AARL

Information literacy: how do librarians and academics work in partnership to deliver effective learning programs?

Ruth Ivey

Abstract: This study investigated the working partnerships of librarians and academics in their efforts to develop students' information literacy at the University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. The study found that the effectiveness of information literacy programmes depends on the teaching partners having a shared understanding of how information literacy is developed, and the provision of appropriate staffing resources to develop and deliver the programmes. Effective communication and positive working relationships are some conditions that were found to be essential to the success of collaborative teaching partnerships, and strategies were identified for initiating, developing and sustaining those partnerships. This paper is an abridged version of a research paper submitted to the School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Library and Information Studies in 2002. Copies of the full report are held in the libraries of both universities.

Librarians and academics are becoming increasingly aware of the need to provide learning programs that develop students' information literacy and many examples of information literacy programs are documented. However, there is little detail about how they operate, which makes it difficult for librarians and academics to develop and implement new programs. Also, people wishing to develop programs that are integrated into the teaching curriculum need to know how successful collaborative partnerships operate, and to understand the factors that influence the effectiveness and sustainability of such collaboration.

This study searched for the important elements of collaborative teaching partnerships and how such partnerships can be initiated, developed, and sustained. It investigated librarians 'and academics' understanding of the term information literacy and their perceptions of who is responsible for teaching the various elements. It also gathered information on the roles of the partners in planning, teaching and evaluating learning programs, and the challenges or problems they experienced.

A review of the literature from the last decade identified many existing information literacy programs, as well as the key issues and barriers to developing effective programs and collaborative partnerships between librarians and academics. But it failed to find information about the roles of partners and the collaborative process of planning, delivering and evaluating learning programs. One model of information literacy and one model of collaboration were selected from the literature to be used as theoretical frameworks for the research. These models were chosen because they provided lists of attributes and behaviours that could be used to gather information from interviewees.

An information literate person has the following attributes:

• recognises the need for information
• recognises that accurate information is the basis for intelligent information
• formulates questions based on information needs
• identifies potential sources of information
• develops successful search strategies
• accesses sources of information, including computer-based and other technologies
• evaluates information
• organises information for practical application
• integrates new information into an existing body of knowledge
• uses information in critical thinking and problem solving, and
• uses critical thinking and problem solving in handling information (adapted from Doyle[1] and Moore[2]).

In a study of successful collaborations where the characters, personalities, eras and fields were all different, Schrage[3] discovered consistent themes and characteristics. Although successful collaboration is not guaranteed by replicating the behaviours listed below, he found that they revealed patterns of interaction that consistently led to successful collaborative outcomes:

• competence for the task at hand by each member of the collaborative team
• a shared, understood goal
• mutual respect, tolerance and trust
• creation and manipulation of shared spaces
• continuous but not continual communication
• formal and informal environments
• clear lines of responsibility but no restrictive boundaries
• decisions do not have to be made by consensus
• physical presence is not necessary
• selective use of outsiders for complementary insights and information, and
• collaborations end.

In February 2002, seven liaison librarians and seven academics from three schools of study (Faculty of Arts and Social Science, School of Law and School of Education) who had worked in teaching partnerships were interviewed by the researcher, using a set of 24 questions that had been tested in a pilot study. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed soon afterwards by the researcher. Transcripts were then analysed and coded according to four major themes (information literacy, successful collaboration, partnerships, challenges and problems) and according to common categories that appeared within those themes.[4] Further analysis of the coded data resulted in written statements and two tables of data. As the research sample was limited to fourteen interviewees who are very interested in, and supportive of, the research topic, the results cannot be generalised. However, findings that are not affected by the size and nature of this sample and could be applied in other settings will be described.

Important elements of collaborative teaching partnerships

The dynamics of collaborative teaching partnerships were investigated through a combination of closed and open questions. Interviewees were asked to identify the three most important behaviours for effective collaboration from those listed in Schrage's model.

When the answers to open questions were compared with the data shown in Table 1, the following four behaviours were found to be essential for successful collaborative partnerships:

• a shared, understood goal
• mutual respect, tolerance, and trust
• competence for the task at hand by each of the partners, and
• ongoing communication.

The importance of teaching partners establishing shared goals was also emphasised in some of the documented programs[5]5 and the remaining three behaviours were consistently mentioned in the literature.

