Abstract

It seems that using focus groups and surveys to improve services is a persistent theme of all the sessions I’ve attended this year and Patrick Labelle’s is no exception. This session explores the difficulties and challenges of international students at our institutions and what we can do to make their lives a bit easier through our instruction. A focus group of international students was the selected methodology.

The outline of the session includes definition, previous experiences, purpose & methodology, findings, study limitations, discussion & next steps.

Definition of international students: usually only a fairly small portion of the student body. Information research behaviour is a small but growing field of study of how one goes about finding information.

Audience question: what are some of our experiences & impressions of international students: they want to know the best information, language difficulties, important to build a personal relationship with them, they are eager to learn, reluctant to ask at first then will come repeatedly, cultural context in assignments is important, want to help themselves, very achievement oriented, want to know how to cite sources.

Purpose & methodology: Objectives to learn about past and current experiences with library and to improve instructional suport. Focus groups in March 2007, 2 groups, questions on library use and research process, and a short concluding survey. Explored 6 themes, from general to specific.

Theme 1: Past experiences: all had experience with open stack systems, usually with poor study spaces; use of lib was from research and leisure purposes; online resources were limited in prev exp and not available off campus; focus on print material and books.

Theme 2: Home vs. Concordia: CU has more study spaces, better hours, more computers; better online resources and better services such as ILL and reference.

Theme 3: Difficulties with Concordia: can’t really use book & video collection for leisure (magazines, novels, videos), LC organization not obvious at first; size of library is overwhelming; what are course reserves; too many options.

Theme 4: Searching for information: Few obvious differences here, mostly grads vs. ugrads. Ugrads very haphazard, trial and error, web is preferred starting point, only turn to library when the web hasn’t yielded anything, all familiar with google & wikipedia, only a few with google scholar, poor understanding of eval of web resources. Not familiar with citation styles, needed to learn, Asian students needed to learn about plagiarism. Grad students realized they needed more sophisticated strategies and to use different types of documents.

Theme 5: Learning to use the library: Main methods used by more than one student: teachers, independent, friends, workshops. Other methods: web site, signs, org of library, tours, handouts, asking questions, librarian. Wish they had known sooner: off campus access, lib has more than books, ILL, using a biblio to find more refs. These observations are probably similar to non-international students too.

Theme 6: Suggestions for improving instruction: presentations with departments, info in student handbook, more portals.

Limitations: Timing of focus groups, need to get more ugrads, language issues, need to have a moderator and a note taker, need to use multiple techniques and use broader analysis.

Observations: reconsider assumptions: students are computer savvy. Avoid segmentation: not as different from other students as we think. Address reliance on web as a source. Talk about plagiarism. Use ESL, education and multicultural studies literature. Differences in learning styles across cultures. More research needed.

Posted: Handout / Slides.

Posted by John Dupuis.

By Dominic Hakim Silvio (Dalhousie University)

Abstract

Another session on using focus groups and surveys to help libraries design their instructional programs. This one is aimed at finding out what grad students want from the library.

On the agenda today is an intro to the project, objectives, statement of problem, research instrument and findings. Taking as our beginning spot the ACRL IL standards, we need to use user studies for the backbone of our instruction, as a way of deepening our sessions and making them more relevant. The motivation was to evaluate the instruction to grad students to get their requirements for how the library can help them, to see what the obstacles are. The objectives were to show the results and to emphasize the successes of a user-centred approach, to reinforce the importance of the library, to get a feeling for the student’s perspective and to encourage a dialogue among profs and librarians.

The problem is that most IL is based on what librarians and faculty think are important, not necessarily meeting the needs of students. An assessment of user needs had not been done before. Note the dichotomy between searchers and finders. Grad students want to find the best stuff. The methodology was to do surveys and to do a focus group discussion on first year grad students and faculty.

