Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Picture
Lindsay Bosch (staff)'s picture

Pre-vote discussion: 10/23/13-10/29/13: Revision of Plan for Excellence (Student Learning Objectives)

Dear Board members

Please find attached a Board Action Form outlining a process for completing the strategic plan revision we began at SPOS.  I've also attached a supplemental document summarizing the options that were shared during the conversation

The Board is invited to review the documents and conduct discussion during the period of 10/23/13-10/29/13.  This discussion week will focus on the proposed changes to the Student Learning  objectives.  Please post any feedback, questions or comments on the document using the threaded discussion attached to this post.

At the conclusion of discussion, we will edit recommendations 1 through 5, as needed. We will host five virtual votes from 10/29/13-11/4/13 in order to finalize the Student Learning objectives.

After we reach consensus on  Student Learning, we will host another discussion and vote to finalize the complete Plan for Excellence revision.

Many thanks for your participation,

Lindsay Bosch

ACRL Program Officer

Irene Herold's picture

Given that tomorrow is the closing date for discussion, and that SLO is not one of my liaison areas, I am interested in hearing my esteemed colleagues' thoughts on the options, now that we have some distance from when the options were created.  That said, I will plunge in, despite my fear of "drowning" in something for which I only have my opinion and personal experience.

Objective 1:  I resonate with: Option C Identify innovative practices in learning environments and instruction that enable academic librarians to transform learning.

Objective 2:  I resonate with: None of the options.  It feels like in the weeds too much.  That said, perhaps C (remove objective).

Objective 3:  I resonate with: A hybrid of the existing, "Increase collaborative programs that leverage partnerships with other organizations in order to support and encourage" with option B "embedding information literacy concepts throughout the curriculum," so it would read:  Increase collaborative programs that leverage partnerships with other organizations in order to support and encourage embedding information literacy concepts throughout curriculum.

Objective 4:  I resonate with (although not exactly sure we need this one at all): Option D Build capacity for the librarians’ role in supporting faculty development and the preparation of graduate students as instructors in all disciplines.

I like the suggested new 5th objective, but it makes me wonder if we still need objective 3: 

Increase visibility of new models of information fluency as pedagogy evolves.

I am certain you all will have better thoughts than I am offering here, but hopefully this will get the discussion "ball" rolling.

Irene

Irene Herold

ACRL Board, Director at Large

Julia Gelfand's picture

I, too don't think very expertly about this - my limited engagement suggests:

Objective 1 - Option B seems too job-related and not as forward thinking as Option C that seems to have potential outcomes at the end and will benefit librarian, libraries and high education as a practice

Objective 2 - there are no take aways nor goals; not sure what it achieves

Objective 3 - I am inclined to think that Option C is the most flexible

Objective 4 - I think that the entire objective and especially Option D may be not be as inclusive as ACRL may want to be; thus suggest some wording that is more general such as "Build capacity for the librarians' role in supporting current and future generations of teaching faculty to be as effective as possible in developing information literate students."

I defer to other opinions.

julia

Cynthia Steinhoff's picture

This really isn't my area of expertise in librarianship, but I'll throw out a few thoughts.

Recommendation #1 - C is clear.  We could add "physical and virtual" as modifiers to "learning environments" if we feel that it is important to stress that we work within the virtual world.

Recommendation #2 - I was having difficulty with what this one means.  Then I read the comments by Julia and Irene, and they, too, didn't seem to be taking much away from this objective.   So perhaps removing it is best.

Recommendation #3 - C is clear and understandable.

Recommendation #4 - None of the options really work for me.  The phrase "in all disciplines" at end of options C and D isn't really needed, nor is "future subject discipline faculty" in B.  This objective as written is fine.

Recommendation #5 - I am not sure what this adds to the current list of objectives.

Cindy

Steven Bell's picture

Recommendation #1 - I prefer option C. I believe this one best lends itself to activity that is more concrete and thus will allow the committee to both promote and track the activity.

Recommendation #2 - I prefer option A. Even if there is some overlap with VAL, this objective strikes me as fundamental to what we seek to achieve in the student learning domain, and as written I find it more actionable than "articulating" or "advocating"

Recommendation #3 - I prefer option A. I think it concisely states what we seek to accomplish - and being it's under the student learning goal it can stand without explicitly including the phrase "student learning"

Recommendation #4 - I would like to see this replaced with "Increase awareness among future faculty, across the disciplines, of their role in developing information literate student". That might allow for programs at non-library conferences or articles targeted to the future faculty to demonstrate that awareness was increased - as well as other possibilities. The committee might find this less ambiguous than "build capacity".

Recommendation #5 - I'm not opposed to it but it sounds like something the Instruction Section would be doing. It strikes me as an objective worth pursuing.

Steven

Steven Bell Associate University Librarian Temple University bells@temple.edu http://stevenbell.info

Karen A. Williams's picture

Recommendation #1 -- I like option A for the same reasons others have already articulated.

Recommendation #2 -- My preference is for Option C, and I agree with Steven about the need for this here in addition to the VAL work.

Recommendation #3 -- I would go with C.

Recommendation #4 -- I would prefer something like "Build capacity for the librarians’ role in supporting faculty and future faculty as they work to develop information literate students."  This gets rid of the phrase "faculty development" and acknowledges that faculty have a role in information literacy with their students.  Many faculty don't like the term (or maybe the concept) of faculty development.

Recommendation #5 -- This one strikes me as exactly what the Standards Task Force is doing now, so I'd leave it -- except maybe substitute "Increase understanding" for "Increase visibility".

Karen A. Williams's picture

Oops -- just realized I reversed my choices for the first two recommendations.  For #1 I prefer C; for #2 I prefer A.

Mark Emmons's picture

Objective 1: Option B. This is not in routine practice, and Option B clarifies the intent of the objective.

Objective 2: Option D. I like it as is and do not see the need for revision.

Objective 3: Option D. I like this wording because it makes explicit who we are collaborating with and maintains the critical partnership aspect.

Objective 4: Option C. This option clarifies the intent of the objective best.

Objective 5: No. Save additions for next year's update of the strategic plan.

Mark Emmons

University of New Mexico

ACRL Board Member