Like-mindedness, commitment, enthusiasm and innovation are other important elements that were identified by this study. Some interviewees referred to shared interests and to their ongoing commitment to the partnership. Examples included previous experiences of learning from each other, acquiring resources that they knew their partner would use and in doing favours for each other. Others spoke of their enthusiasm for working together, particularly when they were exploring new ways of teaching and learning. Librarians and academics agreed that it is important for people to have established a good working relationship before attempting to develop a collaborative teaching partnership. Kotter[6] also identified this pre-requisite and the literature repeatedly urges librarians to identify and work with academics who value information literacy or who use resource-based learning methods.[7]

Table 1
The number of interviewees ranking the behaviour as one of three that are most important

Initiating, developing and sustaining the partnerships

Proactive marketing by librarians of their teaching and academic qualifications and of how they can assist academics with their research and teaching, as well as the proactive actions of academics who convince librarians to work with them, were found to be the most common strategies for initiating partnerships. Laird[8] stated that the academic achievements of librarians are not always recognised, and stressed the importance of librarians making their research projects known within their institutions. The holistic nature of some partnerships, where librarians support the research interests and wider needs of their academic partners, was also found to enhance the development and sustainability of collaborative partnerships. These findings were supported by the literature where they appeared as recommendations for initiating teaching partnerships and information literacy programs from the grass roots level.[9]

Although the librarians involved in this study actively marketed themselves as a valuable resource, the teaching partnerships were initiated by the academics. Further analysis of the data revealed that the librarians and academics accept that this is the role of academics and that, while librarians have strong liaison responsibilities, their role in the collaborative partnership is mainly to develop and sustain the partnership. This reasoning is probably due to the fact that academics control the teaching programs but, as this study is very focused, it would be worth investigating the experiences and opinions of a larger group of librarians and academics.

Understanding information literacy

The study participants were found to be on a continuum in their understanding of information literacy, and it appeared that the librarians and academics with the clearest understanding have either studied the topic, are interested in educational theory, or use the term literacy in other contexts and have developed a context for the term information literacy. Some interviewees displayed understanding by describing the process of information literacy development rather than the delivery of user education.

Understanding was also evident in the comments made by most academics and some librarians who described their facilitative teaching style and innovative teaching methods that promote student-centred learning. These teaching methods were identified in the literature as characteristic of effective information literacy programs. In addition, an academic participating in this study said that the importance of information literacy is permeating the academic culture at present, including the professional literature.

At the other end of the continuum, a few academics and over half of the librarians were more concerned with providing user education than with the development of information literacy. This finding is consistent with the results of research conducted with librarians in New Zealand tertiary libraries, where librarians were found to have mixed understandings of information literacy.[10] Although one partnership investigated by this study has lasted for 22 years and the partners can see how user education has evolved into learning programs that develop students 'information literacy, the greatest difficulty for librarians in both studies appears to be in understanding the difference between information literacy and user education. Therefore, research into how these terms relate to each other and how students' information literacy is developed would be useful in terms of increasing the understanding of librarians.

Perceived teaching responsibilities

Differences in understanding affected the perceived responsibilities of librarians and academics for teaching various aspects of information literacy. The results indicate that most of the academics and a few of the librarians involved in this study think that information literacy should be developed in conjunction with discipline specific learning, and see the teaching of most aspects of information literacy as being the shared responsibility of academics and librarians. This could be described as a holistic view or a process approach. However, most of the librarians and a few academics appeared to see information literacy as a discipline in itself and the responsibility for teaching many of the aspects as lying primarily with either academics or librarians, depending on whether, in their opinion, the aspects relate to the subject discipline or to user education. This view is more fragmented and, unless carefully monitored, could lead to some aspects being neglected. The data in Table 2 illustrates the similarities and discrepancies in the opinions of the academics and librarians involved in this study.

Table 2
The number of librarians or academics who shared the same view

NB: As some interviewees did not make a clear statement of who is responsible for teaching each attribute, the opinions of all interviewees are not recorded.

