The evidence-based practice track ran most closely to a traditional class. There were 6 participants including one K-12 librarian who specifically reached out ensuring she could participate. Participants in this track desired to have discussions on many different topics, but also wanted a facilitator to provide the evidence (in the form of peer-reviewed articles) that would be the basis of discussion. The moderator for the track moderated each module and participants took the role of student. Participants were encouraged to bring in additional sources and to make theory-to-practice connections during each module. Here are the sources that served as the basis for each module:

Module 1: Foundations

The first module, foundations, built foundational knowledge required to understand the scholarly conversation around information literacy. This module contained there was one reading that everyone had to do, and then a list from which people participants could choose. Participants also had the option to venture beyond this list of potential readings and choose something that was more relevant to their personal interests.

Everyone reads:

Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (2015). Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning and teaching (2nd. ed.). SAGE. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/902811165

• This excerpt really helps to see connections between literacy and information literacy. There are three separate excerpts (pp. 10-11, p. 45 & p. 79).

Individual Choice:

Rath, L. (2024). Practice theory in information literacy. In M. Johnson (Ed.). Training library instructors, volume 1: A guide for LIS faculty and graduate programs (pp. 3-13). Association of College and Research Libraries. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/1456752479

• This is a piece that the author has published about the nature of practice theory. It might be a good primer to understanding practice theory, a tenent of the Framework.

Limberg, L., Sundin, O., & Talja, S. (2012). Three theoretical perspectives on information literacy. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science, 11(2), Article 2. https://humanit.hb.se/article/view/69

• This can help learners understand the different ways IL is theorized. The different colored highlights don’t necessarily mean anything.

Lloyd, A. (2010). Framing information literacy as information practice: Site ontology and practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011023643

• This paper is the precursor for information literacy landscapes.

Lloyd, A. (2010). Information literacy landscapes: Information literacy in education, workplace
and everyday contexts. Chandos. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/849655421

• One chapter of Lloyd’s work about information literacy landscapes in higher education. The entire book is highly recommended.

Savolainen, R. (2020). Information landscapes as contexts of information practices. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(4), 655-667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620982359

• This is a response to Lloyd’s information landscapes piece.

Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2021). Deconstructing information literacy discourse: Peeling back the layers in higher education. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(4), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620966027

• This source provides a great overview of some of the major problems in understanding information literacy.

Hicks, A. (2017). Making the case for a sociocultural perspective on information literacy. In K.P. Nicholson & M. Seale (Eds.), The politics of theory and the practice of critical librarianship (pp. 69-85). Library Juice Press. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/1096244286

• This source provides an overview of what is a sociocultural perspective and how it connects to (critical) information literacy.

Module 2: Frameworks

This module centered around a deeper understanding of the ACRL Framework. Participants were welcome to bring in their own additional readings, and the following were a suggested starting place:

Bombaro, C. (2016). The Framework is elitist. Reference Services Review, 44(4), 552–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-08-2016-0052

Foasberg, N. M. (2015). From standards to frameworks for IL: How the ACRL framework addresses critiques of the standards. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(4), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0045

Gross, M., Latham, D., & Julien, H. (2018). What the framework means to me: Attitudes of academic librarians toward the ACRL framework for information literacy for higher education. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.008

Hsieh, M. L., Dawson, P. H., & Yang, S. Q. (2021). The ACRL Framework successes and challenges since 2016: A survey. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102306

Module 3 & 4: Topics in Evidence Based Practice

Modules 3 and 4 covered into the vague heading of “topics.” For these two modules, the track moderator compiled the list below based on his doctoral studies and knowledge of the field of information literacy. The goal of this list of topics was to expose participants to the major areas of evidence-based practice in information literacy. Participants were able to then choose from the list below or search the scholarly literature for a topic of their own interest. To ensure that we were reaching a wide variety of topics, participants posted to the discussion board claiming a topic, and then came back to report on their findings. Participants were exposed to more than their chosen topics through the discussion aspect of each of these modules.

Potential Topics:

Anything from Jenna Hartel’s INFIDEOS series, which includes:

1. Principle of Least Effort
2. Everyday Life Information Seeking
3. Information Poverty
4. Information Search Process
5. Small Worlds
6. Information Encountering
7. Information Behavior / Information Practice
8. Information as Thing
9. Wilson’s Nested Model
10. Fundamental Equation of Information Science
11. Domain Analysis

Anything from Fisher’s Theories of Information Behavior, which includes:

1. Affective Load
2. Berrypicking
3. Dervin’s Sense-Making
4. Diffusion Theory
5. Domain Analytic Approach to Scholar’s Information Practices
6. Ellis’s Model of Information-Seeking Behavior
7. Information Encountering
8. Library Anxiety
9. Principle of Least Effort
10. Serious Leisure

Other topics not in the above two, such as:

1. Information Landscapes
2. Information World mapping
3. Artificial Intelligence in Library Instruction

Something listed in Information Matters such as:

1. Boundary Objects
2. Embodiment
3. Activity Theory
4. Critical Theory

Module 5: Collaboration

Collaboration was a topic that track members agreed did not really get much coverage in our library school experiences. These resources give some evidence to support various forms of successful collaboration.

McCartin, L.F. & Wright-Mair, R. (2022). It’s not personal, it’s professional: Causes of academic
librarian deference behavior. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48, 102483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102483

• This is an interesting study that talks about when academic librarians defer to faculty and when they don’t.

Monteil-Overall, P. (2007). Research on teacher and librarian collaboration: An examination of underlying structures of models. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.04.006

• Any time a scholar talks about collaboration they say “You better cite Monteil-Overall.” This is one of her works. Dig into it and see if it still holds up today, more than 15 years later. Is it time for new models?

Rath, L. & Cimbricz, S. (2015). Collaborating around critical multiliteracies: A formula for success. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 34(2), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.1042816.

• This is an article written between Rath and a faculty member at Brockport about how to collaborate with faculty members. Does it still stand up?

Module 6: Assessment

While assessment is a natural and required part of library jobs, understanding the larger conversation can be useful, especially for mid-career librarians. These resources were chosen for their focus on specific types of assessment.

Wagner, S., Mann, E., & Marshall, A. (2021). Toward a thoughtful assessment practice: Using reflection to guide library instruction assessment. The Reference Librarian, 62(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2021.1913466

• This is a newer article that provides a good guide engaging in reflective assessment. To track participants: Are these practices you currently follow? Do you agree with them? Why? Why not?

Goss, H. (2022). Student learning outcomes assessment in higher education and in academic libraries: A review of the literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(2), 102485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102485

• This article reviews a lot of literature related to general outcomes assessment. To track participants:How can we apply the “key findings” column in the IL classroom?

Participants may also be interested in discussing how to run authentic assessments in the one-shot classroom. There are a lot of articles on Google Scholar that could help to provide ideas: authentic assessment information literacy one-shot – Google Scholar, Or maybe this piece: Getting started with Assessment for Learning (cambridge-community.org.uk).