The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Mapping curriculum learning outcomes to ACRL's Framework threshold T

concepts: A syllabus study
Eleonora Dubicki
Guggenheim Memorial Library, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ 07733, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this study was to align information literacy instruction with curriculum learning outcomes as defined
Syllabi by teaching faculty in their syllabi. Using a syllabus study, a cross-disciplinary collection of 180 course syllabi
Curriculum were reviewed for learning outcomes, assignments with research components, and references to library resources
Learning outcomes and services. Key faculty-defined learning outcomes were mapped to the Association for College and Research
Academic libraries
Libraries Information Literacy Framework for Higher Education threshold concepts. Based on learning theory, in-
Library instruction
Undergraduate students
troducing information literacy concepts is most effective when done at the time of need, guaranteeing that
Graduate students students utilize the skills immediately, and are more likely to retain the knowledge and skills learned. The author
proposes a tiered approach to information literacy instruction, with novice skills introduced in lower-level
courses and expert skills for upper-level and graduate courses to meet learning outcomes. Suggestions of how
each of the threshold concepts can be applied to develop instructional activities to achieve learning outcomes are
presented.

Introduction consumers and creators of information who can participate successfully

This study was conducted at Monmouth University (MU). The uni-
versity enrolls approximately 6300 students and offers more than 50
undergraduate and graduate programs, including two doctoral degree
programs. The purpose of the study was to strategically align in-
formation literacy (IL) instruction with learning outcomes and course-
work defined in the university's curriculum and to explore how a tiered
approach to IL sessions could be utilized to cover material that students
can apply immediately to completing their assignments. In order to gain
a better understanding of the university curriculum, the approach taken
in this project was to conduct a course syllabus study. Syllabi were
reviewed for the inclusion of student learning outcomes (SLOs), re-
search assignments, and references to library resources and services.
The timing for the study was ideal in revisiting how librarians teach
IL. In 2015, the Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
released the new Information Literacy Framework for Higher Education
(Framework). The Framework was formally adopted in 2016, when
ACRL also rescinded the former Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education (Standards). The Standards had been the
foundation for most IL instruction for the previous decade, using per-
formance indicators and outcomes to deliver skills-based training to
achieve IL. The Framework represents a new vision of “information
literacy as an overarching set of abilities in which students are
in collaborative spaces.” (ACRL, 2015, p. 2).
The Framework is comprised of six interconnected core concepts that
are defined relative to IL:
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information Has Value
• Research as Inquiry
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Searching as Strategic Exploration
Each of the Framework concepts describe the intellectual growth of
learners as they transition from novice to expert levels. The Framework
also includes knowledge practices and dispositions for each of the
threshold concepts which define the proficiencies and capabilities that
learners must develop in grasping the concepts. Unlike the earlier
Standards, the Framework does not identify learning outcomes. It is left
to individual institutions to transform threshold concepts into learning
outcomes that best fit student needs. As Oakleaf (2014) suggests, “Es-
sentially, librarians can use the Framework as inspiration to focus on
concepts, rather than exclusively on tools and techniques, and those
concepts can be added or subtracted as student and faculty needs
change.” (p. 512).

E-mail address: edubicki@monmouth.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.04.003
Received 3 March 2019; Received in revised form 8 April 2019; Accepted 8 April 2019
0099-1333/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E. Dubicki
Literature review
A review of the library literature was conducted to identify research
using syllabus studies to ascertain the level of library use and identifi-
cation of faculty-defined learning outcomes related to IL. The results of
previous studies reinforce the effectiveness of conducting a syllabus
study to understand institutional curriculum in order to uncover op-
portunities to improve IL instruction and outreach efforts. Several dif-
ferent methods have been used to conduct syllabus studies and have
been included in this literature review. The earliest studies focused on
measuring the amount and sophistication of library use. Syllabus stu-
dies have also been used to review student learning outcomes (SLOs) for
IL requirements.
Although the Framework was fairly recently approved, several stu-
dies have been published on how the threshold concepts can be applied
to develop learning outcomes for IL instruction, as well as proposed
collaboration with faculty to further embed IL in course learning out-
comes. The Framework's references to novice and expert levels for each
threshold concept support the tiered approach to instruction that is
investigated by this study.
Syllabus studies: Level of use
Rambler (1982) conducted the initial study of course syllabi for
indicators of the use of academic library resources and services. She
applied a ratings model in evaluating course syllabi in order to measure
how much and what kind of library use was required by faculty.
Rambler concluded that library resources were underused, with 63% of
courses requiring no use of library resources, while only 8% had high
usage. The highest usage was among upper-level and graduate courses,
leading her to suggest that IL programs should be directed to those
groups.
Lauer, Merz, and Craig (1989) reviewed syllabi from two institu-
tions and had findings similar to Rambler (1982), that library use by
undergraduates was relatively low. At Aurora University, 60% of syllabi
indicated library use, while Houghton College was slightly over half, at
51%. However, the study also revealed a slightly higher level of library
use in professionally-oriented curricula, such as business and nursing.
Williams, Cody, and Parnell (2004) studied 253 syllabi for classes that
used the library's instructional services or showed a potential for library
use. Using a modified Lauer et al. (1989) ratings model to measure
library usage required by instructors, the results of their study showed
that syllabi for 41% of the courses required students to prepare research
papers, projects, reports, and speeches. The syllabus study uncovered
new opportunities for collaboration with faculty, as well as collection
development initiatives and the introduction of new services, including
web-based guides, new options for instruction, and targeted promotions
directed at both faculty and students to increase library usage.
Smith, Doversberger, Jones, Ladwig, Parker, and Pietraszewski
(2012) conducted a syllabus study to identify new directions for their
library program. Reviewing 144 syllabi, the study found that 57% of
courses required at least some library use. The data supported their
hypothesis that the level of the class would affect the amount of re-
search required, with the percentage of classes requiring library re-
search increasing as class levels progressed. However, while higher
levels of research were expected in upper-level courses, few syllabi
mentioned library instruction suggesting that students were expected to
complete their research without the guidance of librarians. They also
discovered variances in library use by discipline, with art/architecture
and the social sciences higher than business and the sciences. Dewald's
(2003) review of business students' course syllabi revealed that faculty's
heaviest expectations for student research were in second- and third-
year courses, rather than fourth-year as anticipated. First-year research
was primarily for general education courses in English and First Year
seminar and did not require business research.
VanScoy and Oakleaf (2008) took an alternative approach in
289
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
conducting a syllabus study. They focused on the specific research skills
required of 350 first-year, first-semester students in all of their classes.
The authors discovered that 97% of students were required to find re-
search resources during their first semester. In a sub-sample of 139
students for whom all course syllabi were examined, 100% were re-
quired to find research materials. Among this sample, websites (96%),
articles (94%), and books (85%) were the most frequently required
resources. This is significantly higher than the estimates suggested by
several other authors. Based on these requirements, VanScoy and
Oakleaf recommend that even at the first-year level curriculum-in-
tegrated instruction needs to include training on how to find websites,
articles, and books.