The differing views may be attributable to the interviewees 'levels of understanding information literacy but other reasons are possible. The perceptions of many librarians may be partly due to the fact that user education is the librarians' area of expertise or discipline and, as it incorporates some elements of information literacy, they see their responsibility remaining with those elements. Subject disciplines, on the other hand, are very specific and, from an academic perspective, information literacy is a generic process that can be applied across all of the disciplines. The literature suggests that as academics are already under pressure to impart subject specific knowledge, they look to librarians for help in developing students' information literacy.[11]

The status of librarians in universities and, in this particular study, the status of librarians at the University of Waikato, is another possible reason for the differing opinions. Comments made by librarians during the interviews revealed that they are very aware of the boundaries that exist between the generalist knowledge that is expected of them and the discipline-specific knowledge of the academics they work with. One academic referred to the politics surrounding the status of librarians, and one librarian mentioned the academic recognition she received when academics heard of her academic qualifications. These findings are in line with other research, which also found that the status of librarians on campus is a barrier to the development of collaborative teaching partnerships between academics and librarians.[12] While this study did not research the perceived status of librarians on the university campus or the views of the library or university hierarchy regarding collaborative teaching partnerships between librarians and academics, these issues would be worthy of further investigation, especially if formal information literacy programs are to be developed.

Whatever the reason, the differences in understanding, and the differing perceptions of librarians and academics about their teaching responsibilities, indicate the possibility of miscommunication between the partners and the risk of gaps in teaching programs. For example, the data in Table 2 shows that most of the librarians perceive that teaching students how to evaluate information; how to organise information for practical application; and how to integrate new information into an existing body of knowledge is mainly the responsibility of academics, while most academics said they have equal responsibility with librarians for teaching these three attributes. Mismatches of expectations, such as this example, could result in the failure of anyone to take responsibility for developing some aspects of students' information literacy.

These findings highlight the importance of partners in collaborative teaching partnerships having a shared understanding of information literacy and their associated teaching responsibilities. One suggestion for developing these shared understandings is for the library to work in conjunction with the schools of study to establish information literacy policies that include a definition and teaching guidelines. Some academics involved in the study recommended the development of information literacy policies, and this was identified in the literature as a way of developing a campus-wide awareness of information literacy.[13]

Roles in planning, teaching and evaluating learning programmes

The study found that librarians are not involved in designing courses but are responsible for planning the information access and retrieval aspects of learning programs, and that the amount of collaborative planning, teaching and evaluating that occurs when these two aspects are brought together depends on factors specific to each partnership.

While most librarians are totally responsible for planning what they teach, they collaborate with the academics after the initial planning to fine-tune the teaching programs. However, the depth of collaboration varies, and the interview data revealed some problems that can arise from insufficient collaborative planning. An example, which is also referred to in the literature, is librarians being allocated insufficient time to teach what they think the academics want them to cover. Another, possibly related, example is librarians overwhelming students with unnecessary information. The latter problem could also relate to the librarians' lack of knowledge about information literacy and learning theory, and a tendency to adopt the lecture model of imparting discipline-specific knowledge, in this case user education.

The ad hoc nature of most programs investigated by this study is typical of the grass roots approach that is frequently reported in the literature, where individuals have initiated teaching partnerships and information literacy programs. The results showed that the teaching roles of librarians and academics have changed as the programs have evolved, as their understanding of information literacy has developed, and as innovative ideas and teaching methods continue to be explored and experimented with.

Some librarians teach a class in an ongoing way throughout a semester, with a mixture of group teaching and individual point-of-need teaching. Some teach a block of sessions designed to increase the information literacy of first year students, and others teach one or a few lessons in conjunction with a particular assignment. While the teaching role of most librarians focuses on the access and retrieval of information, the learning programs are integrated into the course content and incorporate hands-on learning with the use of information resources in the library, in computer labs or online. These methods of integrating library instruction and elements of information literacy into existing teaching programs are recommended in the literature, as they are purposeful, avoid any curricular or political issues and also allow for flexibility.[14]

During the interviews, some academics advocated the development of formalised, structured programs, and this agreed with the findings of other research.[15] One academic suggested establishing an individualised program where students could sign on with a librarian to receive instruction at an appropriate level, available as the students need to move on in their information literacy development. Such research mentoring programs are operating at Deakin University[16] and Pennsylvania State University.[17] Another academic recommended implementing a systematic method of developing students' information literacy over the four years of a bachelor degree by targeting a paper each year as the information literacy paper, which is a similar idea to the system of linked courses at the University of Washington.[18]

Closely related to the need for collaborative planning is the need to assess students' needs and learning, and to collaboratively evaluate the effectiveness of information literacy programs. This study found that the evaluation of learning programs is mainly the role of academics and, although the results provide some examples of assessing students' learning, there is no evidence of assessing their information literacy needs. The findings also show that collaborative evaluation is inconsistent and that this sometimes results in miscommunication, which can lead to ineffective teaching. Information literacy programs reported in the literature also lack details of how students' information literacy needs are assessed and how the effectiveness of the programs is evaluated. Some reasons given for this are the developmental or evolving nature of the programs,[19] funding, and a lack of research in information literacy.[20] However, if a case is to be made for collaborative teaching partnerships between librarians and academics, and the development of information literacy programs, evidence of how these partnerships and programs can increase students' information literacy is crucial.

