Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Library Instruction and IL in the Writing Program

Overview

Development of Information Literacy in the Writing Program

Librarians collaborate with writing faculty on embedding and supporting information literacy in all writing courses at Chemeketa. In all courses at all levels, Librarians encourage students to develop metacognitive awareness by prompting them to reflect on their Information Literacy knowledge practices and dispositions throughout the composition process.  

  • Writing courses address targeted foundational skills, including information literacy, for students across offerings in General Education Transfer, Career and Technical Education, and Academic Transition
    • Librarians participate in each General Education Transfer writing course's collaborative workgroup dedicated to maintaining outcomes, updated curriculum, assessment, instructional support, and learning materials
    • Library instruction for CTE classes is tailored to meet the needs of the class and technical fields of interest
    • Librarians work closely with developmental education faculty on introducing information literacy conceptual frameworks and research tools within appropriate class scope
  • Librarians interact frequently with full, part-time, and adjunct writing instructors locally, and participate actively in statewide articulation groups such as the Information Literacy Advisory Group of Oregon and the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee. 

Assessment of Information Literacy in the Writing Sequence

Information Literacy Assessment in Composition Courses

Assessment of Information Literacy in composition courses at Chemeketa is collaborative and part of an ongoing and recursive process. 

Assessment Goals and Process

The goal of IL assessment is continuous improvement and planning around evidence in support of student learning. In the assessment process we: 

  1. Gather input and data 
  2. Review and discuss data and findings to identify meaningful evidence on which to act 
  3. Agree on actions / program-level changes to positively impact student learning
  4. Track and discuss the results of actions taken 

Library Faculty and Writing Faculty Collaboration

Librarians participate in ongoing workgroups with the writing program in which we discuss data and findings around the common assignment which has a strong focus on IL. As part of a collaborative process, we revise the common assignment, instructional techniques, assessment rubrics, and data collection mechanisms in light of emerging evidence about what works for students and where students struggle. We look at assessment as an opportunity to close equity gaps, a chance to answer questions about our students' learning, and an opportunity to turn concerted attention to specific areas in order to impact positive change. 

Since embedding IL in the writing sequence, we have learned from successful and less successful data gathering mechanisms and built on those experiences to inform program shifts. Our most meaningful assessment work has been with group norming activities where librarians join writing faculty to analyze randomized, anonymous samples of student work and come to shared understandings about the content, scope, and leveling of research expectation and use of sources in the writing courses.

Norming has been used effectively as a way of developing a community of practice and helps give us information about where students experience confusion, why confusion exists, and how we can improve support in those areas. Norming that engages part-time and CCN instructors when possible has been a productive way to extend the breadth and depth of expertise in our professional learning community around information literacy in the writing sequence.  

Development of Information Literacy and Assessment in WR 121

  • (2020-2021) Addition of a Writing Program Coordinator and expectation of holistic changes to program level assessment for the writing sequence and IL.  The program is exploring the possibility of requiring student portfolios that include a collection of student work artifacts. While the most useful insights have come from norming work, it is resource intensive and it has been difficult to get a solid answer about how many papers or artifacts need to be reviewed in order to constitute a statistically valid sample for reporting purposes. This has implications for collecting and assessing portfolio artifacts. 
  • (2016-2020) Shift from Annotated Bibliography (AB) as a recommended assignment to AB as a required common assignment, development and norming of assessment rubric, revisions of AB common assignment based on norming and faculty input, creation of online end-of-term AB data reporting mechanism, revision of AB rubric and reporting mechanism based on data and input from faculty. Participated on Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee to integrate ACRL Framework for Information Literacy into revised OWEAC outcomes for writing sequence. Adopted Revised OWEAC outcomes, reviewed AB assignment and assessments to align with revised OWEAC outcomes, developed supports for multimodal composition requirement, began work on Metacognitive Information Literacy Assessment instrument. Did outreach to all groups around the revised outcomes. Continued collecting data on AB required assignment. Revised Annotated Bib and reporting mechanism.
  • (2011-2015) Continued integration of IL into writing sequence and specifically WR 121, librarians participate in writing course assessment and revision workgroups, development of recommended common annotated bib assignment (IL integration focus on WR 121 as gateway class with research component required for all students), librarians participating in group norming sessions of common assignments with on-campus faculty as well as with CCN faculty [note 2015 Writing Unit Plan lists 80% pass rate on IL instruction instrument and written exam]
  • (2013-2014) A Chemeketa librarian represented ILAGO on Oregon’s Community College Workforce Development Developmental Education Redesign Workgroup Group. The workgroup recognized the library as an essential service and vital part of a wrap-around student support network. The workgroup recognized that development of IL is critical to the academic preparation and persistence of all college students. 

  • (2008 - 2011) Revision of Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer degree, embedding of IL into the foundational writing sequence (see HECC Oregon Community College and Workforce Development, Appendix E - Outcomes and Criteria for  shift of writing classes from three to four-credits, elimination of WR 123, outreach and support around new required research outcome and required use of sources in WR 121.
  • (2006 - 2007) A group of librarians, writing instructors, and information technologists from two- and four-year colleges and universities in Oregon convened to discuss how to include Information Literacy (IL) in revisions to the Associate of Arts / Oregon Transfer (AA/OT) degree. Representatives expressed concern that students transferring from a two-year to a four-year environment were less prepared to be successful than students native to the four-year schools. In response to this input, the group drafted and agreed on eight IL proficiencies students need to develop in the first two undergraduate years in order to be successful in upper division coursework. There was unanimous agreement that IL is a metaliteracy that needs to be taught across the curriculum with opportunities for repeated practice, rather than being embedded as discreet skills in one class or discipline.