Syllabus studies: Learning outcomes
Jeffery, Houk, Nielsen, and Wong-Welch (2017) mined course data
from San Diego State University's central repository of syllabi to de-
termine how effectively the library was integrated into the curriculum.
More than half the 1226 syllabi examined did not mention research
projects or library services. Research papers and citation management
were the two most common references in the remaining course syllabi.
A review of learning outcomes conducted in Willingham-McClain's
(2011) cross-disciplinary syllabus study, revealed that 44% of the syl-
labi included direct reference to components of IL. McGowan, Gonzalez,
and Stanny (2016) examined a complete inventory of undergraduate
course syllabi during one semester (fall 2013) of classes. They identified
course-level SLOs defined by the teaching faculty, as well as the types of
IL assignments that related to the five ACRL standards. “Overall, 79
percent of the syllabi showed some evidence that the course in-
corporated information literacy, either through the presence of IL stu-
dent learning outcomes or descriptions of relevant IL assignments.” (p.
605).
Several syllabus studies took a more focused look at SLOs for se-
lected institutional programs. Holliday and Fagerheim (2006) describe
the collaborative effort working with faculty to implement an IL in-
struction program for two English composition courses. “Our goal is to
sequence IL throughout the general education and upper division cur-
ricula in ways that better meet students' needs as they advance in their
coursework.” (p. 170) Herscovitch, MacMillan, and Sharun (2015) ex-
amined what librarians at Mount Royal University taught during
course-integrated IL classes to help students achieve the courses'
learning outcomes. They found significant duplication of lower-level
content in upper-level courses, suggesting opportunities for scaffolding
IL instruction to reduce redundancy by building on the basic concepts
introduced in earlier sessions.
Maybee, Carlson, Slebodnik, and Chapman (2015) took a grounded
theory approach to create a holistic view of how information and data
information literacies were part of curricular themes in two programs at
Purdue University. They found that the nutrition science department
emphasized developing a professional identity, as well as several
courses for practicing science. Students researched scholarly profes-
sional data and standards, with upper-level courses also incorporating
data from professional practices. The focus of political science curri-
culum was on building a foundation for the discipline, and research
inquiry exploring theory and methods used in the field. The authors
mapped the resulting data to specific information and data literacy
skills needed, thus providing liaison librarians with ideas for library
services supporting curricular learning outcomes for the two programs.
A syllabus study conducted by Alcock and Rose (2016) found a
strong library presence in first-year chemistry and history course syl-
labi. However, second-, third- and fourth-year history course syllabi
mentioned the library or library sessions less frequently even though IL
skills were required to complete assignments, suggesting that professors
individually take on the role of teaching their students IL skills rather
than working with the library to develop those skills.
Miller and Neyer (2016) conducted a syllabus study of an
E. Dubicki
undergraduate nursing program to map IL and written communication
SLOs to the standards of the American Association of Colleges of Nur-
sing (AACN), ACRL, and Association of American Colleges and Uni-
versities (AAC&U), with the primary goal of improving the library's
instructional program. “The course-by-course map of nursing curri-
culum sought to determine whether IL and written communication
outcomes were sequentially introduced, reinforced, and mastered in
courses.” (p. 26) The findings of the study revealed requirements for
scholarly papers throughout the curriculum, recommending close col-
laboration between the librarian and nursing faculty to potentially re-
vise class assignments and improve timing of IL instruction. Dorner,
Taylor, and Hodson-Carlton (2001) had found similar evidence that
nursing students need IL skills to succeed and a tiered approach was
preferred, targeting specific courses to build these competencies at the
point of need.
Johnson-Grau, Archambault, Acosta, and McLean (2016) discuss
strategies for working collaboratively with faculty to embed IL concepts
into course-level learning outcomes for several new core curriculum
offerings. Online tutorials were created for First Year Seminar classes,
introducing students to basic IL concepts. Librarians then worked with
faculty in the development of assignments, exercises, LibGuides, and
instructional sessions for all students during their second-semester
Rhetorical Arts course. Finally, IL was integrated into key upper-level
courses to introduce students to discipline-specific resources and de-
velop advanced IL skills in research methodologies. The authors con-
clude that, “Librarians will never have the authority to implement in-
formation literacy on their own, but through close interaction with
faculty and the curriculum they can work to secure greater campus-
wide understanding of information literacy.” (p. 756).
IL instruction and threshold concepts
Although the Framework was just recently implemented, a growing
number of articles and books are being published discussing the chal-
lenges faced by librarians transforming their ACRL Standards-based
instruction to the more conceptual approach defined in the Framework,
as well as offering examples of successful implementations. Seeber
(2015) proposes that the “Framework is a call for librarians and edu-
cators to recognize the importance of context when discussing in-
formation literacy” and the necessity of “connecting academic research
to the world around us.” (p. 157, 161) Kuglitsch (2015) suggests that
“teaching information literacy in a way that facilitates transfer of IL
skills between disciplines will broaden the reach of library instruction.”
(p. 464) By putting the lessons into the context of their discipline,
students reflect on the skills and can apply that knowledge to other
areas.
Larsen, Wallace, and Pankl (2018) document how librarians at the
University of Utah developed Teaching Guidelines for their IL instruc-
tion by aligning Framework concepts with librarians' teaching styles and
the interests and goals of other stakeholders on campus. Their align-
ment matrix serves as a means of mapping teaching strategies to library
program outcomes and also serves as an opportunity to open con-
versations with academic staff on ways to meet student research needs.
Baggett, Connell, and Thome (2018) reflect on how they have as-
sessed what students are learning and how to further student IL by
using the Framework threshold concepts. Assessments were conducted
for both instruction and reference. Building on the instruction pro-
gram's history of scaffolding library instruction, the authors first as-
sessed the concepts presented during instruction for First Year Inquiry
classes and found coverage of all six concepts. However, they found that
reference interviews overwhelmingly addressed the Searching as Stra-
tegic Exploration concept.
McClure's (2016) edited collection of work in Rewired: Research-
Writing Partnerships with the Frameworks, provides examples of in-
tegrating research and writing processes. Contributors describe how
librarians have successfully partnered with other academic units,
290
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
particularly writing instructors and writing centers, in a collaborative
approach to the research-writing process. Synergies between the ACRL
Framework and the Council of Writing Program Administrators, Na-
tional Council of Teachers of English, and National Writing Project's
Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing are the basis for these
partnering activities. Utilizing the threshold concepts, key habits, skills,
and dispositions in these two framework documents, contributors offer
strategies for implementing learning outcomes, creating assignments,
curriculum development, as well as assessment measures. Johnson and
McCracken (2016) similarly address the overlapping elements of IL and
writing programs. The authors take a frame-by-frame approach to il-
lustrate the complementary nature of the concepts defined in the Fra-
mework and Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Stu-
dies to redesign a collaborative teaching of the interrelated threshold
concepts.
In Teaching Information Literacy Threshold Concepts: Lesson Plans for
Librarians, editors Bravender, McClure, and Schaub (2015) bring to-
gether lesson plans in chapters addressing each of the new threshold
concepts. Similarly, Burkhardt's (2016) Teaching Information Literacy
Reframed, offers more than 50 Framework-based exercises. The ex-
pectation is that these lesson plans created by teaching librarians can be
adapted by others for use in their own classrooms. Another resource for
Framework-based lesson plans is ACRL's Framework for Information
Literacy Sandbox (2019) which serves as a repository for sharing Fra-
mework materials, including: lesson plans, presentations, tutorials, re-
search guides, and worksheets created by librarians and available for
use under Creative Commons licensing.
Methods
Syllabus sample
Since XX does not have a syllabus archive, copies of recent course
syllabi were solicited from all faculty via an email message. A total of
180 syllabi were collected from faculty and reviewed for the study.
Syllabi from faculty teaching in twenty-three of the university's twenty-
six academic departments were analyzed: art, accounting, biology,
chemistry, communication, criminal justice, curriculum and instruc-
tion, educational counseling, economics/finance, English, health/phy-
sical education, history/anthropology/geology, management, mar-
keting, mathematics, music/theater, nursing, political science/
sociology, professional counseling, psychology, social work, special
education, and speech language pathology. The breakdown of the 180
syllabi by course level was: first-year = 70; second-year = 26; third-
year = 20; fourth-year = 20; and graduate/doctoral = 35.
Study design
Qualitative analysis of text in syllabi was conducted by the author in
order to identify stated SLOs, references to library services or resources,
and identification of course assignments that involved research. Course
codes were used to organize the data in an Excel spreadsheet by level
and department. SLOs and any additional course objectives were en-
tered into the spreadsheet. Finally, columns were created in the
spreadsheet and checked off for types of assignments (e.g. presenta-
tions, papers) and library services and resources (e.g. IL sessions, arti-
cles, databases) mentioned in syllabi.
The study data was examined by course level to determine whether
there were similarities in learning outcomes across courses at various
levels. Based on commonalities in SLOs, the data was grouped into
lower-level (first-year, second-year), and upper-level (third-year,
fourth-year, graduate) categories for further review. The faculty-de-
fined learning outcomes were then mapped to the six ACRL Framework
threshold concepts as potential topics of discussion during IL sessions.
In addition, IL learning outcomes were listed for each threshold concept
to serve as general examples.
E. Dubicki
Results and discussion
The analysis of course syllabi was helpful in becoming familiar with
the university curriculum and resulted in a better understanding of
SLOs articulated by faculty. Furthermore, a review of the coursework
and assignments outlined in the syllabi delineated the student experi-
ence in fulfilling course requirements. What emerged were indicators of
potential student needs as they conduct research projects, leading to a
roadmap of the topics that librarians should include during IL instruc-
tion at various levels of students' academic careers, as well as services
the library can develop to support students' independent study.
Results of the study indicate that there were disparate research
needs required of students in lower-level and upper-level courses.
Lower-level courses were typically part of the general education pro-
gram and often covered broad topics that relied primarily on general
searches. In response, library instruction for lower-level classes needs to
acquaint students with the range of resources available to them in
college-level libraries and services available to assist them in their
studies. In support of completing research assignments, students in
lower-level courses primarily need assistance on determining informa-
tion need, developing effective search strategies on general topics,
citing sources, and using evaluation techniques to determine source
credibility. On the other hand, library instruction for upper-level
courses should build upon introductory IL skills to address advanced
use of information in specialized fields, with subject-specific vocabu-
lary, and disciplinary database searching.
Use of library resources
Syllabi were reviewed for the use of XX library services, or resources
requisite for completing assignments (Fig. 1).
Library sessions were mentioned in 33% of the syllabi reviewed for
the study. First Year Seminar (FYS) classes had the highest level of
participation. This was expected, since FYS and English composition
classes have traditionally been the most heavily booked for IL instruc-
tion. Significant outreach has been done by XX librarians to encourage
instructors of FYS classes to bring students to the library for an in-
troduction to college-level resources available to them, as well as an
opportunity to meet with librarians. Third-year courses, particularly
those in disciplinary research methods, are also heavily booked for li-
brary instruction.
One of the XX librarians created a plagiarism tutorial that can be
completed independently of class time. It was satisfying to see that 16%
of instructors included it in the syllabus. The graduate level numbers for
the tutorial (24%) may have been skewed due to the referencing of the
Fig. 1. Use of library services and resources.
291
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
tutorial in all graduate syllabi for the professional counseling and DNP
programs. Since 100% of XX syllabi have a statement on academic
honesty, the tutorial is a strong contender for additional outreach.
The low number of references to research guides was disappointing.
XX librarians have created more than 150 course-specific guides that
are used to support IL sessions, as well as department-level and special
topic guides. Unfortunately, only 3% of instructors included links to the
guides which would help students throughout the semester. This is
clearly another area for additional outreach.
In terms of research requirements, books play a very limited role in
materials expected to be reviewed, while articles were the most heavily
required sources. Scholarly sources were mentioned by 44% of in-
structors, although in lower-level courses this was often to distinguish
between popular and scholarly materials. Requirements for using
scholarly sources were primarily noted in upper-level and graduate
courses. Similarly, the usage of disciplinary databases was highest
among upper-level and graduate courses, when students are taking
research methods courses and focusing on their majors.
Types of assignments
Syllabi were reviewed to generate a list of the types of projects that
faculty assigned for their courses. This process involved reviewing each
class assignment and determining the types of sources required to
complete projects. Overall, 81% of syllabi included assignments that
required some level of research or use of library resources. These results
are in line with the syllabi study conducted by McGowan et al. (2016).
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the most popular assignments with research
components were: presentations, reaction/response papers, annotated
bibliographies, and research papers. Presentations were the most
common assignment, often in combination with research papers. This
stresses the fact that oral and written communication skills are im-
portant for students to master. Fourth-year courses, in particular, put
strong emphasis on presentations, as students prepare for professional
positions after graduation. Reaction/response papers were usually
based on current topics and generally incorporated popular news items.
Research paper assignments were predominantly for short (under 5
pages) or medium (5–9 pages) length papers. Papers of more than ten
pages were negligibly assigned in lower-level courses, and in only 14%
of upper-level courses. Senior-level perspectives courses, a general
education requirement, focused primarily on presentations and group
projects with an inter-disciplinary approach. Graduate-level courses
were the most likely to require long papers (24%). It should also be
noted that bibliographies, literature reviews, and annotated biblio-
graphies were frequently required as a preliminary step in writing
E. Dubicki
Fig. 2. Types of assignments.
research papers for upper-level and graduate courses.
Several types of assignments mentioned in syllabi did not require
any research, including lab reports, exercises, portfolios, and book re-
views. In addition, some instructors had students write short essays or
keep weekly journals during the semester based on personal experi-
ences without incorporating further research.
Learning outcomes
All XX course syllabi must clearly state the SLOs that should be
achieved by the end of the semester. A systematic review of the learning
outcomes defined in the 180 syllabi collected for this study identified
several key areas where the Library can support student success in their
academic careers. Since there were variations in the exact language
used by instructors to define similar learning outcomes listed in syllabi,
umbrella concepts have been used in this section to reflect key SLOs.
Firstly, an orientation to the variety of resources and services offered by
an academic library. Secondly, navigation of the institution's academic
honesty policies regarding ethical use of information. In addition, there
were three areas where Framework concepts can be discussed regarding
the students' position as both a consumer and creator of information:
the research process of gathering information; critical thinking and
analysis in the evaluation of information for authority, credibility, and
usefulness in completing assignments; and oral and written presenta-
tion of research findings.
This section of the paper maps faculty-defined SLOs commonly
found in general education and disciplinary course syllabi to Framework
concepts and topics which can be covered during IL instruction or
special services the library can offer students. Additionally, several
examples of IL SLOs that reflect novice or expert practices and dis-
positions for each threshold concept are noted. These are simply ex-
amples and are general in nature. ACRL purposely left the development
of learning outcomes associated with the Framework concepts to local
librarians. In most cases, a collaborative effort between the librarian
and academic faculty can be undertaken to customize the IL SLOs to
individual class assignments. Oakleaf (2011) explains that it is im-
perative for libraries to articulate and assess SLOs in the area of IL in
order to demonstrate the impact the library has on student learning. By
defining and assessing SLOs for IL instruction, librarians can measure
the impact of material presented in classes. It is also important for li-
braries to communicate the results of assessments and resulting impact
of IL in order to demonstrate library value to the institution.
All courses
As freshmen, students have a wide variety of resources and services
available to them on a college campus, as compared to high school li-
braries. The academic library subscribes to many multi-subject and
292
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
disciplinary databases providing access to information beyond search
engine results collected from the internet. It is critical that librarians
create an awareness of academic library offerings, thereby building a
foundation for students' academic experience and beyond, as life-long
learners.
A statement on academic honesty was included in 100% of XX
course syllabi, warning of a failing grade or possible disciplinary action
for any cheating or plagiarism on exams or assignments. Guidelines for
fair use and proper citation of source materials are usually provided by
instructors, as well as a disclaimer for Turn-it-In software used to check
papers for any instances of plagiarism. Although warnings are issued in
every class and the University student code of conduct statement, stu-
dents often have difficulty in properly citing and incorporating outside
materials into their coursework. The wealth of information accessible
online, seemingly for “free”, gives students the impression that because
they have free access to the information, attribution is not necessary.
Even with library databases, the information is behind a paywall that
the university pays for, giving the impression that there are no costs
associated with articles or ebooks and that they are “free.”
Faculty-defined learning outcomes & university ACRL Framework threshold con-
policies cepts
• Utilize academic resources • Information has Value
• Uphold academic honesty • Information has Value
• Make informed ethical decisions
The threshold concept, Information has Value relates to how learners
gain access to academic information sources and use information
properly. While students are familiar with search engines such as
Google, they are less aware of the breadth of information and services
that an academic library offers. It is essential to create an awareness of
the library's offerings among incoming freshmen and transfer students,
positioning the library as a valuable college resource they can utilize to
fulfill their information needs and study requirements throughout their
academic careers. Outreach to faculty and students can be achieved by
providing direct access to the library's website from the institutional
website and incorporation of links to library services in the institution's
content management system. Personal outreach through orientation
sessions and workshops can help develop a better relationship between
students and library staff.
Information has Value also addresses citation rules, intellectual
property laws, and ethical use of information. In the threshold's
knowledge practices, learners are developing their ability to “articulate
the purpose and distinguishing characteristics of copyright, fair use,
open access, and public domain” and to “give credit to the original
E. Dubicki
ideas of others through proper attribution and citation.” (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 6) While librarians can cover plagiarism and
copyright in IL classes, there is often a shortage of time during a one-
shot 80 min session to have a thorough discussion of the topic. Alter-
native presentations should be considered, such as special workshops
open to all students or an online tutorial which can be completed
outside of classroom hours. One of the XX librarians developed a very
popular plagiarism tutorial that instructors can assign for students to
complete and submit a certificate indicating a passing grade on the quiz
at the end of the tutorial. The Library and the university's writing center
have also developed online style guides to assist students with properly
citing materials. Examples of SLOs for library instruction and services
incorporating the concept of Information has Value might include:
• Students will be able to demonstrate use of the Library's website in
order to access books, media, and articles to meet their information
needs.
• Students will be able to identify each element of a citation (APA,
Chicago, MLA) in order to properly cite information sources.
Lower-level courses
The majority of courses taken during a student's first year fulfill
general education requirements that are mandatory for graduation.
During their first semester of study, most XX students are enrolled in a
FYS course. FYS is meant to be an introductory class preparing students
for the transition from secondary school to college, both in terms of
personal experiences of living away from their families, as well as ad-
justing to the rigors of academics. In addition to specific objectives
based on course topic, all FYS sections have identical measurable SLOs.
The SLO most closely aligned to IL is: Students will be able to seek out,
evaluate, and integrate information for multiple sources based on a course
topic. The XX Library plays a particularly important role in meeting this
SLO. Furthermore, the Library contributes to three additional FYS SLOs:
improving students' abilities in developing critical thinking skills,
contemplating ethical decisions, and applying academic standards to
written and oral communication.
College Composition I and II are also part of the institution's general
education program requirements and are taken during freshmen year.
Composition I introduces students to academic reading, thinking, and
writing. Composition II builds the students' understanding of college-
level research with learning outcomes that include: proficient use of
source materials; proficient application of documentation styles; de-
velopment of thesis statements; and contributing new ideas to existing
debates. The Composition II classes are the most heavily booked IL
sessions and serve as an introduction to basic searching for research
papers.
By their second year, most students declare a major and begin
taking required courses within their discipline. Learning outcomes for
these courses typically expand on FYS and Composition II outcomes to
introduce basic disciplinary concepts and theories.
As illustrated in Table 1, all six ACRL Framework concepts can be
Table 1
First- and second-year learning outcomes and Framework threshold concepts.
Faculty-defined learning outcomes
• Develop fundamental research skills
• Seek out, evaluate, and integrate information from multiple sources
• Demonstrate critical thinking skills
• Develop awareness of ethical debates
• Learn standards for academic writing and presentations
• Introduction to basic disciplinary concepts, theories, and principles
293
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
applied to lower-level course SLOs, usually with some overlap. Several
of the concepts describe how novice learners first approach the research
process.