Challenges or problems

An over-riding concern revealed by this study is the problem of insufficient resourcing to develop collaborative partnerships and information literacy programs. Although the research sample was very focused, many academics mentioned that some of their colleagues are also interested in working with librarians to develop students' information literacy. However, while two academics mentioned their own unmanageable workloads, the major concern of six academics was the workload of the librarians they work with. This problem was confirmed in the comments of librarians and was also found in the literature.[21]

When the results of this study are considered in conjunction with the literature, some reasons for the workload issue become apparent. The development of information literacy programs from the grass roots level has meant the partners attempt to incorporate collaborative planning, teaching and evaluation, as well as the development of their partnerships, into their existing workloads. In addition, the innovative tendency of the academics and librarians involved in these partnerships has resulted in increased workloads, as they continually adopt new ideas for their teaching programs. One academic spoke of librarians becoming swamped by their own popularity and success'. This problem is also mentioned in the literature when the response is greater than the available mentoring resources.[22]

Some solutions to this problem were suggested during the interviews. Academics who are experiencing workload pressures said they have been forced to set more realistic goals and are curbing their tendency to implement new and ambitious ideas. Most of the interviewees said that librarians needed more support from the library in terms of their changing role, and the study found that some liaison librarians are attempting to change the focus of their instruction from user education to developing students' information literacy within the scope of their original job descriptions. Research into the differences between user education and information literacy that also investigates the associated teaching and resourcing implications would help to determine the changes necessary to enable librarians and academics to develop successful collaborative partnerships and effective information literacy programs.

Another resourcing issue raised in the interviews, and also emphasised in the literature, is the need for librarians with teaching qualifications and experience. While some liaison librarians do have these qualifications and experience, many were employed on the basis of their subject knowledge, library qualifications and experience. Julien[23] found that when librarians are expected to change their working role to include teaching groups of students, they often experience confusion and anxiety, and similar findings appeared in this study. One academic who had received excellent one-on-one teaching from a librarian, was disappointed when the same person was reluctant to teach a group of students. Another example came from a librarian who spoke about the uncertainty she had felt about standing in front of a class to teach what she usually taught students one-on-one in the library.

The nature of information literacy development and the strong emphasis on teaching and learning theory means that skilled staff are needed, particularly when teaching groups of students. Laird[24] pointed out that while other university disciplines can use senior students or graduates to take tutorials, this is not possible in the case of information literacy. In terms of managing this problem, a range of professional development opportunities was mentioned during the interviews, from working alongside excellent teachers and attending workshops on teaching techniques, to obtaining qualifications in tertiary or adult teaching. The issue of professional development for both librarians and academics was also raised in the literature and initiatives such as shared training opportunities were recommended. At Queensland University of Technology Library, they have gone a step further and developed their own teacher-training program for librarians involved in teaching information literacy.[25] This issue has professional development implications for libraries and providers of courses on library and information studies.

Academics representing the three schools of study articulated the need for information literacy policies to be developed so that information literacy programs can be adequately resourced in terms of time and staffing. This is an interesting issue as it indicates a move from the grass roots approach to enlisting the support of senior administrators, as recommended in the literature.[26] It is possible that, depending on the scope of the policies that are developed, the current situation could be completely inverted and exchanged for the top down approach reported in the literature.[27] The University of Waikato has already developed a set of six bachelors' graduate profiles, with lists of attributes to be gained in each of the bachelor degrees,[28] and cases are cited in the literature review where policies and graduate profiles or standards have been used to drive the development of campus-wide information literacy programs.[29]

Conclusion

Although the results of this study cannot be generalised, it did identify some necessary conditions for the development of collaborative teaching partnerships between librarians and academics, and for the development of effective information literacy programs.

A shared understanding is needed by university and library management, and by the teaching partners, of how information literacy is developed and the associated teaching responsibilities, to ensure that programs are adequately resourced. Such understanding will have an impact on staff training and recruitment, and may involve the development of information literacy policy. As far as the teaching partners are concerned, this shared understanding would result in competence and shared goals regarding the teaching of information literacy, which are also essential conditions for successful collaboration.

