AARL

Immersion in Australia: an information literacy health spa for librarians?

Irene Doskatsch

Abstract: The establishment of the Association of College and Research Libraries' (ACRL) Institute for Information Literacy Immersion program was partly in response to the laments of influential US university library directors who publicly stated that many new librarianship graduates did not have the skills and knowledge to competently adopt the educative role. The author reports on the results of an informal survey to ascertain the desirability and suitability of an Immersion program for Australian and New Zealand librarians and describes her experience of the ACRL Immersion program. The role of the Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) in facilitating Immersion style programs is also discussed.

tarting a paper with a confession is unusual; nevertheless my admission sets the context for this paper. Over a decade ago, when interviewed for a subject librarian position at the South Australian College of Advanced Education Library, I struggled to answer a question about reader education. My pre-service librarianship qualification had not equipped me with a pedagogic grounding for designing and delivering training. The teaching role of librarians and the facilitation of information literacy were not covered by the curriculum. In 2002 applicants for a library position assuming an educative role might be asked to explain how they would use technological innovations and changes in pedagogy as leverage for creating new alliances with academics and contributing to the institution's teaching and learning framework. I suspect most applicants would struggle to answer such a question.

This paper recounts preparatory work to establish the Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) professional development program. It is in two parts: the first describes the author's experience of an Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Institute for Information Literacy Immersion program in Plattsburgh, New York, and reports the results of a survey to find out whether the programs offered by the ACRL Institute would meet the training needs of Australian and New Zealand teaching librarians. The second part discusses whether ANZIIL should provide professional development, based on the Immersion model, for librarians assuming an educative role.

What is an immersion program?

The ACRL Institute has three basic goals:

• prepare librarians to become effective teachers in information literacy programs
• support librarians, other educators and administrators in playing a leadership role in the development and implementation of information literacy programs, and
• forge new relationships throughout the educational community to work towards information literacy curriculum development. [1]

The drive for the ACRL Institute to develop an Immersion program came at a time when significant numbers of US universities and colleges were beginning to incorporate information literacy competencies in curriculum requirements thereby creating a demand for information literacy programs and instructional librarians. Job advertisements for positions involving information literacy were increasingly emphasising the library's educative role and seeking applicants with creative teaching skills and an ability to participate in curriculum development and outcomes assessment. [2] Prominent academic librarians were also concerned that:

information literacy and its pedagogy [has] largely been self-taught, nurtured by colleagues, or learned through attendance at a wide variety of professional conferences and programs. [3]

A 1993 survey revealed that only ten library schools in the US and Canada offered a full course in library instruction. [4]Three years later a survey sponsored by ACRL investigated the perceived importance of teaching competencies to university library directors, and whether instruction experience or academic teaching qualifications were important in gaining a position requiring delivery of information literacy programs. It confirmed that university library directors do take into account pedagogic knowledge and skills in the employment process. [5]

In 1997 Cerise Oberman, Dean of Library and Information Services at Plattsburgh State University of New York, presented a paper at the annual LOEX Conference proposing the concept of an Institute for Information Literacy. Her proposal received enthusiastic endorsement from both practitioners and ACRL who provided establishment funds and set up an advisory group to progress Oberman's proposal. The next year the advisory group invited 25 individuals, including librarians from academic, school and public libraries, provosts and school system administrators, library school faculty, practicing instructional librarians, and library directors to a forum to develop strategies to advance:

• the problems and challenges identified by the advisory group
• the concepts of information literacy
• the ideas for an intensive Immersion program
• the characteristics of an Immersion graduate, and
• ideas for other types of programs that the ACRL Institute could offer.

Outcomes from the forum determined the agenda initiatives that the ACRL Institute would assume. The forum deemed the training of instructional librarians as a priority. Consequently the first Immersion program was run in 1999.

The Immersion program provides four-and-a-half days of intensive training and education for instructional librarians. It is divided into two tracks. One is for new librarians or librarians new to teaching; the other for experienced librarians with a leadership role promoting information literacy and forging teaching partnerships with the academic community. Practicing instructional librarians, library school faculty, library directors and appropriate faculty drawn from other disciplines like computer science, psychology and education have contributed to the design and content of both tracks. Track One includes classroom techniques, learning theory, leadership, and assessment framed in the context of information literacy theory. Track Two focuses on the politics of information literacy, academic culture, and on developing, integrating, and managing information literacy programs.

Since 1999 an Immersion program has run annually. The first Immersion program targeted academic librarians; subsequent programs were open to librarians from other sectors. The ACRL Institute has a philosophical commitment to be inclusive of all librarianship and provide programs that are responsive, mobile, and cost effective for all librarians interested in participating. Close to 600 librarians have participated in the program. Participation is very competitive: only one in four applicants are accepted. The application process requires a one-page resume, one letter describing the university's commitment to information literacy from the applicant's library manager, another letter of reference from an academic or colleague stating how the applicant's participation in the program will add value to the institutional goals and further their professional development. As well as this documentation Track One applicants are required to submit a two-page statement that explains how learning outcomes from the program will assist them to improve delivery of information literacy programs. Additional documentation for Track Two includes a description of a dilemma or challenge they would like to address with respect to their information literacy program and an account of how the institution's information literacy initiatives would benefit from their participation in Immersion. I attended the program as an observer and had the freedom to move between tracks. Registration cost for Immersion '01 was US$1 295 for ACRL members and US$1 l495 for Non-ACRL members. The fee includes program participation, comprehensive handouts, access to computer facilities, and electronic discussion forum on a WebCT site, all meals, dormitory accommodation and social events.

Would an immersion program meet the training needs of Australian and New Zealand teaching librarians?

ANZIIL is an outcome of the CAUL Information Literacy Standards workshop, held in Adelaide in 2000, at which Australian and New Zealand universities were represented along with schools, TAFE, the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL) and ALIA. There was a general consensus from the workshop that an Institute, which would contribute to the national information literacy agenda by addressing the development of information literacy in education, was educationally, professionally and politically desirable. ANZIIL aims to work closely with the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), Council of New Zealand University Librarians (CONZUL), Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), National Working Group for TAFE Library Services (NWGTLS) and Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA). CAUL and CONZUL have endorsed the formation of ANZIIL.

ANZIIL's mission is to support organisations, institutions and individuals in the promotion of information literacy and, in particular, the embedding of information literacy within the total educational process. The Institute aspires to identify, facilitate, foster and support best practice in information literacy education through three key goals:

• professional development
• promotion, marketing and advocacy
• research.

One possible strategy to achieve the professional development goal is the delivery and coordination of an ANZIIL Immersion Program.

In 2001 I received permission from ACRL to observe the delivery of an Immersion program in Plattsburgh, New York. Prior to my departure I sent a short questionnaire (see appendix 1) to the information literacy co-ordinator, or equivalent position, at 35 Australian university libraries and to a New Zealand colleague who agreed to distribute the e-mail to the eight New Zealand university libraries. Twenty-eight responses were received from Australian university libraries and seven from New Zealand. While this exercise did not constitute rigorous research, the feedback is interesting and should prompt further investigation. It revealed the following:

Information literacy and its pedagogy

- the majority, 35 respondents, agreed with the Director of the Institute for Information Literacy that:

the concepts of information literacy and its pedagogy have largely been self-taught, nurtured by colleagues, or learned through attendance at a wide variety of professional conferences and programs[1] (see appendix 2 for a representative sample of responses).

