Academic Consulting Services (ACS) Information Literacy Goal

Goal Statement (The What?)

Document and assess ACS’s current student information literacy (IL) efforts and methods and identify areas (if any) needing improvement or alternatives in order to meet or exceed NEASC accreditation standards (especially standard 7: Library and other information resources and standard 4.6) and plan for future initiatives or IL curricular integration.

Deliverable (How?)

Examine instruction statistics for bibliographic (library) and tech instruction for classes.  Examine curricular materials used for instruction (online guides, handouts, tutorials, instructional outlines).  Survey students and faculty to determine effectiveness of instruction.  Use a survey or template to get a summary from each instructor (librarians, educational technologists, and FYSE coordinator) of instructional efforts by department/program, i.e. identification of core courses where instruction is targeted as well as additional courses/instructors that tend to request instruction, as well as basic concepts that are taught. Identify areas where they may be gaps. Examine 1999 Midd NEASC review to measure current practice versus past practice and to make sure minor weaknesses haven’t become major ones. Also review 2008 interim report (substantive change?). Request accreditation reports from similar Oberlin group schools who have recently successfully completed accreditation (so we know what success looks like – ex. Amherst re-accredited Nov. 2008).    

Outcome (Why?)

Gain an understanding of the effectiveness and reach of our instruction program.  Identification of instructional objectives and expected student outcomes (similar to ACRL standards but less detailed).  Identification of department-specific needs and expectations. Identification of timeline (First year to Senior year) for introduction of skills and achievement of student success. Identification of areas of weakness (or potential accreditation failure) and target increased/improved instructional effort in these areas, if needed. The latter may require college administrative and faculty support and allocation of staff resources.

Delivery (When?)

To be accomplished by Dec. 2010 with weaknesses (if any) addressed by January 2011 in time for NEASC review (self study due Jan. 2011).  Establish time line for each stage and check progress midway through each step. [dates moved up by 6 months after feedback from Carol P.).

Resources (Who & What?)

Small team (2-4 people) to compile materials, design and implement surveys, and contribute to final report.  All members of ACS will be needed to contribute summaries of efforts/achievements in their areas.  [feedback from LIS meeting:  need to work with or be a part of new Training and Education Team and Accreditation team so don’t duplicate effort.  Midd assessment involves all programs including Breadloaf, Monterey, and Schools Abroad, so our assessment needs to be coordinated or included with theirs].

Viability (Is this achievable?)

Achievable if prioritized and new initiatives are put on hold.

What are the barriers (competing demands for our time, possible reluctance by students/faculty to provide input) & enablers? (administrative support)

Decide– Go – no choice.  Midd needs to pass accreditation and assessing and mapping our instructional program will also help with planning for senior work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *