A common sense approach to describing, reviewing and evaluating information literacy training by...
12
RIDLs criteria a common-sense approach to describing, reviewing and assessing IL training Stéphane Goldstein Research Information Network Jane Secker London School of Economics and Political Science ARLG Conference “The final frontier - to boldly go where you have never been before” 24 June 2014 1
-
Upload
cilip-arlg -
Category
Education
-
view
270 -
download
2
description
Stephane Goldstein, Research Information Network Jane Secker, London School of Economics and Political Science
Transcript of A common sense approach to describing, reviewing and evaluating information literacy training by...
RIDLs criteria a common-sense approach
to describing, reviewing and assessing IL training
Stéphane Goldstein Research Information Network
Jane Secker
London School of Economics and Political Science
ARLG Conference “The final frontier - to boldly go where you have never been before”
24 June 2014
1
What is RIDLs?
A coalition of partners working together to promote the value of information and research data literacy in HE and beyond
A collectively-run programme to enable activities which help to advance LIS knowledge and skills
Grant-funded by HEFCE until end of 2014
Changing its name to InformALL, June 2014
Important premise:
Partners not limited to the library world: others players have a stake!
Important to build a network that capitalises on different outlooks
Academic librarians, data management specialists, career & professional development experts, information sciences researchers… and now reaching out to stakeholders beyond academia
2
RIDLs programme 2014
Providing networking opportunities and collective source of expertise for its members
Re-launching as a membership-based organisation
Criteria for describing, reviewing & assessing training interventions
IL and employability: investigating how IL is perceived by players at the interface between HE and employment
Basis for widening the dialogue about IL to sectors such as careers advisors, professional/accreditation bodies, employers, trade unions…
International engagement
UNESCO, IFLA, European Commission…
3
Describing, reviewing and assessing practice in IL training interventions (courses and other resources). Two broad aims:
Helping those who design and deliver training interventions to describe and review them in a structured and consistent manner, allowing for easy comparison between courses/resources
Providing a simple means of assessing training interventions, particularly with regards their suitability and usefulness as transferable resources
Criteria take the form of structured questions set out in logical sequence
Rationale for the criteria
4
Part 1 of the criteria
Describing and reviewing training interventions
Importance of ensuring consistent approach
Three sets of questions:
Who are the interventions designed for, and why?
What knowledge, skills and competencies are they intended to provide?
How are the interventions delivered?
Are these the right sort of questions?
5
Part 2 of the criteria
What are the benefits that the training interventions bring about
Quantitative data stemming from interventions
Feedback from learners
Outputs, outcomes, impact
Problems encountered
Not easy to derive such information – outcomes and impact require longer-term views
Are these the right sort of questions?
Assessment or evaluation?
6
Questions to address
We are seeking views from delegates on the applicability and potential usefulness of the criteria. We wish to find out whether they represent a genuinely useful resource that can be adopted and supported as a practical, recognised and trustworthy tool. Four broad questions focused on:
Use of the criteria in practice
Accreditation
Endorsement and promotion
Service development
7
Use of the criteria in practice
How might practitioners make use of the criteria in their institutions:
Can they be a basis for guidance, facilitation or benchmarking for practitioners?
Do they have value beyond HE?
8
Accreditation
Could the criteria be used as a basis for providing accreditation for training interventions?
If so, who would be the accreditor, and how might any accreditation process be put into practice?
9
10
Endorsement and promotion
Could the criteria be formally endorsed by institutions or representative organisations such as CILIP?
What can be done to disseminate and promote them?
11
Service development
Is there a case for defining and setting up a viable service, based on the criteria, to provide agreed and tailored forms of support for practitioners on defining, running, evaluation and accreditation of training resources?
How might the need for such a service be ascertained?
Thank you for taking part!
The criteria can be found at www.researchinfonet.org/infolit/rids/ridls-criteria
Stéphane Goldstein
Jane Secker
12