The survey questions included: How often do you use OPAC; How often have you consulted a reference librarian. Some results: Opac 91%; Reference librarian: 75% sometimes, although it was obvious that they did not know what we do; Subject librarian: 50% never, 50% sometimes or seldom, interesting results mostly indicating that they do not know that subject librarians exist or what they do. Databases & online journals: 50% often, 12% never, indicated a strong preference for using google & finding things that way. ILL/Doc Delivery: 22% never, mostly don’t know what service can do for them.

The Focus group questions: How do you get library instruction, what services do you need, how do you feel about library instruction, is an in class session worth attending?

What’s next? Orientation for faculty & grad students and an advanced library research session. The basic session will include databases, reference & subject librarians and what the do, document delivery/ILL. The advanced session will have keyword brainstorming, systematic research process, subject specific resources & databases and refworks.

What are student’s reactions? Increased awareness of searching vs. finding, that grad students need to find the best; increased awareness of research process, increased confidence, better citation and more use of academic resources in papers.

Posted by John Dupuis.

Abstract

A project at the University of Western Ontario’s Taylor Library focusing on grad students, using focus groups to decide what workshops they should be running. They used focus groups with grad students and faculty as well as an online survey.

The reason for focusing on grad students grew out of the UWO strategic plan; previous efforts at helping grad students included orientations, some course-based instruction and some other instruction when requested by faculty members. The Taylor librarians themselves were quite interested in increasing support to grad students and decided to use the focus groups/surveys as a needs assessment to help them design the programming.

The purpose of the needs assessment was to discover if one set of workshops would meet the needs of students in all four faculties, also to discover what students need to know and what will encourage them to attend. The needs assessment process consisted of 1 faculty focus group, 3 for grad students and an online survey (8/33/274 participants). The areas explored included demographics of survey responders, what they already know about lib research, what are the challenges they face, which workshops would be most useful, how should workshops be delivered.

There was a good cross section of students that answered the survey from the 4 scitech faculties with a good mix of Canadian students and non-Canadian born students, with some variation by faculty. Medicine & Dentistry and Health Sciences had most Canadian and Science and Engineering the most non-Canadian.

What did they learn about library research? Most did not learn what they knew from a librarian but rather a faculty member or peer. They have learned some things about using online article databases, the opac, formatting citations and doing a literature review, the message is also that they are not learning what they need to learn because it’s falling through the cracks, no one thinks it’s their job to teach grad students about lib research.

What are some of the student’s challenges? Keyword search, too much information, where to search, online full text access issues, comprehensive searches, reliable info, materials not in collection, older materials, current awareness, time constraints. The different issues do vary by Faculty. Engineers, for example, one area is finding other types of material, such as patents. For Health and Med & Dent it’s where to search and for science it’s finding things in the library.

According to the grads, what will be the most useful workshops: Search strategies (selecting databases, identifying important research), Current awareness, refworks, and a general library intro. How should the workshops be delivered? Most said online but also in person and must be very relevant to student needs.

What assessment can’t tell you: how to plan and schedule the workshops, what students really mean by “online tutorial” and how to coordinate registration. Some of the workshops that were ultimately offered include: intro to library research, Basic searching skills (some discipline based), Advanced searching skills, Keeping current, Refworks, Pubmed & Scifinder. Over 100 students attended the sessions with summer sessions beginning soon. Assessment phase begins in fall.

Summary Document,
Workshops webpage.

Posted by John Dupuis.

A special thank you to Dr. Anabel Quan-Haase of the Faculty of Information and Media Studies, and Dr. Ronald Hansen of the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario for their support and co-supervision of the research project.

This is s summary of my presentation with a few observations from audience members – I will be posting th detailed slideshow and notes with the other presenters when we’re given more information on that. I decided to pare down the visuals and make the presentation more of a two-way discussion, which provided some very interesting input from the audience.

Here is the gist of the topic:

“First generation students” in the context of higher education studies generally refers to postsecondary students who are the first in their families to attend college or university.

The term used and definition given in the ERIC thesaurus is

First Generation College Students: Students who are the first in their families to attend an institution of higher education – more strictly refers to students whose parents have attained education at or below the high school level.

(If you thought that the term referred to students who were the “first generation” children of immigrants to a country, you are not alone; the phrase is not entirely indicative of educational status within a family, and I would have never thought to look for such a phrase when I began researching the topic 13 months ago.)

Demographics and Challenges:

Here I asked for audience input, and as expected, the responses reflected an inherent understanding of what characteristics (i.e. socio-economic) would correspond with (or be the outcome of) familial education.

• Came from an ethnic minority group
• Lower income, “working class” families
• Tradition of an inherited vocation in life (e.g. “We have always been a family of…”)
• For the student, there may be an underlying sense of pressure that the success of the entire family is riding on his or her academic accomplishments (Or, to paraphrase the idea, “All the family’s resources have been pooled into an uncertain bet.”

Literature reviewed in higher education studies note the following characteristics:

• Between 25 to 40 % of students (depending on the study and the institution type) are first-generation; on average they represent about 1/3rd of the entire postsecondary population
• Generally come from lower income families
• Many are older that th average age of 18-23 for undergraduates
• Obligations, such as work and/or a family, lead to part-time enrollment in a programme
• Students are more likely to commute to the school rather than live in residence or nearby
• More likely to belong to a visible minority
• More likely to be female
• More likely to have experienced racial or gender discrimination
• May also come from a home where English is the second language

(References: Terenzini et al., 1996; Grayson, 1997; Tyckoson, 2000; Choy, 2001).

The Concern:

First generation students face a disproportionately high risk for attrition in a higher education institution than peers whose parents have obtained postsecondary accreditation. Even when factors such as income and resources are eliminated, the risk remains (and many students actually do terminate their education prematurely)

One study found that “… the risk for attrition in the first year among first-generation students [is] 71% higher than that of students with two college [i.e. university]-educated parents.” (Ishitani, 2003, p. 433)

Making Gains:

Several studies (e.g. Terenzini et. al., 1996; Grayson, 1997; Pike & Kuh, 2005) noted that students who used the academic library on a regular basis made more gains in their course of study than students who did not use the library. One of the things I noticed, however, was that since the majority of the literature came from studies in Education, the researchers’ descriptions of library usage/experiences used in surveying the students reflected a more “traditional” model of the library – one with the emphasis on physical documents (i.e. books, journals, etc.) and the facility itself (e.g. in Pike & Kuh, 2005, they defined one of the “library experiences” as using the library as a quiet place to read or study materials one brought along).

One essay, which also served as the basis for my study, came from Library and Information science:

Library service for the first-generation college student (in Jacobson & Williams, 2000) is by David O. Tyckoson, Head of Public Services at the Henry Madden Library, University of California, Fresno. Combining his experience in the library setting with some of the literature from education, he detailed seven prescriptive measures that academic libraries could take to make their services meet the various needs of first-generation students:

• Identify first-generation students
• Schedule instruction sessions during evening and weekend hours [for students working during the day]
• Design assignments that do not discriminate [i.e. require students to be on site to complete]
• Provide a “family friendly environment” [in his case, children were allowed into the instruction sessions as long as they were not disruptive; his library also had many children's books used by the Faculty of Education, but they could also be signed out by parent-students]
• Offer personalised research services
• Establish peer mentoring programmes
• Become a part of the first-year experience

Present Study in Brief:

Since the literature reviewed for the study focussed on first-generation students themselves, I shifted perspective to gain some insight from the academic librarians themselves, as they work one-on-one with students across a diverse spectrum. This was an exploratory study and involved interviewing 5 participants who worked directly with students in a reference/instructional capacity for at least one (cumulative) hour a week.

Note: The professional master’s degree was not a requisite to take part, and one participant was a library technician working in a reference/instructional capacity to a discipline-specific library.