Replication of the immersion program

- 31 respondents indicated that they would definitely support such a program providing it was affordable. Three respondents, with established in-house training programs, doubted that their staff would benefit from a four and half day intensive program, while another respondent preferred her staff to undertake accredited courses. However, as a New Zealand colleague in e-mail correspondence stated:

I think a program such as Immersion is not only appropriate, but necessary. We should replicate it in Australasia because it:

• will be much more cost effective than going to the US and will allow more of us to attend!
• should provide an invaluable opportunity for in-depth training and building relationships with other practitioners in the field of information literacy; and
• will include local experts to add a more local perspective to the material and to provide relevant examples.

While an Australian colleague who attended Immersion 2000 believed that:

one of its great strengths was the opportunity to work with like-minded individuals, and others who are experiencing similar situations. The chance to share ideas was great. It was also good to have an opportunity to focus solely on information literacy and not have to fit it around the rest of the work activities. That was one of the strongest drawing cards. (See appendix 3 for a representative sample of responses.)

In-house training programs

- the majority of university libraries do not have a structured staff development program for librarians who facilitate information literacy. Existing programs include:

• an overview of the library's information literacy program and a probationary period during which the new appointee observes other librarians delivering classes and runs classes with support from a more experienced librarian. New appointees are only allowed to deliver training after successful completion of the probationary period. This approach is linked with ad hoc sessions from the institution's centre for educational advancement
• compulsory completion of Workplace Training Categories 1 and 2 before delivering information literacy training sessions
• one New Zealand library encourages its teaching staff to complete a Certificate of Adult Teaching
• programs based on the Wollongong University Library initiative 'Equipped for teaching workshop' complemented by a series of training workshops run by an education academic employed for the purpose covering issues such as teaching methodology, curriculum, evaluation and assessment and WebCT Training
• train-the-trainer program facilitated by an external provider, and
• modified version of the UK program, EduLib, delivered as an 8 week x 3 hour course which covers topics such as learning pedagogy, teaching practice, diversity, evaluation and assessment, teaching portfolios, planning and designing learning events, presentation skills, and peer review. Attendance is mandatory.

Best way to prepare librarians for the educative role

- there was no consensus on a best way to prepare a librarian to facilitate information literacy. Some suggested that experience is probably the best teacher, combined with observation of more experienced colleagues, mentoring and participation in a stimulating professional environment. Others stated that relying on one's own ability to self-teach or depending on the abilities and goodwill of colleagues was not the best approach. They recommended structured inhouse programs, similar to Immersion or formal for-credit awards such as postgraduate adult education courses. Only a few stated that pedagogic content should be included in assessable subjects in all pre-service librarianship awards. A New Zealand respondent claimed that training programs, both inhouse and external, are needed so that librarians can have access to current pedagogic practice but also library-specific practices. Teaching librarians must know:

• what exactly information literacy is and how best to develop it
• how to teach in an androgogical or facilitative style
• the value of collaborative teaching with academics.

A succinct summary of how best to prepare a librarian for an educative role was offered by an Australian respondent: '... pedagogy, practice and peers. The first informs, the second confirms and the third affirms.'

Immersion 2001 - one Australian's perspective

Immersion '01 began with a plenary session delivered by Mary Jane Petrowski, head of Library Instruction, Colgate University. Her address, Towards an Understanding of Information Literacy as Personal Practice, began with an elucidation of creativity and divergent thinking in the workplace and concluded with an exposition of the seven faces of information literacy as conceptualised by Australia's Christine Bruce. At the end of the lecture, participants were challenged to consider their own practice as an educator by addressing the following questions:

• to what extent do you incorporate the seven conceptions of information literacy in your teaching?
• how do you use information in your everyday work?
• describe your picture of an effective information user, and
• describe your experience of being an information literate educator.

This was a valuable exercise as busy practitioners seldom find the time for critical reflection and analysis.

All participants had pre-conference homework. Pre-conference preparation for Track One included selecting an actual instructional situation, one-shot session, a series of classes, an online tutorial, a printed workbook or series of assignments that they wanted to change or improve. They were asked to describe the instructional situation in terms of:

• objectives
• audience
• constraints - factors such as time, facilities, student preparation, etc
• content ie what will be taught
• theoretical approaches to learning
• teaching methods
• accommodating different learning styles
• use of technology
• negotiation with faculty to determine, outline, or define the instructional situation, and
• evaluation.

In the final stage of the program participants were asked to revise their homework instructional scenario and analyse the reasons for the revision.

Compared with existing for credit courses, such as a graduate certificate in higher education or graduate diploma in adult education, Track One covers psychology of learning, presentation techniques, evaluation and elements of good instruction at a superficial level. Librarians who have completed such for-credit courses, as I have, have benefited by receiving the necessary theoretical grounding on which to apply a broad repertoire of teaching strategies. However, my qualification in adult education and training did not give me the conceptual understanding of information literacy to enable me to make the transition from the limited construct of user education to envisaging the seven conceptions of information literacy as curriculum scaffolding. My main criticism of Track One was the inadequate coverage of flexible delivery of education and learning in an electronic environment. Given that the teaching and learning strategic plans of most Australian universities have a reference to increasing the institution's commitment to flexible delivery and student centred learning, a southern hemisphere Immersion program would need to address issues such as computer-mediated communication and design and evaluation of online program delivery.

Track Two focused on the partnerships and strategies for vertical and horizontal integration of information literacy into the curriculum. Homework for participants was to prepare a case study, which included description of their institution's teaching and learning strategy, the library's approach to information literacy, instruction program content and a specific problem relating to any of these. A SWOT analysis of the library's information literacy program was also required. Track Two covered systems thinking and organisational change, campus politics and faculty culture, instructional design, models for effective teaching, assessment as learning, assessment of information literacy programs, leadership and conceptual transition from bibliographic instruction to information literacy. The final project was reframing the homework case study and producing an action plan to address the problem identified in it. Track Two Australian graduates with whom I corresponded described it as unique, empowering, very practical and 'a definite goer for an Aussie Immersion program. The content of Track Two is a blend of pedagogy, management and leadership'. It is pragmatic and unrivalled by existing inhouse or for-credit courses. A hybrid of Track One and Two might be suitable for the Australian and New Zealand market.

Immersion is structured to foster group interaction and active participation thereby facilitating experimental and experiential learning. Successful outcomes depend on open communication, mutual trust, and management of individual differences. In an e-mail to all participants Petrowski advised that the Immersion Program is:

not a conference or a meeting or a workshop where you passively soak up words of wisdom from the 'sages on the stage'. It is an active process in which you as participants share responsibility with each other and the faculty to make learning happen.

It is an experience of withdrawing from work and family commitments and distractions to a place of seclusion, in which one is challenged, stimulated and sustained - in every sense a retreat. It is also hard work - program commitments commenced at eight in the morning and often do not finish until eight in the evening. The primary goal of the Immersion program is transformative learning. Neophytes and more seasoned practitioners are encouraged to use critical self-reflection to revise old or develop new assumptions, beliefs or ways of seeing their role in facilitating information literacy. Answers are not given. Participants are guided to discover their own answers. Collegial bonds to support post program exploration of the pedagogy of information literacy are forged. Participants emerge from the experience with a better understanding of what the educative role entails and greater confidence to perform it. They depart armed with tools and resources that enable them to develop their own solutions.

Should ANZIIL deliver an Australian immersion program?

Changes in the philosophy of education and workplace expectations have defined information literacy as an essential aspect of lifelong learning and identified it as a required graduate outcome. As the scope of sources on which student learning is based expands, the definition of educator broadens and increasingly necessitates the involvement of librarians in the education process. In all higher education institutions librarians are increasingly assuming an educative role. In collaboration with academic staff and learning advisors, they are exploring ways to integrate information literacy in the curriculum. Collaborative relationships with academic staff are enhanced if librarians understand institutional politics and academic culture, speak the language of teaching and learning and demonstrate an ability to marry pedagogy with information literacy. A conservative estimate is that academic librarians spend 60 per cent of their time on teaching and associated duties such as planning, designing and evaluating learning activities.

The library profession is yet to agree on the best way to prepare librarianship graduates to facilitate information literacy. Anecdotal evidence, as reported in appendix 2, suggests that preservice librarianship awards do not adequately prepare or sensitise graduates to assume an educative role. The depth at which the pedagogy of information literacy is addressed in these awards varies. Discussions with colleagues reveal that many are unwilling to enrol in formal academic programs, citing heavy workloads, finances and family responsibilities as reasons. Their preference is for practical short courses. Topics of interest include marketing, program evaluation, instructional design for online delivery and public speaking and general presentation skills.

My assessment of the content and structure of the program is based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. ANZIIL might need to conduct a training needs analysis survey to gather data to help shape its professional development program. Prospective participants need to provide the Institute with answers to questions such as:

• Why is training needed?
• Who wants to be trained?
• What do they want to learn?
• What is the best way to teach them?
• When do they want to learn it?
• Where do they need to learn it?

The minimum pre-requisites for the viability of such an Immersion program include backing from CAUL and CONZUL, effective marketing strategies, involvement of experts in the pedagogy of information literacy and appropriate administrative and infrastructure support from a willing host.

ACRL covered the costs associated with the initial development of the program, including travelling and accommodation expenses of librarians who designed and delivered the curriculum. The Immersion program is strongly supported by the US university library directors. For a southern hemisphere Immersion program to be feasible it must have the philosophical commitment and some financial support from Australian and New Zealand university, TAFE and polytechnic college library managers. The budget for the program would need to be based on total cost recovery and the registration fee kept to a minimum. Administrative and facility costs and projected attendance would determine the registration fee.

The primary market for the ACRL Immersion is the higher education sector. The program is not actively promoted to other sectors because demand to attend is already high. The potential market for a southern hemisphere Immersion includes librarians from Australian, New Zealand, African, Asian and Pacific region universities and technical colleges. Once the program is established the market could expand to include the public and special libraries sector and librarianship educators. The most effective way to promote the program is to demonstrate to employers the benefits the library could derive from staff attending the program. To this end a post Immersion survey could be built into the marketing strategy.

Substantial human resources will be needed to sustain the program. The ACRL office handles all the administrative work including responding to enquiries, selecting the hosting institution, managing the finances, processing the applications, producing the handouts, collating evaluation feedback etc. About six months before each annual Immersion a team of 12 nationally recognised librarians and scholars meet for a period of three days to review the program and refine the curriculum. Their responsibilities include designing assignment tasks, maintaining an intranet site, selecting readings, pre- and post- Immersion contribution to an electronic discussion forum, and providing post Immersion feedback to participants on their action plans and case studies. A team of five deliver the annual program. Immersion faculty are generously supported by their employers. However, a significant proportion of the preparation work is done in their own time and most take annual leave to deliver the program. ACRL covers their expenses and provides a stipend.

Each year US university libraries are invited to host a national or regional Immersion Program. The host institution organises meeting rooms, AV and IT support, computer labs (with word processing and e-mail access), social events, accommodation and meals. Accommodation is usually on-campus dormitories. During Immersion the host institution provides staffing for registration, dorm check-in, and general troubleshooting.

Should ANZIIL deliver an Australian Immersion program? Factors such as new directions for higher education and the changing role of academic librarians clearly support the desirability of structured professional development programs focused on the pedagogy of information literacy. However, this assertion only partially answers the question. A complete answer requires weighing up the pros and cons of an Immersion style program.

Table 1
Pros and cons of an immersion style program

Is a southern hemisphere Immersion a viable proposition? The honest answer is the jury is still out. CAUL and CONZUL have endorsed ANZIIL's role to identify and facilitate best practice in information literacy education through professional development. The ANZIIL Professional Development Advisory group consists of professionals who have demonstrated wide experience in the facilitation of information literacy and have the expertise and commitment to develop, organise and deliver a professional development program that meets the needs of the Australian and New Zealand teaching librarians. Under the leadership of Judy Peacock the working party will consider a variety of program structures, immersion versus modular structure, and delivery modes including face-to-face, teleconferencing, synchronous or asynchronous online or a combination of these.

Conclusion

It is easy to lament that academics do not recognise librarians as partners in learning or that pre-service librarianship awards do not adequately prepare us for an educative role. It is harder to move out of the comfort zone and honestly appraise our credentials, the rigor of our research, our pedagogic knowledge and teaching competence. Library mangers, professional associations and librarianship educators need to collaborate to create professional development opportunities and performance challenges and to provide extrinsic motivation to help librarians position themselves

as key educators in the teaching and learning environment, and empowered with an educational competence and professional confidence equal to that of their academic peers. [6]

Rhetoric about the importance of information literacy and the educative role of librarians must be converted into actions to enhance the credibility and capability of that educative role. Demands for information literacy programs and teaching librarians are increasing. Yet feedback from colleagues suggests that none of the existing formal and informal programs adequately address the pedagogy of information literacy. It is both timely and educationally, professionally and politically desirable for ANZIIL to provide professional development programs to develop the pedagogical knowledge and teaching competence of teaching librarians.

Notes

1. Institute for Information Literacy (IIL) goals. http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/nilihp.html [7 June 2002]
2. D Shonrock and C Mulder 'Instructional Librarians: Acquiring the Proficiencies Critical to their Work' College & Research Libraries vol 54 no 2 1993 pp31-35
3. C Oberman Formal training is a critical need. http://www.ala.org/acrl/iiltrain.htm [7 June2002]
4. Shonrock and Mulder op cit
5. C Avery and K Ketchner 'Do Instruction Skills impress Employers?' College & Research Libraries vol 57 no 3 1996 pp249-258
6. J Peacock 'Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 32 no 1 2001 pp26-40

Appendix One

1. The rationale for the establishment of the US Institute for Information Literacy (IIL) was the apparent failure of library and information science awards to adequately prepare graduates to competently perform the role of an educator. The current US IIL Director states...

   the concepts of information literacy and its pedagogy have largely been self-taught, nurtured by colleagues, or learned through attendance at a wide variety of professional conferences and programs[1]

   Do you think that this statement has veracity in the Australian and New Zealand context?

2. ILL annually runs a four and-a-half-day of intensive information literacy training and education for instructional librarians.
   • Track I: Librarian as Teacher. This track focuses on individual development for new librarians or instructional librarians who are interested in enhancing, refreshing, or extending their individual instruction skills. Curriculum includes classroom techniques, learning theory, leadership, and assessment framed in the context of information literacy theory.
   • Track II: Librarian as Program Manager. This track focuses on developing, integrating, and managing institutional and programmatic information literacy programs; some attention will be given to individual instruction skill development. Individuals with knowledge of learning theory, pedagogy, and assessment and who also have some program management experience will benefit most from Track II.

   Is it appropriate for ANZIIL to replicate the US program for Australian and New Zealand librarians or put bluntly would you send staff to such a program?

   If such a program is inappropriate please suggest topics that ANZIIL workshops should cover?

3. Does your library have an in-house training program for librarians who to facilitate information literacy?

   If YES please describe.

   If NO how does a new librarian acquire the necessary competencies to effectively deliver training?

4. What is the best way to prepare a librarian for the role of facilitating information literacy?

Appendix two

Question one -sample responses

The current US IIL Director states

the concepts of information literacy and its pedagogy have largely been self-taught, nurtured by colleagues, or learned through attendance at a wide variety of professional conferences and programs.

Do you think that this statement has veracity in the Australian and New Zealand context?

