Standards and Frames: Can They Get Along?

A group of academic librarians in New Jersey have put out this Open Letter Regarding the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The letter essentially states that, while the Framework is good, we should not completely discard the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards. (The letter also points out some problems with the parallel structure of the "Frames," which is a separate thing.)

I'll admit, even though I'm an Instructional Services Librarian, and I am passionate about information literacy, and I have read through at least two iterations of the Framework for Information Literacy, and I think the Framework is a great effort that gets at the more conceptual, overarching meaning of information literacy, I haven't felt overly compelled to express strong opinions about the Framework either way. Partly this is because I am extremely busy as a community college librarian who wears many hats; but I also tend to be a "let-the-cards-fall-as-they-may" kind of person. Sometimes. When the stakes aren't extremely high.

And I guess I feel like I've got a firm enough grasp of info lit and learning outcomes and assessment and all that jazz that I don't believe that any particular document or iteration of that document is going to truly change what we are about as librarians, or what information literacy is. Because information literacy is something that exists in and of itself, and that evolves along with society and culture -- we librarians are just attempting to lasso this set of skills and concepts, give them neat categories and labels, and figure out how to teach and assess those skills and concepts. The Framework gives librarians an opportunity to think more broadly about these concepts and how they extend across a student's lifetime, and to use those ideas to help our practices to evolve -- just as all things, including information literacy itself, evolve. But perhaps I am getting too existential...

Bottom line: we needed this Framework, this heady and theoretical but imperfect document that takes information literacy to a new level of intellectualism and, I think, elevates it as an academic field. At the same time, I think these New Jersey librarians make some valid points; I signed their open letter in agreement. There are good reasons to keep, but update, the Standards -- not least of which is, they are still true (with perhaps some updating needed). Just because we now have the Framework doesn't mean that students don't still need to learn to recognize their information needs and access, evaluate, and use information ethically and legally. They very much do! And, as mentioned in the Open Letter, these Standards have now been infused in many colleges' and universities' general education goals, and other assessment guidelines.

So, "getting rid" of the Standards not only doesn't really make much sense -- it's kind of impossible. Sure, you could physically take down those pages on ACRL's website, and consider any old evidence of the preexisting Standards to be null and void -- but that doesn't mean they won't rise again, like the Phoenix from the ashes, as we attempt to develop concrete student learning outcomes for each "Frame"... At the same time, when writing SLOs, it's important to think about the broader, overarching understandings that we are trying to get at in our instruction, for those are the things that students will take with them when they leave us. The Framework gives us "labels" for those understandings, while also keeping us from falling into our old, compartmentalized, overly-detailed librarian ways when it comes to instruction.

The Framework and Standards: they can go hand-in-hand. Let's figure out how to make them talk together.

I love the ideas espoused in this article from George Mason University, The Learning Library in Context: Community, Integration, and Influence. While the college or university library is often described as the "heart of campus," the article describes how the arteries and veins of this heart can intertwine themselves with the entire campus and the academic curriculum.  The library "pumps blood" into the efforts to instill in students the critical thinking and lifelong learning skills that colleges and universities aim to help students develop.

Some pertinent quotes (emphases mine):

"Rather than an external "add on" to the educational experience, the library, as information resource and gateway, is a primary catalyst for cognitive, behavioral, and affective changes in students -- as they interact with information resources as directed by faculty, as they complete assignments and study with peers, [...] seeking connections and making meaning in more self-directed ways.  The learning library, rather than a repository of materials or a study hall, is therefore an agency of change in students' lives" (124).

"In the Vygotskian sense, the learning library is the constructivist laboratory for students to make their own meanings, but only by moving through a series of 'zones of proximal development' with research strategies and information sources and with the coaching and guidance of more knowledgeable others"(124).


"Because of the continually changing nature of information access[...] students need a conceptual foundation for research. This approach fosters the underlying processes, mainly critical thinking and problem solving, that allow them to adapt to new situations" (129).

College Handouts Don't Make the Grade

I can't say enough about the reports coming out of Project Information Literacy.  Report #3, How Handouts for Research Assignments Guide Today's College Students, gives a detailed analysis of the information conveyed to students in research assignment handouts, compared to the needs of college students during their research processes (as determined in a prior study).  It outlines how often specific resources are mentioned, including help from librarians.  Very eye-opening and great fodder for developing more collaboration between librarians and faculty in designing research assignment descriptions.

"Knowledge Building"

And here it is: higher education finally getting on the bandwagon and engaging in constructivist learning techniques (re-packaged, apparently, with the new label "knowledge building").  This article, I'm proud to say, comes from my own alma mater, Smith College: "What Do You Know? And How Well Do You Think?"

I will let the article speak for itself, but I'm glad to see that innovative instructional design involving active, constructive ("knowledge-building") learning is taking place at the college level.

College Scorecard?

The White House is trying to create a "scorecard" to help families determine the "affordability and value" of prospective colleges. As of now, the scorecard looks very limiting and misleading, in my opinion: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/scorecard

Fortunately, they are looking for feedback.  I understand that the types of statistics they are using for this scorecard are easy to gather, and seemingly can create a picture of a college's affordability and value; however, suggesting that each individual student's experience will be the same or even close to the same as the "average" this data creates is very misleading.  A student who attends a college with a high percentage of at-risk or lower-achieving students could get an excellent education there if that college places a high value on teaching and learning effectiveness.  The statistics at that college might look bleak, but a student with a lot of potential could take advantage of the high student-faculty ratio, the tutoring services, and leadership opportunities there, for example, to be very successful.


I appreciate the Government's efforts and intentions, but I fear that another shallow tool (shallower, in my opinion, than the U.S. News and World Report rankings that come out each year) will end up leading to "punishing" colleges that accept at-risk and low-income students, because they are worried about "raising their score" on this scorecard to get more applicants. There are so many factors that go into college value, and they vary greatly depending on the goals and purpose of the individual student attending.  In general, though, I believe that looking at measures of the effectiveness of teaching and learning that takes place at a college -- particularly in the areas of critical thinking and information literacy -- can be a good measure of the college's value, no matter what the financial data might say.

Of course, this data is harder to capture. But just because data can be easily obtained does not mean that it should be used. It's like the expression, "You get what you pay for."  Simplistic data leads to simplistic behaviors. Robust, qualitative data leads to robust, high-quality results -- but it is more complicated to gather and compile. Yet colleges and universities have been compiling this data for years, and in the last five years have been under a lot of pressure by accrediting agencies to compile even more.  The data is there -- now it needs to be read and used accordingly to place real value on a college education.