Dear Committee members,
The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task Force has been reviewing comments on the third version of the draft Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The deadline for comments is this Friday, December 12th. The goal is still to have a final version of the standards ready for the Board to approve in January. There are some tight deadlines ahead, and I need your help and input on two things.
Task Force members are discussing the definition of information literacy included in the Framework, and they may make some changes to it. Trudi Jacobson and Craig Gibson, the co-chairs, have asked the Standards Committee to confirm whether or not these changes would be substantial enough to require further review by the larger community (as specified in section 14.5, no. 12 of the Guide to Policies and Procedures). Here is their question:
We know that if we make substantial changes to the Framework, it will need to be sent out for review again. We have gotten feedback that will help us to improve the clarity of the frames, but which will not lead to substantial changes, I don’t believe. However, we will need to have a conversation within the Task Force about the definition. The definition of information literacy in the current draft differs from the definition in the second draft, and we are finding that some people prefer the second draft definition, while others prefer the third (we’ve had about 90 people provide feedback so far). If we were to revert to the earlier definition, or mesh the two, would that be considered substantial? This information will help us a great deal during our discussion.
My own feeling is that such a change wouldn't be substantial enough to require further distribution, especially since the Task Force would be making the changes in response to feedback received for the second and third drafts. What do you think? Please respond to the group and share your views. I'd like to get back to Judi and Craig by the end of this week, if possible.
We need to schedule a virtual meeting early in January so that we can review the revised standards, approve them, and get the materials to the Board so that the Board can approve them.
Early this coming week, the Task Force will let us know when they will get the final draft to us. As a reminder, the final draft will go to the Information Literacy Standards Committee first; that committee is now a subcommittee of the Standards Committee, and it will make its recommendations to our committee.
I will send you a poll so that we can identify some possible dates and times for a virtual meeting in early January. At the meeting, we'll also go over the list of standards past due (many of the "overdue" standards are related to the IL standards), now due, and coming up for review as well as the lists of liaison assignments. In addition, we'll review policies, procedures, and best practices for the review of standards.
In the meantime, please share your thoughts on the Task Force's question above. If you have any other questions or comments, please share those too!
Thanks for your help,
I also agree - I think the task force can choose based on the feedback they have received and consider that to have been reviewed.
Well said. Since each of the proposed definitions has gone for review, I don't see a problem with selecting either, rather than having to completely re-review.
I agree. Since the framework is going through the review and comment/feedback process, I don't know that it is necessary to submit again for review. They will have some people who will not be satisfied with the changers, but I don't know that they will ever reach consensus. Right now, the framework is overdue as it is and other standards are on hold until they are done. I think it is best to say this is "good enough" and move on. At some point, they must be reaching the point of diminishing returns. ;-)
I hope this helps!
225 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL | 60601 | USA
Request a New Community