Participants (4 Subject Librarians & 1 Technician) were interviewed using the same 16 open-ended questions on three themes:

• Librarianship (e.g. number of years in the academic setting)
• Educational Background (participant’s and family)
• First Generation Familiarity (e.g. Demographics, Challenges, Presence in the School)

Overview of Findings:

• All participants had worked in another setting prior to the academic library
• At the time of the interviews (November, 2006), time working in the academic library ranged from 7 months to 24.5 years
• University education ranged from 3 years + a postgraduate diploma to a PhD (not in Library Science)
• The 4 subject librarians all had the professional master’s degree
• By coincidence, all 4 also had at least one parent who worked professionally in education
• The library technician had been a first generation student
• One librarian had a parent obtain her university education off-campus, which provided the generational experience in the academic context, but not the social-culture experience of the campus environment
• The term “first generation student” (as expected) could be interpreted in one of two ways, but all participants recognised and understood the concept of being the first in one’s family to attend postsecondary school
• Speculated demographic characteristics and challenges matched what previous (and generally quantitative) studies stated about first generation students
• Emphasis on information literacy instruction, especially with regards to electronic resources (e.g. databases, search engines, etc.) recurred as theme in all responses regarding services offered by Western Libraries
• The subject librarians, as with the library infrastructure itself, were proactively (and creatively) involved making themselves noticed on campus, and reaching out to students in their place of study (e.g. Instructional sessions held right in first-year residence buildings; working with recent medical graduates in residency at the local hospital)
• In addition to technology in the library, space was another underlying them in regards to services (harkening back to Tyckoson); there are six libraries within the main campus system, plus several affiliates and a discipline-specific library
• Specific types of services vary even amongst the six main libraries (e.g. Instant Messaging reference is offered in the Science/Medical library, but not by the Humanities/Social Science one)
• In the discipline-specific library, there is a Local Area Network (LAN) that allows access to required databases, which means that in some instances students physically have to be on site to complete certain assignments
• Western is also identified as a “residence university” (versus a “commuter university”, such as York, as identified in Grayson, 1997), which means students services have been aligned to targeting first-year students that are on the campus
• Overall, there are many initiatives and services offered by Western Libraries that can be beneficial to first generation students in place of an actual targeted programme (at the present); making those services known is the ongoing concern

When a First Generation Student Succeeds:

In conclusion, whatever the means to improve chances of a first generation student succeeding, the experiential benefits go beyond the time spent in school. The greatest influences on a child’s education endeavours, especially in attending postsecondary school, are the parents’ [or guardians] level of education obtained and parents attitudes towards higher education (Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Planning Human Resources and Development Canada, 2004). This was reflected in the study by a participant who noted that her experiences on campus could now be passed along to her children, such that they would know what to expect when they entered university.

For Thought:

A couple points were raised by the audience at the workshop, and I would certainly like to read your suggestions, regarding these:

• How do you identify first generation students in a way that does not marginalize them?
• Related to this, one of the librarians in the audience noted that where his school is located, CLASS is a bigger issue than RACE. How do you deal with class perception in a campus culture? How can support be provided for students in a way that does not reinforce class association (or perception of it) by types of academic/assimilation challenges?
• Someone also noted that Statistics Canada refers to “generational mobility”; any more insight on that?

Note: I have attached the complete bibliography used in the original guided research project on which the workshop was based.

I will be posting the handouts with the other published materials, but if you are interested in a copy beforehand, please email me at the address on the contact list. Full Bibliography Used in the Original Study

Abstract

Yet more subtitle, as Burkholder said, so as not to sound too harsh: “or, Building on Alternate Frameworks for Conceptual Change.”

A good session revolving around the behaviors that students have that we think are somewhat less than optimal and how we might organize ourselves to nudge them into a better practise using our instruction.

From the audience, some of those less-than-optimal behaviors: keyword vs controlled vocab, start with Google & end with Wikipedia, only want full text, only look at first screen of results, linear process, first hit reliance, wait until the last minute, only use recent articles, poor evaluation or results.