According to the Research as Inquiry threshold concept, “research is
iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex or new ques-
tions whose answers in turn develop additional questions or lines of
inquiry in any field.” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 7) Lower-level stu-
dents need to develop the fundamental research skills that will be ap-
plied and built upon during their academic careers. Upon receiving a
research assignment, one of the first steps is to “determine an appro-
priate scope of investigation.” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 7) When
considering the scope, the research needs to be defined as a manageable
topic, not too broad or too narrow, which can be accomplished by using
various investigative methods. Many students expect to select a re-
search topic, then quickly find and access materials. This is rarely the
case. Novice researchers need to understand the iterative nature of
conducting research and the necessity of refining the research question
as new pieces of information are collected and analyzed. The inquiry
concept suggests that learners should explore a topic with a sense of
curiosity and critically evaluate results from multiple perspectives.
Librarians can help students negotiate the process of selecting a topic
and then formulating a research question to explore a specific aspect of
the topic. Examples of IL SLOs for the Inquiry concept:
• Students will be able to articulate a research question in order to
define their research plan.
• Students will be able to design search strategies with keywords in
order to describe their information need.
Searching as Strategic Exploration reinforces research as an iterative
process. Librarians can guide students in their exploration of academic
search tools, going beyond the Google search they are so familiar with.
As this concept describes, learners need to “understand that first at-
tempts at searching do not always produce adequate results.” (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 9) Librarians can show students how to refine
their search strategies, changing keywords and search tools once they
begin to review findings and have a better understanding of their
subject. Modifications to search vocabulary return different results.
Similarly, different search tools may yield altered results depending on
the scope of materials covered by the tool. Novice researchers must be
flexible and seek assistance when they encounter difficulties. The in-
structor is typically the first person students turn to for support.
However, if librarians have built relationships, students are more likely
to reach out to them for assistance. Examples of IL SLOs for Strategic
Exploration:
• Students will be able to use database limiters in order to refine and
narrow searches.
• Students will be able to describe how search results from the
Library's discovery tool, research databases, and Internet search
engines differ from one another.
ACRL Framework threshold concepts
• Research as Inquiry
• Searching as Strategic Exploration
• Information Creation as a Process
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Research as Inquiry
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information has Value
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Scholarship as Conversation
E. Dubicki
The concept of Information Creation as a Process suggests that lear-
ners need to understand that information is created in a range of for-
mats and has multiple modes of delivery requiring them to “value the
process of matching an information need with an appropriate product.”
(ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 5) Librarians can explain the information
life cycle of when and how information is generated. The depth of
detail, accuracy, and value of materials may depend on time to pub-
lication, with information accessible quickly in blogs and trade pub-
lications, while research studies take longer to be published in scholarly
publications. For trends and hot topics that are often covered in
freshmen classes, popular information sources are often the most ap-
propriate – such as newspapers, magazines, and blogs. Information in
these formats is created quickly and reflects contemporary thoughts on
a topic. Understanding these multiple formats allows students to con-
sider alternative methods of disseminating their own research, such as:
blogging, tweeting, videos, and multi-media presentations. Information
can also be presented in multiple formats to reach intended audiences.
Examples of IL SLOs for Information Creation:
• Students will be able to explain how different formats of content
(popular, trade, scholarly) are suitable for their information needs.
• Students will be able to list features of various delivery methods in
order to select appropriate formats to disseminate information.
Novice researchers often have difficulty determining the authority
and applicability of sources. According to the Authority is Constructed
and Contextual threshold concept, “information resources reflect their
creators' expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the in-
formation need and the context in which the information will be used.”
(ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 4) Authority is not identical in all situa-
tions. Based on assignment requirements, novice learners need to
“critically examine all evidence” and to “ask relevant questions about
origins, context, and suitability for the current information need”
(ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 4). Introducing a checklist of evaluation
criteria (e.g. CRAAP, RADAR) during IL instruction can assist students
in assessing the suitability of materials, while maintaining a degree of
skepticism when considering conflicting perspectives and possible
biases. Novice learners may find it easier to search for information on
general topics by using a discovery tool and limiting by type of pub-
lication. Authority is also important in introductory disciplinary courses.
Textbooks familiarize students with theories, principles, and experts in
the field. However, explorations in disciplinary databases will create a
fundamental platform for research conducted in subsequent years.
Examples of IL SLOs that speak to the concept of Authority:
• Students will be able to develop a checklist of evaluation criteria in
order to determine the credibility and applicability of sources to
their assignment.
• Students will be able to compare multiple sources in order to cor-
roborate claims.
The Information has Value threshold concept can be used to discuss
the faculty-defined SLO of learning the standards of academic writing and
presentations. As defined in the Framework, “the novice learner may
struggle to understand the diverse values of information in an en-
vironment where “free” information and related services are plentiful
and the concept of intellectual property is first encountered through
rules of citation or warnings about plagiarism and copyright law.”
(ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 6) Information may be collected from a
variety of sources, such as the internet, newspapers, blogs, scholarly
articles, or magazines, but all sources need to be cited in papers as well
as presentation slides and posters. Students need direction on how to
give proper attribution to the ideas of others when quoting or para-
phrasing information included in their work. Since students may be
required to use multiple citation styles (MLA, APA, Chicago…), famil-
iarity with the components of citations is essential and should be
294
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
applied to the citation style required by the instructor. An example of
an IL SLO for citations would be:
• Students will be able to cite five types (blogs, websites, scholarly
papers, interviews, books) of information sources in order to prop-
erly attribute credit to authors.
The Scholarship as Conversation concept is a relevant topic of dis-
cussion as students evaluate the information they collect and determine
how they will present the findings of their research to others. In their
FYS course, students are often asked to take a position on a current
topic in the news. Librarians can help students identify tools for finding
opposing viewpoints on topics in order to broaden their opinions and
recognize their own biases. It is important to understand that each piece
of information is one voice on a topic and it is important to seek out
several solutions. A class discussion or debate on a topic is likely to
reveal multiple perspectives and that there may be no one answer. As
students begin taking courses in their majors, they need to develop a
“familiarity with the sources of evidence, methods, and modes of dis-
course in the field” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 8) in order to enter the
conversation at appropriate levels to voice their own perspective and
subsequently influence others. An introduction to disciplinary data-
bases will serve as the foundation for future work in their majors.
Examples for IL SLOs would be:
• Students will use a blog for inspiration in order to find related in-
formation on their topic.
• Students will be able to identify three pieces of information with
contrasting perspectives on their topic.
Upper-level and graduate courses
Overall, learning outcomes for upper-level and graduate students
were similar in scope (Table 2). Students enrolled in upper-level courses
have established a level of expertise in their disciplines during their first
two years of college, becoming familiar with key scholars, principles,
and theories in their fields. Their third- and fourth-year research is
focused on specific areas of their discipline and requires the completion
of longer research papers with more scholarly and primary materials as
sources. A significant number of students enrolled in XX masters and
doctoral programs are new to the university after completing bacca-
laureate degrees at other institutions. There are also students returning
to an academic environment after gaining valuable experience working
in their fields. As a result, students arrive with divergent levels of ex-
pertise in their research abilities and may be unfamiliar with the re-
sources available in the XX Library. IL sessions for graduate students are
particularly useful to hone advanced research skills and work with the
institution's disciplinary databases.
