Mind the gap! Embedding IL framework principles across a complex institution #LILAC23

Sheila here, liveblogging a presentation by Elizabeth Tilley (the presenter), Paul Cooke, Laura Jeffrey and Clare Trowell (Cambridge University, UK). She started by giving some context about Cambridge University, in particular that there aree 31 colleges, and teaching and student experience focuses on a student's college. There are a lot of libraries: subject libraries, college libraries and the main university library. This means there is a big variation of spaces and many library staff (450).  

The librarians have colbaoratively developed the Cambridge Information Literacy Framework (ILF) https://camiln.wordpress.com/information-literacy-framework/ which has already been revised 2 or 3 times. It was created in 2016, and the question was raised - how much is it being used? This was partly stimulated by the creation of the the Library Study Skills Catalogue (LSSC), which includes entries for library sessions (the first time they've brought together things going on across the university). Another stimulus was Hicks & Lloyd (2022) (reference below) which categorises learning outcomes as being about "mapping" or "applying". 

The research question was "How far does the IL Framework inform the practice of teaching at Cambridge?". Tilley used Critical Discourse Analysis using ILF and LSSC texts using nVivo text analysis software. The outcomes were also categorised using Hicks & Lloyds - plus there was some additional work e.g. triangulating with library staff.

The first photo shows what kinds of learning outcomes emerged from the learning outcomes given for actual training etc. (entries in the LSSC). There were some learning outcomes that didn't have a good match with the ILF - sometimes because they may be peripherally related to IL, or in some cases it is possible the ILF is not inclusive enough.

There was a strong positive correlation (between the language in the ILF and the outcomes named in training they are offering)with (1) Use/understand/learn and (2) search/find/discover. There was a stronger negative correlation with (1) create/develop/process (2) criticality (3) reflect/assess. Comparingwith the Hicks & Lloyd categories - neither outcomes nor the ILF focus on compliance, authority or reflection, and a larger percentage of learning outcomes relate to mapping dimensions.

Observations included: there is a strong focus on search; there is language used in Leraning Outcomes (for actual teaching) that isn't in the ILF; there are 2 different vocabularies - controlled vocabulary (in the ILF or Hicks & Lloyd) and the local social/culturally created language. Coming out of this there is an issue of whether the language used to describe training matches well with students' or academics' language. There are follow up questions and actions - such as usability work on the LSSC language and examination of potential omissions.

Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2022). Reaching into the basket of doom: Learning outcomes, discourse and information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211067216