Granting Collaboration: Information Literacy for Faculty LOEX 2010

1. Granting Collaboration: Information Literacy for FacultyLOEX 2010

2. Introduction: • In years past librarians noticed the decline in reference services and library instruction. • Faculty members noticed a decline in the quality of student work and an increase in the incidence of plagiarism. • In 2006, the library director along with a group of librarians began to plan a faculty information literacy institute to address these concerns.

3. Process: • Write a Title 3 grant to fund the project • The grant was planned to work with up to 40 faculty per year • Pay the faculty a $900.00 • Hire a consultant to work with the faculty members • Provide staff development sessions to enhance the librarians skills • Hire a person to work with the faculty members and plan future faculty institutes • Purchase reading materials for the participants to read to prepare them for the 2-day institute

4. Process Continued: • Identify the needs of the faculty • Solicit faculty participation • Achieve buy-in from university administration • Identify possible speakers for the faculty institute

5. Conducting: • Update on completed sessions: • To date there have been 5 institutes since January 2008 • There have been 72 participants and a total of 356 library instruction sessions held • Faculty members have stated that participating in this program and collaborating with librarians on their assignments have greatly improved the quality of student work • Faculty participants have come from a variety of departments.

6. Program Structure: • Began as a 2-day program, now it is typically 1 ½ days in length • Participants are given a pre-institute reading assignment on information literacy. The first two institutes focused on readings from the Collaborative Imperative. The remaining institutes’ participants were given articles to read that focused on information literacy and plagiarism. The readings were used to foster small and large group discussions

7. Program Structure: • The first institute participants were required to post comments to the readings on a blog. • This was assigned to increase the faculty members’ knowledge of web 2.0 technologies. • This was phased out in the other institutes because during evaluations and observations we found that it was more beneficial to focus on the various electronic resources available within the library and plagiarism and address web 2.0 technologies through individual requests.

8. Program Structure: • An extensive session on active learning and the librarians’ role in the creation and completion of successful class assignments is presented during each institute. • A librarian consultant is contracted to present a two hour session on information literacy, active learning, and the successful class assignment. • During the presentation, attendees are given the opportunity to storyboard an assignment at which time librarians work with the faculty members to show them where an information literacy component and library visit can be inserted.

9. Program Structure: • After the session on information literacy, faculty and librarians work together in small groups to learn about available resources and how to tweak their own assignment to incorporate an information literacy component.

10. Program Structure: • To receive the stipend faculty members must meet all of the program requirements: • Attend and actively participate in the institute • Schedule a consultation session with the subject specialist librarian to tweak an existing assignment to include information literacy experiences • Schedule a library instruction class and bring the students (do not send) and make sure that they are aware of their impending assignment • Require the students to schedule a consultation with the librarian

12. Lessons learned: • The plagiarism discussion is important • Faculty really do need to be shown how the library can fit into their class assignments • Once we show them what we can do they are more open and willing to collaborate with us for their students’ success • We (the librarians) need to learn how to anticipate. • We did not expect the overwhelming response and the dramatic increase in library instruction as a result of this program

13. Statistical overview: • 71 participants, 356 classes • Reference statistics have dramatically increased from 4284 in 2006 – 07 to 11889 in 2008-09 • Research consultations have more than doubled • Library instruction has increased from 189 in 2007 to 256 in 2008 and 317 in 2009. • Faculty consultations and contacts have increased from 1169 in 2007 to 2012 in 2008 and 2673 in 2009.

14. +19%

15. +34% +25% +42%

16. Evaluation: • To date faculty members have stated that student papers have improved the number of students who plagiarize their assignments have decreased among those faculty members that have participated in the O’K Scholars Institute.

17. The Future: • The QEP and the institute: • The O’K Scholars Institute has been embraced by the university administration • The faculty members that are on the QEP team are strongly recommended to participate in the program • Information literacy is now a component of the general education program

18. Visit the link below for more information on the O’K Fellows Program • http://wssu.libguides.com/okfellowssample