Also important, is recognition by university and library management that librarians involved in these collaborative partnerships are teachers with expertise in library science and information literacy. It is expected that this recognition will be reflected in adjustment of workloads and job descriptions, and in the provision of adequate staffing and time for the development of collaborative partnerships and effective learning programs. Such recognition, combined with the shared understanding, will lead to mutual respect between the partners, which was identified as another essential element of successful collaborative partnerships.

Positive working relationships and ongoing communication between the teaching partners were also identified as essential conditions for collaborative partnerships and effective learning programs. The research found that communication is particularly important during the planning and evaluation of teaching programs and that, while email and phone contact are easier to maintain, regular face-to-face communication is needed.

The assessment of students' information literacy and the evaluation of teaching programs are crucial to the planning and teaching of effective information literacy programs. The study found that this area has been neglected and that it must be addressed if the development of collaborative teaching partnerships and information literacy programs are to be seriously considered by all of the stakeholders.

The need for this study arose from a lack of information available in the literature about how information literacy programs operate, and how collaborative teaching partnerships between librarians and academics are initiated, developed and sustained. However, the research found that information literacy programs are constantly evolving, that the librarians and academics involved in those programs have heavy workloads, and that 'information literacy research is still in its infancy'.[30] So it is not surprising that little detail about the operation of partnerships and programs is published. It is also likely that some of the programs that were investigated have moved on since this study took place. Therefore, the study is like a snapshot in time of how some academics and librarians have worked in partnership to develop students' information literacy, which also provides insight into how successful collaborative partnerships can be initiated, developed and sustained, and identifies some essential conditions for the development of effective information literacy programs.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Penny Moore for her advice and support throughout the study. Thanks are also given to the study participants for their commitment to the research and willingness to participate in it.