The syllabi reviewed for third- and fourth-year courses represented
several different categories –Perspectives (general education), dis-
ciplinary research methods and capstones, and theses courses. Graduate
courses are focused in a specific discipline and may or may not require a
thesis. Both upper-level and graduate courses have more scaffolding of
assignments listed in course syllabi, frequently beginning with litera-
ture reviews and/or annotated bibliographies, leading to a paper which
often undergoes revisions before being finalized to incorporate feed-
back from peer critiques, as well as instructors' feedback on writing and
content.
Perspectives are the required capstone courses for the XX general
education undergraduate program. A key learning outcome is to apply
an interdisciplinary approach in evaluating social and ethical issues
surrounding a topic. For example, a course on the Cold War might look
at events from multiple disciplines, such as history, social sciences,
literature, and the arts. As preparation for entering the professional
workplace, the course requires collaborative teamwork in a combina-
tion of written and oral presentations to explore and present public
discourse on the course topic.
E. Dubicki
Table 2
Third- and fourth-year and graduate learning outcomes and ACRL Framework threshold concepts.
Faculty-defined learning outcomes
• Design and conduct disciplinary research
• Identify disciplinary best practices
• Apply research findings to practice (grad)
• Develop advanced critical thinking and comprehensive analytical skills
• Sharpen ability to synthesize disciplinary information and data
• Apply an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating issues
• Explore ethical consequences of alternative policies
• Develop clear and concise written and oral presentation style
Several XX undergraduate programs require the completion of a
senior thesis. The XX psychology program in social sciences includes
research and statistical training culminating with every student com-
pleting an original research thesis with findings presented at the de-
partment's semiannual research conference. The Honors School
Program at XX requires students to complete a senior thesis. Students
are guided through the process with thesis development and thesis
writing courses. Working under the direction of a faculty member in
their discipline, students complete and defend their thesis.
The research process becomes more refined at each level of aca-
demic studies. Upper-level students have advanced significantly beyond
the expectations of research on general topics covered in lower-level
courses. Research as Inquiry knowledge practices state that learners
“formulate questions for research based on information gaps or on re-
examination of existing, possibly conflicting, information.” (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 7) This is particularly relevant in upper-level
courses when research is an iterative process as students examine the
information available on a topic and narrow down the scope of their
own efforts based on information gaps or problem areas that are open
or unresolved. The fact that limited information is available on a topic
or there may be diverse perspectives, creates an opportunity for further
study to “extend the knowledge in that field.” (ACRL Framework, 2015,
p. 7) Librarians can assist with formulating research questions to nar-
rowly define the research objectives, using advanced search methods,
and critically evaluating and analyzing information obtained from a
wide variety of sources. Examples of IL SLOs for the Inquiry concept:
• Students will be able to identify information gaps in order to define
their research plan.
• Students will be able to revise their thesis statement in order to
incorporate new information.
Similar to upper-level undergraduate courses, the research process
for graduate students is much more sophisticated than novice research.
As expert learners they also seek to extend knowledge in their fields by
choosing topics that may be unresolved and strive to “maintain an open
mind and critical stance” when developing their research inquiries.
(ACRL Frame, 2015, p. 7) Not only are graduate students required to
compose longer, in-depth research papers, they are often expected to
design and administer research studies and apply their findings to
workday practices. Librarians can demonstrate the use of disciplinary
tools to identify best practices in the field, as well as exploring diverse
perspectives and discussion around knowledge. Thus, assisting students
to create new knowledge by extending the answers found in previous
research. Additional examples of IL SLOs for the Inquiry concept:
• The student will be able to design a research project in order to find
295
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
ACRL Framework threshold concepts
• Research as Inquiry
• Searching as Strategic Exploration
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information has Value
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Information Creation as a Process
• Research as Inquiry
• Searching as Strategic Exploration
• Authority is Constructed and Contextual
• Research as Inquiry
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information has Value
• Scholarship as Conversation
new solutions to disciplinary issues.
• The student will be able to identify key disciplinary journals in order
to stay current on trends in their field.
As students gain experience with conducting research, they become
more effective and efficient in searching for information. The Searching
as Strategic Exploration concept emboldens researchers to take a flexible
and creative approach to research by investigating alternative in-
formation sources. Taking an “out-of-the-box” approach to research
also means going beyond the traditional scholarly materials and con-
sidering organizations and diverse authorities for contrary opinions and
approaches. One of the dispositions for this threshold concept is to
“recognize the value of browsing and other serendipitous methods of
information gathering.” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 9) The scope of the
students' project evolves as the researcher gathers information and re-
fines their research question. Librarians can offer assistance by teaching
advanced search strategies to tap into a broader spectrum of sources.
Expert researchers learn to use database thesauri to find additional
terminology to search for information. By using multiple disciplinary
databases and outside sources, the learner can synthesize and integrate
interdisciplinary perspectives on topics into research papers. Examples
of IL SLOs for Strategic Searching:
• Students will be able to search disciplinary databases with a con-
trolled vocabulary in order to find scholarly articles to meet their
information needs.
• Students will be able to use citation mining to find articles cited in
papers relevant to their topic.
Upper-level students examine a varied range of information formats
in their research. One of the knowledge practices for the Information
Creation as a Process concept explains that the learner can “articulate
the traditional and emerging processes of information creation and
dissemination in a particular discipline.” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 5)
Having developed expertise within their discipline, the student under-
stands the information cycle and how various types of information can
be incorporated into their research. They also recognize how “in-
formation may be perceived differently based on the format in which it
is packaged.” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 5) Current trends in the
discipline will first appear in trade publications and organizational
newsletters which are published frequently. Evidence-based research
and systematic reviews offer insights on best practices in a field and are
published in scholarly journals. Librarians can lead the discussion on
how information is produced and disseminated in different formats that
are all part of the scholarly conversation.
Graduate and doctoral students have higher stakes than under-
graduates regarding the information they create. XX graduate students
E. Dubicki
have the option of taking a comprehensive exam or writing a thesis
paper in most programs. The Information Creation as a Process concept
states that “experts recognize that information creations are valued
differently in different contexts, such as academia or the workplace.”
(ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 5) For some graduate students, the work-
place may influence the type of product they create, perhaps exploring
a bolder choice of formats which are more acceptable in the workplace
than in academia. Examples of IL SLOs:
• Students will be able to recognize that information comes in a
variety of formats in order to select the most appropriate materials
for their research.
• Students will be able to use primary and secondary sources in order
to meet their information needs.
Upper-class and graduate students should be familiar with the pla-
giarism, copyright, and citation rules covered in the Information has
Value threshold concept. However, the disposition that they “see
themselves as contributors to the information marketplace rather than
only consumers of it” may be a new perspective on their academic
outputs. Not only are they gathering information, they are also creating
output from their research. One of the knowledge practices for the
Information has Value concept stresses the opportunities learners have to
make decisions on where and how their information is circulated,
whether it be as presentations, posters, thesis papers, or published ar-
ticles. An example of an IL SLO for Information has Value:
• Students will be able to select a delivery format for their research
findings in order to best reach the intended audience.