The background at York College is that librarians and other faculty/sessionals teach all students a 2 credit course on IL. Mostly students think this is a useless, computer skills course that’s easy and skippable. The challenge is to change those ideas.

So, an alternative framework: construtivism/active learning. Students have frameworks/ideas about how the world works that do not reflect the way it really works, the challenge is to move their framework close to the world.

To get them to accept this alternative framework:

• Any new idea has to fit into an existing framework at least a little
• The existing framework is a standard by which any new framework is judged
• Our job is to make them aware of the difference between the way they think the world works and the way it really does.

Internal image: all college kids have used the web; kids now 12-17, most use on a daily basis; it’s an integral part of their lives. The influence of broadband can also not be ignored: can ge more out of the web experience and learn more things. Some of the sources of student preconceptions: Google — it works reasonably well even with a poor search strategy, will always get some hits.

Conceptual change, learning that actively involves students in changes to an existing preconception, this creates an internal conflict that can result in some acceptance of an alternative framework and make it easier to change. Actively involve students in method to change their preconceptions. They think “Google goes to 11″ and we need to confront their perception that there is no better way. A deep understanding of the information environment with be attained when they have a deep foundation of fact, skill and tool knowledge; understand how these facts are placed within an IL framework and organize knowledge to facilitate its transfer from one task to another.

Conditions for conceptual change: preconceptions must produce dissatisfaction; new concept must be intelligable, plausible and fruitful. Dissatisfaction means that the student lose faith that the preconception solves all their problems and be motivated to change. Plausible means that students must understand the new model, analogies and metaphors, it’s best to use real-world examples and be wary of jargon; Plausible means that the new model must appear to solve problems/questions that the old one cannot and be consistent with other concepts/knowledge/experience. Fruitful means that the new model must produce results that can be applied to other areas.

Implications for our teaching strategies & practice:

• confrotn beliefs and reveal preconceptions
• discuss and evaluate preconceptions
• create cognitive conflict
• encourage and guide conceptual restructuring
• take your time, even if it means covering less
• figure out what is important
• analyse the library’s role in overall information environment and in the research process

Posted by John Dupuis.

In this session Denyse Rodrigues discussed her experiences with using Second Life (3D virtual world) as an educational tool.  She began the session by entering Second Life and showing the delegates what the Second Life environment entailed.  Most delegates were familiar with the virtual gaming environment but had never entered themselves.  Denyse explained the various features of Second Life such as creating an avatar, teleporting, instant messaging, and chatting. 

Based on gaming research by Gee (2004) and Peng (2004) and her own interest in exploring the Second Life environment Denyse decided to collaborate with a faculty member, DeNel Rehberg Sedo, in the creation of a course held in this environment.  The course was a fourth year course in Employee Relations and the reasons for using Second Life were clearly outlined in the course syllabus.  Several of the course’s main objectives were to:

A)  articulate a heightened awareness of the uses of the virtual environment for effective internal communication;  

B) demonstrate the skills necessary to analyse and critique value propositions for professional communication in an online environment;

C) demonstrate mastery of researching in, and writing for, an online environment; and

D) demonstrate a comfort with basic ‘in-world’ skills in Second Life. 

Denyse and DeNel provided an introductory class on Second Life in which they outlined that the behaviour of the student avatars needed to match traditional class behaviour.  They had very few intrusions or “griefing” as they met on information island in what were considered “safe areas”.  The class met a total of six times in the online environment.  The first two classes were held in a computer lab so that Denyse and the professor could provide students with assistance.  For the other four classes students had the option of using the computer lab or accessing Second Life remotely.  One of the difficulties with holding the class in the computer lab was that it required Second Life to be downloaded every class and students felt that it was artificial as they were communicating online but were in a shared physical space.