• I believe this is very important and do believe that in Australia we have neglected this area (and I can speak from experience in my studies - I was never taught how to teach IL classes).
• In my experience this holds true - certainly when I studied (1984) IL was not explicitly discussed nor were issues related to teaching or training. Staff that are currently undertaking studies at the grad dip level or Masters in information studies do not show any evidence of this discussion. However, those doing the technician's course undertake a subject on 'info lit'.
• Basically yes. Charles Sturt University does offer a Graduate Certificate in Applied Science (Information Literacy) but it doesn't seem to be included in their basic BA curriculum, or in that of Curtin. I don't think the post-grad QUT course covers it either.
• Yes, we think this statement accurately reflects our situation. We have taken responsibility for our own skill development in this area though we have always received institutional support when we asked for it. As well as attending, and speaking at, conferences, some of us have taken courses in instructional design, flexible delivery, assessment methods, etc. and have read professional journals.
• Yes - I have been involved in organising annual user education seminars on behalf of the CAVAL Reference Interest Group, and last year when we checked where library schools were at with this part of the curriculum, there was a big hole.
• Absolutely. Perhaps more so, given that librarians have 'general' status and are not viewed as intrinsic faculty members, but rather as 'support services'. Our librarians need to not only be conversant with the pedagogy and practice, they also must be ahead of the game in terms of teaching and learning. As academics ask less 'what is IL?' and more 'How do I do it?', the librarian's position in the T&L cycle is becoming more critical than ever before. In taking on this consultancy role, they must be willing, able and confident enough to do so, in order that they can do it well, and that the academics trust and value their contribution.
• Yes I do believe that the US statement reflects the situation here. Our experience is that new graduates are largely unprepared for classroom IL teaching and lack both the skills and confidence to manage the necessary preparation, teaching and evaluation needed. I think that it is critical that this is recognised and addressed.

Appendix three

Is it appropriate for ANZIIL to replicate the US program for Australian and New Zealand librarians or put bluntly, would you send staff to such a program?

• While I am in favour of library staff gaining educational qualifications (such as Grad Certs in Tertiary Teaching & Learning) I recognise the limitations of such courses. Time is a factor, as is willingness to undertake further study. There is also the issue of not being 'specific' enough and not geared toward the role we envisage - we do not want to replace academic staff but we need the language to be able to communicate better and to be able to structure our teaching/training to get the most out of our time and maximise outcomes for students/clients. So yes, I would definitely encourage staff to attend such a program.
• To be honest, I'm not sure. Those people that have attended the US institute (to whom I have talked) have had nothing but praise for it generally, which would suggest that a local version would attract many more takers by making it more accessible in terms of distance, time and cost. However, I think that, while generic library-based programs such as this are useful I also think that there is a need to 'infiltrate' or 'exploit' current accredited T&L or Higher Ed. courses such as Grad Certs etc. These courses bring with them a professional validity and internationally accepted credibility which adds value for each librarian in terms of peer perception and acceptance.
• Yes we would send staff to a program such as the above. Here at X we encourage all our librarians involved in IL teaching to work with the academic teaching and learning unit. As a result all current staff with responsibility for IL training have either a Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma in Education (Tertiary Teaching). This has been enormously beneficial for a number of reasons including providing the opportunity for our staff to work directly with members of academic staff and develop partnerships and networks that have allowed a collaborative approach to the development of IL programs.
• Such a program has value in Australasia. We needn't replicate it exactly. Certainly from my perspective as someone who attended Immersion in 2000, many people in both tracks felt at least a little frustrated at the delineation between the groups. A program, which combines something of the two tracks, may be more valuable. One of the greatest benefits of this type of program is the opportunity to mix with professional colleagues, share problems, challenges and solutions - and to focus (without distraction), on one part of the job. It can reduce the feeling of isolation - and powerlessness to know that others are facing similar challenges.

Irene Doskatsch, senior librarian: Information Literacy and Executive chair, ANZIIL, University of SA, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001. E-mail: irene.doskatsch@unisa.edu.au.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address).