Notes

1. C Doyle Outcome Measures for Information Literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990 Final Report to the National Forum on Information Literacy Summary of Findings 1992
2. P Moore Personal Communication January 2002
3. M Schrage Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration Random House New York 1990 pp151-163
4. M B Miles and A M Huberman Qualitative Data Analysis Sage Publications Thousand Oaks California 1994 pp58-66
5. S Avery, N DeJoy and V McQuiston 'Creating a Successful Faculty-Librarian Partnership for First-Year Students: Librarian's Perspective, Faculty's Perspective' in B I Dewey (ed) Library User Education: Powerful Learning, Powerful Partnerships Scarecrow Lanham Maryland 2001 pp82-89; J L Dorner, S E Taylor and K Hodson-Carlton 'Faculty-Librarian Collaboration for Nursing Information Literacy: A Tiered Approach' Reference Services Review vol 29 no 2 2001 pp132-141; C A Hughes 'Facework: A New Role for the Next Generation of Library-Based Information Technology Centers' Library Hi Tech vol 16 no 3 1998 pp27-35 http://www.emerald-library.com [18 August 2001]
6. W R Kotter 'Bridging the Great Divide: Improving Relations Between Librarians and Classroom Faculty' The Journal of Academic Librarianship vol 25 no 4 1999 pp294-303
7. P S Breivik 'Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning: The Magical Partnership' in Lifelong Learning Conference, papers for the inaugural International Lifelong Learning Conference Yeppoon Queensland Australia July 17-19 2000 pp1-6; G N Hartzell 'Indirect Advocacy' Book Report vol 18 no 1 1999 pp8-13 EBSCO Academic Search Elite [25 September 2000]; Hughes 1998; P Iannuzzi 'Faculty Development and Information Literacy: Establishing Campus Partnerships' Reference Services Review Fall/Winter 1998 pp97-102, 116
8. J Laird 'Lincoln University Library's Information Studies Programme' Presented at the COMLA Seminar User Education for User Empowerment Christchurch New Zealand October 2000
9. L Hardesty, D Henderson, B Winston and S Harris 'Working with the Classroom Faculty: A Panel Discussion' in L Hardesty (ed) Bibliographic Instruction in Practice: A Tribute to the Legacy of Evan Ira Farber Pierian Press Ann Arbor Michigan 1993 pp107-114; Hartzell 1999; Iannuzzi 1998; G Leckie and A Fullerton 'Information Literacy in Science and Engineering Undergraduate Education: Faculty Attitudes and Pedagogical Practices' College & Research Libraries vol 60 January 1999 pp9-29; P Moore 'It's Not the Tool that Works - It's How It's Applied' Library Life vol 245 May 2000 pp1-3
10. H Julien 'User Education in New Zealand Tertiary Libraries: An International Comparison' The Journal of Academic Librarianship July 1998 pp304-313
11. Breivik 2000; Hughes 1998; Leckie and Fullerton 1999; N Radomski 'Framing Information Literacy: The University of Ballarat Experience' in C Bruce and P Candy (eds) Information Literacy Around the World: Advances in Programs and Research Centre for Information Studies Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga NSW Australia 2000 pp68-81
12. L Hardesty 'Faculty Culture and Bibliographic Instruction: An Exploratory Analysis' Library Trends vol 44 Fall 1995 pp339-367; R T Ivey 'Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Academic Librarians at Memphis State University' College & Research Libraries vol 55 January 1994 pp69-82
13. C Bruce 'Faculty-Librarian Partnerships in Australian Higher Education: Critical Dimensions' Reference Services Review vol 29 no 2 2001 pp106-116; K Haycock 'What All Librarians Can Learn From Teacher Librarians: Information Literacy a Key Connector for Libraries' in D Booker (ed) Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy Proceedings of the Fourth National Information Conference Conducted by the University of South Australia Library and the Australian Library and Information Association Information Literacy Special Interest Group University of South Australia Library Adelaide 3-5 December 1999 pp15-24; Iannuzzi 1998
14. E Farber 'Bibliographic Instruction at Earlham College' in L Hardesty (ed) Bibliographic Instruction in Practice: A Tribute to the Legacy of Evan Ira Farber Pierian Press Ann Arbor Michigan 1993 pp1-26; A S Macklin 'Integrating Information Literacy Using Problem-Based Learning' Reference Services Review vol 29 no 4 2001 pp306-314 Emerald Fulltext [30 March 2002]
15. K M Donnelly 'Learning From the Teaching Librarians' American Libraries vol 29 no 11 1998 p47 EBSCO Academic Search Elite [30 April 2002 p2]
16. P Macauley The Higher Degree by Research Project Deakin University Geelong 2001 pp1-3 http://www.deakin.edu.au/library/hdrpilot.html [10 December 2001]
17. L Moyo and A Robinson 'Beyond Research Guidance: The Gateway Library Research Mentoring Program' Library Management vol 22 no 8-9 2001 pp343-350 Emerald Fulltext [30 March 2002]
18. L A Wilson 'Information Literacy: Fluency Across and Beyond the University' in B I Dewey (ed) Library User Education: Powerful Learning, Powerful Partnerships Scarecrow Lanham Maryland 2001 pp1-17
19. Moyo and Robinson 2001
20. Laird 2000
21. Ibid; N Radomski Implementing Information Literacy: Themes, Issues & Future Directions University of Ballarat Australia 1999
22. Moyo and Robinson 2001
23. Julien 1998
24. Laird 2000
25. J Peacock 'From Trainers to Educators: Librarians and the Challenge of Change' in D Booker (ed) Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy Proceedings of the Fourth National Information Conference Conducted by the University of South Australia Library and the Australian Library and Information Association Information Literacy Special Interest Group University of South Australia Library Adelaide 3-5 December 1999 pp182-192
26. Bruce 2001; Haycock 2000; Iannuzzi 1998
27. Bruce 2001; Radomski 1999; G Rigmor, H McCausland, D Wachem and I Doskatch 'Information Literacy: An Institution-Wide Strategy' in Lifelong Learning Conference Papers for the Inaugural International Lifelong Learning Conference Yeppoon Queensland Australia July 17-19 2000 pp181-187; L Wright and C McGurk 'Curriculum Based Information Literacy Skills for First Year Undergraduate Students' in D Booker (ed) The Learning Link: Information Literacy in Practice Auslib Blackwood South Australia 1995 pp136-156
28. University of Waikato The University of Waikato Bachelors Graduate Profiles 1998
29. Bruce 2001; Haycock 2000; Iannuzzi 1998; Radomski 1999; Rigmor et al 2000; Wright and McGurk 1995
30. C Bruce 'Information Literacy Research: Dimensions of the Emerging Collective Consciousness' Australian Academic & Research Libraries vol 31 no 2 2000 pp91-109

Ruth Ivey, information services team leader, University of Waikato Library, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. E-mail r.ivey@waikato.ac.nz.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address).