Denyse had expected that most students would be web savvy and comfortable in the online gaming environment.  However, most of the students had never entered Second Life and half were uncomfortable with the gaming nature of the environment and the other half were intrigued by the nature of the sessions.  The students were more engaged in the online environment, however, because there was no audio option in Second Life the class interactions were text heavy and some students found the conversations were too fast-paced. 

Denyse concluded the session with a list of issues to be considered when embarking on a Second Life collaborative project with faculty.  She explained that the project was both stressful and exciting.  Denyse experienced a steep learning curve as she needed to learn how to control her avatar, record logs, and work with scripts and objects.  She found resources and support from Lori Bell (SL Lorelei Junot) as well as the McMaster Second Life librarian Krista Godrey (SL Danu Dhalstrom). 

At the end of the session several of the delegates asked Denyse how much the course cost.  She explained that she was able to complete the six sessions in Second Life for less than a dollar Canadian.  Denyse clarified that to buy land or an island on Second Life was very costly.  One of the delegates suggested that librarians should unite and ask the creators of Second Life to donate an island for libraries.

Denyse’s session was extremely informative and I know that many of the delegates that I spoke with after the session were excited to go home and explore Second Life themselves.  I encourage others who were at the session to provide their impressions and to fill in what I missed.

Posted by:  Sarah Coysh (University of Toronto/York University)    
 

Abstract

This was an interesting presentation about an IL evaluation project at the University of Calgary. They wanted to see what bibliographic search engines (free or fee) that students were actually using by their 3rd or 4th year. The project had some interesting and even surprising results

The situation is one where there is long-standing integration of IL skills training in the biological sciences curriculum, including ongoing assessment. The goals of the the project was to promote student reflection on research skills and the changes in habits over time but mostly to see if IL instructional content was aligned with student needs. Hopefully the info could be use to market further IL to faculty. The subjects were 25 3rd & 4th year bio students, most with at least one IL session in the past. The survey tool used was the FAST tool: Free Assessment Summary Tool (http://www.getfast.ca). The tool anonymously summarized a 16 question survey of student impressions at the end of an IL session.

Top resources used by students, in order with percentages: pubmed (84%), bioabs (80%), library catalogue (76%), google/scholar (72%), web of science (20%) and patent search (8%). Some resources tended to have different uses with students: bioabs for exploring a topic, google for choosing a topic, pubmed for exploring a topic and finding specific info.

Some impressions from students:

• On which resource to use first: Pubmed popular but Bioabs and Google Scholar coming up
• What source is the most useful: Pubmed is most mentioned
• How has research changed during studies: library sessions mentioned, as well as using a greater variety of search tools
• What caused the change: instruction & tutorials as well as profs & TAs
• What do you wish you’d known earlier: some details on how to use Pubmed
• How did you learn about the various resources: mostly mentioned library sessions
• Do you plan to pursue an advanced degree: 14 yes, 10 no

Unanticipated results: lots of positive responses regarding IL, high use of Pubmed, not much Google Scholar use, students recognize the value of research skills in finding a job.

Conclusions: students use a variety of strategies, reinforcement of skills throughout program works, students use different tools for different purposes, survey benefited students and librarian.

Future directions: incorporate Pubmed earlier, split Google & Google Scholar next survey, add Scopus next time, ask follow up question later in term.

Downloads: ppt, survey questions, results, related readings, IL web page.

Posted by John Dupuis.

Abstract

An interesting session in which Gullikson describes a survey she’s done to determine how important faculty members rank the various ACRL IL outcomes. She also talks about the disciplinary differences in the rankings and the recent emergence of discipline-based standards.

The survey questions, for each of the 87 outcomes:

• How important is it for your students to have this skill (1-5)
• At what level do you expect your students to have this skill (high school … post grad)

Gullikson did this survey in winter 2004 at Mt Allison University, where she received a 21% return rate. In winter 2005 she did the survey for another bunch of universities in the Atlantic Canada region, splitting the survey into 2. This iteration got a 17% return rate. The demographics were femalerespondents a little higher, also a good variety of teaching experience. Split between Arts/Sci/ SocSci/Professional, with professional not giving enough responses for a breakdown. Overall, the data was very encouraging. Faculty are interested in their students being more information literate.

