L. (2013). A thresholds concepts approach bibliographic instruction: The real task of to the standards revision. Communications information literacy. Bulletin of the in Information Literacy, 7(2), 108–113. American Society for Information Science, Retrieved from http:// 21(3), 26. Retrieved from http:// www.comminfolit.org. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/ (ISSN)1550-8366. Hutchins, E. O., Fister, B., & MacPherson, K. H. (2002). Changing landscapes, Neely, T. Y. (2006). Information literacy enduring values: Making the transition from assessment: Standards-based tools and bibliographic instruction to information assignments. Chicago: American Library literacy. Journal of Library Administration, Association. 36(1), 3. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjla20/ Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic current#.Uyc15YWn7JI. libraries: A comprehensive research review and report. Chicago: American Library Kaptizke, C. (2003). Information literacy: A Association. Retrieved from: review and post structural critique. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/ Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf. 26(1), 53. Retrieved from http:// www.alea.edu.au/publications. Obama, B. (2009). National information literacy awareness month 2009: A Kemp, J. (2006). Isn't being a librarian proclamation. Retrieved from http:// enough? Librarians as classroom teachers. www.whitehouse.gov/assets/ College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(3), documents/2009literacy_prc_rel.pdf. 3–23. doi:10.1300/J106v13n03_02. Owusu-Ansah, E.K. (2003). Information Kuhlthau, C. (2013). Rethinking the 2000 literacy and the academic library: A critical ACRL standards. Communications in look at a concept and the controversies Information Literacy, 7(20), 92–97. surrounding it. Journal of Academic Retrieved from http:// Librarianship 29(4), 219–230. doi: 10.1016/ www.comminfolit.org. S0099-1333(03)00040-5.

LaGuardia, C. (1992). Renegade library Pullman, E. (2006). Experiencing ACRL's instruction. Library Journal, 117(16), 51– immersion program: Learning outcomes for 53. Retrieved from http:// future participants. College & Research lj.libraryjournal.com/. Libraries News, 67(10), 631-–633. Retrieved from http://crlnews.highwire.org/ Lewis, D. (2007). A model for academic content/67/10/631.full.pdf+html. libraries 2005 to 2025. Paper presented at “Visions of Change,” California State Rader, H. (1990). Bibliographic instruction University at Sacramento. Retrieved from or information literacy. College & Research http://hdl.handle.net/1805/665. Libraries News, 51(1), 18–20.

[ARTICLE] 223 Ariew, How We Got Here Communications in Information Literacy 8(2), 2014

Rader, H. B. (1986). The teaching library Ver Steeg, J. (2000). Earlham College: enters the electronic age: Microcomputer Collaboration through course-integrated technology for user instruction and access. instruction. In Raspa, R. & Ward, D. (Eds.) College & Research Libraries News, (6), The collaborative imperative: Librarians 402–404. and faculty working together in the information universe (pp. 41–50). Chicago: Rader, H. B. (1984). The teaching library: Association of College and Research Myth or reality? In Dodson, S.C. & Menges, Libraries. G. L. (Eds.) Academic libraries: Myths and realities. Proceedings of the Third National Walter, S. (2008). Librarians as teachers: A Conference of the Association of College qualitative inquiry into professional identity. and Research libraries (pp. 234-–237). College & Research Libraries, 69(1), 51– Chicago: Association of College and 71. Research Libraries. Walter, S. (2007). The teaching library: Rader, H.B& Coons, W. (1992). Approaches to assessing information Information literacy: One response to the literacy instruction. Binghamton, NY: new decade. In Baker, B. & Litzinger M.E. Haworth Information Press. (Eds.), The evolving educational mission of the library (pp. 118-128). Chicago: Wilder, S. (2005). Information literacy Association of College and Research makes all the wrong assumptions. The Libraries. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(18), B13. Salony, M. F. (1995). The history of bibliographic instruction: Changing trends Wilder, S. (2013). A reconsideration of from books to the electronic world. The information literacy. Communications in Reference Librarian, 24, 31–51. doi: Information Literacy (7)2, 150–153. 10.1300/J120v24n51_06. Wilkinson, L. (2014, June 19). The problem Spencer, R. C. (1978). The teaching library. with threshold concepts. Sense and Library Journal 103, 1021–1024. reference: A philosophical library blog. Retrieved from http:// Stoffle, C. J., & Williams, K. (1995). The senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/ instructional program and responsibilities of 19/the-problem-with-threshold-concepts/ the teaching library. New Directions for #comment-1773. Higher Education, (90), 63–75. doi: 10.1002/he.36919959007. Williamson, J. G. (1971). Swarthmore college's ‘teaching library’ proposals. Swanson, T. (2004). A radical step: Drexel Library Quarterly, 7, 203–215. Implementing a critical information literacy model. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, (2), 259–273.

[ARTICLE] 224