The concept of Authority becomes more complex as students become
experts in their fields and recognize different authorities in the com-
munity, while simultaneously exhibiting an openness to consider al-
ternate perspectives. As mentioned in the concept's knowledge prac-
tices, learners “understand that many disciplines have acknowledged
authorities in the sense of well-known scholars and publications that
are widely considered ‘standard,’ and yet, even in those situations, some
scholars would challenge the authority of those sources.” (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 4) Understanding the interdisciplinary and global
perspective on topics becomes increasingly valuable for expert learners.
Seeber (2015) suggests that “we cannot afford to base our instruction
on finding the information necessary to complete the assignment at
hand without likewise discussing the political, cultural, and socio-
economic factors which contribute to the creation and dissemination of
that information.” (p. 162) Furthermore, students working on thesis
papers are developing their own personal voice, while realizing they
need to evaluate all positions fairly and acknowledge the potential bias
of conflicting views. Potential IL SLOs examining Authority include:
• Students will be able to analyze a resource's arguments in order to
determine credibility and authority.
• Students will be able to identify experts on their topic in other fields
in order to cultivate an interdisciplinary perspective.
As defined in the Scholarship as Conversation concept, research is a
“discursive practice in which ideas are formulated, debated, and
weighed against one another over extended periods of time.” (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 8) Experienced researchers recognize that there
may be “several competing perspectives” and “a query may not have a
single uncontested answer” to their research questions. (ACRL
Framework, 2015, p. 8) Consequently, they need to critically evaluate
the contributions of scholars in their field, as well as in other disciplines
to incorporate multiple perspectives into a cohesive whole. Librarians
can help students effectively perform a literature review to determine
previous research on a topic and how conversations have evolved over
time. Examining literature reviews and citation mining the
296
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
bibliographies of previous research uncovers experts and publication
titles that have played a role in the conversation on the topic. Course
discussion offer students a way to further explore their topic by con-
sidering the opinions of peers. Upper-class and graduate students
should “see themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than only
consumers of it” (ACRL Framework, 2015, p. 8) Students can look at
scholarly journals that publish student work, or presenting at profes-
sional conferences as potential venues for their work. Librarians can
play a role in identifying suitable organizations or journals accepting
student manuscript submissions. IL SOLs for Scholarship may include:
• Students will be able to identify experts in their field over the past
20 years in order to determine changes in disciplinary perspectives.
• Students will be able to identify organizations and journals in their
field in order publish their research.
Limitations of the study
One of the limitations of this study was the number of syllabi re-
viewed. While many faculty members willingly shared their syllabi,
those most likely to do so were “friends” of the Library or already come
to the library for instructional sessions. A larger syllabi sample may
have uncovered additional needs that are currently unmet by the li-
brary. Access to an institutional repository of syllabi would make this
collection process more manageable, instead of depending of faculty to
voluntarily provide course syllabi. Access to all syllabi for a department
would provide data for curriculum mapping to identify courses that
should be targeted for IL instruction.
Although this project may provide insights on how the Framework
concepts can be infused into IL instruction, the results are unique to the
XX curriculum. Other institutions should review the learning outcomes
and strategic directions for their own campuses when considering
changes to their Library's IL program.
Conclusions
This project demonstrates how a syllabus study provides insights on
how the academic library can play a significant role in meeting the
learning objectives of an institution's curriculum. Librarians are able to
create effective IL programs and services to meet students' needs after
identifying faculty-defined SLOs related to IL and reviewing the cour-
sework and assignments defined in the syllabi. While the study revealed
that 81% of syllabi had research components, direct mention of the
Library was less common.
This research study revealed that a tiered approach can be used
effectively to provide library instruction as students move along the
continuum from novice to expert researchers. Increasingly complex
research is expected of students as they progress in their academic ca-
reers. Lower-level courses required basic search strategies on topics of
general interest, and upper-level and graduate courses required ad-
vanced search strategies and utilization of disciplinary resources.
Therefore, by scaffolding IL concepts by course level, students continue
to build competencies throughout their academic careers. IL sessions
during the students' freshman year introduce students to academic li-
brary resources. This early interaction helps to reduce the “library an-
xiety” students may feel when overwhelmed by the volume of in-
formation and resources available in an academic library. Furthermore,
introductory sessions build a student-librarian relationship, increasing
the likelihood that students will seek assistance from librarians when
they encounter difficulties with their research.
The mapping of faculty SLOs to Framework concepts in this study
provides a model of how academic libraries can infuse the threshold
concepts articulated in the Framework into their IL instructional pro-
gram. Several categories of SLOs emerged which closely relate to the
Framework concepts: citation, plagiarism, and ethical use of informa-
tion; the research inquiry process; critical thinking skills used in the
E. Dubicki
evaluation and synthesis of sources; and the oral and written delivery
formats of research results. The Framework concepts serve as points of
discussion of how students can become part of scholarly conversation.
Though students easily see themselves as consumers of information as
they collect articles and data for their projects, a new mindset needs to
be shaped in order to position students as creators of information with
the presentations and papers they author.
Although multiple Framework concepts can be linked to faculty
SLOs, librarians need to be careful about covering too much informa-
tion during IL instruction, particularly one-shot instruction. Christensen
(2015) and Gross, Latham, and Julien (2018), recommend that in-
structional focus should be narrowed to one or two concepts during a
session. Otherwise, students may be overwhelmed by too much in-
formation. Similarly, a tiered approach to IL instruction insures that the
depth and specificity of material covered is appropriate to course as-
signments. The scope of material covered during IL sessions can be
extended through delivery of instruction via alternative techniques: a
flipped classroom approach; course-specific web-based research guides;
discussion forums; workshops; tutorials; podcasts; and one-on-one stu-
dent-librarian consultations to discuss research assignments. These
options can also enhance offerings available to online courses.
Conducting a syllabus study also identified opportunities for library
outreach to academic departments and collaboration with faculty to
infuse information literacy into the curriculum, as well as ascertaining
potential campus partnerships. A more concerted effort to include the
Library in course syllabi as a campus resource would create a stronger
presence. For example, developing a brief paragraph regarding the re-
sources and services offered by Library that faculty can insert into their
syllabi and links to the Library website, course-specific research guides,
instructional tutorials, and librarian liaisons. These links should also be
included in the university's course management system.
When faculty-librarian relationships are strong, faculty are more
likely to recommend that students seek assistance from librarians.