The number 1 ranked item was the “do not plagiarise” standard, all 5 ACRL standards groups were represented in the overall ranked top 10, of the top 30 only 2 from standard 2, ie. traditional library skills, 3 of top 10 are plagiarism or citation oriented. The lowest is netiquette, and all 5 standards are represented in the bottom 10, with standard 4 the most represented. Fewer differences across disciplines in the bottom group. In terms of the academic level profs expect their students to pick up the skills, most expected in 1st year indicating that our traditional library expectation that it’s best to get them early, but does not mesh with idea that IL needs to be integrated in the curriculum and delivered gradually. The top librarian responsible items are seen as important. The opportunity for curriculum integration are in those standards where profs indicated that they would expect students to get them in 2nd or 3rd year.

Some discipline-specific information: the highest importance for arts: reads texts & selects main ideas; selects info that provides evidence; communicates clearly, understands plagiarism. Highest for science: plagiarism; restates textual information & selects data accurately; records citation information. Social sci: plagiarism the most importance. We need toidentify what’s important t a particular discipline and act accordingly when we market IL to profs.

The trend towards discipline-specific standards. Gullikson noted that of the new standards many dropped old outcomes, combined them, added new ones. Science/Engineering/Tech: 76 included, 11 excluded, 29 added, some combined for a total of 104. Anthropology/Sociology: 63 included, 24 excluded, 8 new for 48 total. Literature in English: 18 included, 69 excluded, 5 new fro 29 total. There were lots of English-specific outcomes, such as peer review, popular vs. scholarly, texts exist in various editions. Of the three, the Scitech one had the most standards that made it from the original list to the discipline standard. The question is, should we continue to look at adding more discipline-specific standards. Many thought that discipline-specific standards give credibility to our efforts when trying to get faculty on board.

Note that there is an article version of this presentation, with many of the graphs and stats from the presentation:

Gullikson, Shelley. “Faculty perceptions of ACRL’s information literacy competency standards for higher education.” Journal of Academic Librarianship. 32 (Nov 2006): 583-592.

Posted by John Dupuis.

 Update 2007.05.23: corrected institution name per comment.

The goal was to find a name that reflects our current environment in which we talk about the broad goal of information literacy rather than the narrower concept of library instruction.

WILU 2007 delegates were invited to submit entries for a new conference name, which reflected the conference goals and mission, while still using the same WILU acronym. Submissions were accepted by e-mail in advance of the conference or directly at the conference itself. Collaborative and individual entries were welcome.

A judging panel, comprising representation from the last two WILU hosts (Acadia University and the University of Guelph), the present host (York University) and next year’s host (UBC Okanagan) reviewed the substantial number of entries received.

While the panel was inspired by the creativity and ideas submitted by delegates, they soon realized that delegates had been assigned an impossible task. Using the existing acronym it proved too challenging to come up with an alternative viable conference name, which reflected the conference goals in a superior way to the current acronym. The judges favourites read more like conference tag lines or slogans, and it was felt that they didn’t sound enough like a conference name. So the judging panel decided that they couldn’t endorse any of the names selected, and informed delegates of the decision not to hold a vote on entries received at the closing plenary session.

The upside was that the judges and delegates alike were given many a chuckle by the humourous entries suggested. Here are some of them for you to enjoy:

• Workers of Information Literacy – Unite!
• Windsor is, like, Uber!
• Wanton Inebriated Librarians Undress
• We’re Information Literate, Understand?
• Wild Information Literacy Urges
• Workshop on Libido Utilization

The judging panel would like to recommend that in future years the potential for a new name and acronym might be explored, though they also acknowledge the widespread recognition the current conference acronym has.

- Sophie Bury