Studies have found that IL is commonly a shared responsibility between
faculty and librarians. (Bury, 2016; DaCosta, 2010; Dubicki, 2013;
Saunders, 2012; Singh, 2005) The fact that so many faculty teach IL
themselves supports the fact that librarians should discuss the new
Framework concepts with faculty to reinforce ideas that can be dis-
cussed in classes. Charles (2017) posits that the “Courses that already
have faculty support for IL could become models or represent the early
adopters of the new approaches” defined in the Framework. While one-
on-one outreach is possible, offering workshops has the potential to
reach more faculty and to facilitate robust discussions about the con-
cepts and how they can be incorporated into lesson plans and assign-
ments. (Dolinger, 2019) A multi-pronged approach for outreach should
be considered, including: open houses; workshops; newsletters; at-
tending academic department meetings; and one-on-one faculty/li-
brarian consultations.
Working in partnership with faculty and academic services, librar-
ians can build on synergies with institutional initiatives to infuse IL
concepts and skills throughout the curriculum creating a positive en-
vironment for student success. The Framework's threshold concepts
become a foundation for learners to consume and create information
and apply the knowledge and dispositions learned to develop expertise
in their academic and professional lives.
References
ACRL Framework for Information Literacy Sandbox (2019). http://sandbox.acrl.org/
resources, Accessed date: 22 February 2019.
Alcock, E., & Rose, K. (2016). Find the gap: Evaluating library instruction reach using
syllabi. The Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.11645/
10.1.2038.
Association of College and Research Libraries (2015). Framework for information literacy
for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.
Baggett, K., Connell, V., & Thome, A. (2018). Frame by frame: Using the ACRL
Framework for Information Literacy to create a library assessment plan. College &
Research Libraries News, 79(4), 186–189,200. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.4.186.
297
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
Bravender, P., McClure, H., & Schaub, G. (Eds.). (2015). Teaching information literacy
threshold concepts: Lesson plans for librarians. Chicago, IL: The Association of College &
Research Libraries.
Burkhardt, J. M. (2016). Teaching information literacy reframed: 50+ framework-based
exercises for creating information-literate learners. Chicago, IL: ALA Neal Shulman.
Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy: Opportunities and
challenges for undergraduate information literacy education. Reference Services
Review, 44(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-11-2015-0047.
Charles, L. (2017). Embracing challenges in times of change: A survey of the readiness of
academic librarians in New Jersey for transition to the ACRL framework.
Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 221–245.
Christensen, M. K. (2015). Designing one-shot sessions around threshold concepts.
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 20(3–4), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10875301.2015.1109573.
DaCosta, J. W. (2010). Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An ex-
amination of faculty perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the
United States and England. College & Research Libraries, 71(3), 203–222. https://doi.
org/10.5860/0710203.
Dewald, N. H. (2003). Anticipating library use by business students: The uses of a syllabus
study. Research Strategies, 19, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2003.09.003.
Dolinger, E. (2019). Defining and teaching information literacy: Engaging faculty and the
framework. College & Research Libraries, 80(1), 10–21. https://crln.acrl.org/index.
php/crlnews/article/view/17525, Accessed date: 22 February 2019.
Dorner, J. L., Taylor, S. E., & Hodson-Carlton, K. (2001). Faculty-librarian collaboration
for nursing information literacy: A tiered approach. Reference Services Review, 29(2),
132–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320110394173.
Dubicki, E. (2013). Faculty perceptions of students' information literacy skills compe-
tency. The Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.11645/7.
2.1852.
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 and Information Science Research, 40(3–4), 262–268. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.008.
Herscovitch, P., MacMillan, M., & Sharun, S. (2015). Patterns in information literacy
instruction: What's really going on in our classrooms? ACRL 2015. March 25–28,
2018, Portland, Oregon.
Holliday, W., & Fagerheim, B. (2006). Integrating information literacy with a sequenced
English composition curriculum. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 169–184.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0023.
Jeffery, K. M., Houk, K. M., Nielsen, J. M., & Wong-Welch, J. M. (2017). Digging in the
mines: Mining course syllabi in search of the library. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 12(1), 72–84.
Johnson, B., & McCracken, I. M. (2016). Reading for integration, identifying com-
plementary threshold concepts: The ACRL framework in conversation with naming
what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies. Communications in Information
Literacy, 10(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.23.
Johnson-Grau, G., Archambault, S. G., Acosta, E. S., & McLean, L. (2016). Patience,
persistence, and process: Embedding a campus-wide information literacy program
across the curriculum. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43, 750–756. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.10.013.
Kuglitsch, R. (2015). Teaching for transfer: Reconciling the framework with disciplinary
information literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(3), 457–470. https://doi.
org/10.1353/pla.2015.0040.
Larsen, D., Wallace, S., & Pankl, L. (2018). Mapping library values and student learning
outcomes: Alignment with university pedagogical goals and practices. The Journal of
Information Literacy, 12(1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.11645/12.1.2399.
Lauer, J. D., Merz, L. H., & Craig, S. L. (1989). What syllabi reveal about library use: A
comparative look at two private academic institutions. Research Strategies, 7(4),
167–174.
Maybee, C., Carlson, J., Slebodnik, M., & Chapman, B. (2015). “It's in the syllabus”:
Identifying information literacy and data information literacy opportunities using a
grounded theory approach. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 369–376. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.009.
McClure, R. (2016). Rewired: Research-writing partnerships within the framework. Chicago,
IL: The Association of College & Research Libraries.
McGowan, B., Gonzalez, M., & Stanny, C. J. (2016). What do undergraduate course syllabi
say about information literacy? portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(3), 599–617.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0040.
Miller, M., & Neyer, L. (2016). Mapping information literacy and written communication
outcomes in an undergraduate nursing curriculum. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research &
Practice, 4(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2016.121.
Oakleaf, M. (2011). Are they learning? Are we? Learning outcomes and the academic
library. The Library Quarterly, 81(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/657444.
Oakleaf, M. (2014). A roadmap for assessing student learning using the new framework
for information literacy for higher education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
40(5), 510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.001.
Rambler, L. (1982). Syllabus study: Key to a responsive academic library. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 8(3), 155–159.
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning
outcome. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001.
Seeber, K. (2015). This is really happening: Criticality and discussions of context in
ACRL's framework for information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy,
9(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.2.192.
Singh, A. B. (2005). A report on faculty perceptions of students' information literacy
competencies in journalism and mass communication programs: The ACEJMC survey.
E. Dubicki
College & Research Libraries, 66(4), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.4.294.
Smith, C., Doversberger, L., Jones, S., Ladwig, P., Parker, J., & Pietraszewski, B. (2012).
Using course syllabi to uncover opportunities for curriculum-integrated instruction.
Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(3), 264–271.
VanScoy, A., & Oakleaf, M. J. (2008). Evidence vs anecdote: Using syllabi to plan cur-
riculum-integrated information literacy instruction. College & Research Libraries,
298
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 288–298
69(6), 566–575.
Williams, L. M., Cody, S. A., & Parnell, J. (2004). Prospecting for new collaborations:
Mining syllabi for library service opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
30(4), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2004.04.009.
Willingham-McClain, L. (2011). Using a university-wide syllabus study to examine
learning outcomes and assessment. Journal of Faculty Development, 25(1), 43–53.