Summary

1. Summary • IL in the region 2003-2006 • Situation of IL in Central and South East European countries • Recent developments, ongoing projects and problems as prompted by Kaisa Sinikara • IL developments worldwide between 2003 and 2006 • Trends and strategic issues for the IL agenda worldwide (IFLA Presidential Committee for the International Agenda on Lifelong Literacy)

2. Situation ca 2003 • S. Virkus’ headlines and conclusions: • IL as a development/departure from library / bibliographic / user instruction • Information overload + lifelonglearning as drivers • Skill/competence debate not yet solved • IL as a LIS issue; lack of awareness in other circles • IL = information-related competencies • Useful construct = umbrella term • Strategic goal: political, educational, work environment, ... • Standards (ACRL; CAUL): no easy transfer to other contexts!

3. Situation ca 2003 • S. Virkus’ headlines and conclusions: academic libraries and IL in Europe: • Spain: optional and free configuration credit courses; web pages and tutorials; some courses curriculum-integrated. No widespread understanding and use. • France: integration and adaptation of information components to disciplines • Italy: some activities, but no general awareness of IL issues

4. Situation ca 2003 • S. Virkus’ headlines and conclusions: ongoing projects and activities • EDUCATE  Into Info • DEDICATE • VERITY  CHILIAS • IL groups and agencies: • Spain: Alfincat: IL agenda • France: URFIST, FORMIST

5. S. Virkus’ overview (2003) • Initiatives from formal education settings; workplace and public libraries left behind • HE initiatives: stand-alone courses, web-based tutorials, course-related or –integrated instruction. Curriculum integration favoured • Faculty-librarian partnerships • Little evidence of government commitment in the IL Agenda • Overwhelming evidence of government commitment to [Information Society = ICT + IT only] (!!!)

6. Kaisa’s prompts (2006) • Success in integrating IL in academic curricula • Faculty awareness of opportunities in e-libraries, IL and open access • Library leadership and collaboration with faculty • Training the trainers • Ongoing projects and activities • Collaboration among academic libraries • Main obstacles

7. Main obstacles (Pejova) • Lack of cooperation among professional organizations • Lack of articulated IL policies + programs • Underdeveloped LIS systems and networks • Expensive telecommunication infrastructure • Shortage of LIS professionals trained in IL issues and promotion • Intimidated users not acquainted with issues in information access and use

8. Main obstacles (Pejova) • Survey of IL in Slovenian academic libraries: • Lack of time, overburdened with work • Lack of cooperation and support from academic leaders and professors • Lack of funding • Lack of professional training staff with pedadogical skills • Lack of interest among students and teachers • IL is being taking care of by others • Lack of commitment among University authorities

9. What about Spain 2006 • Lack of societal awareness/commitment on IL and key competencies + qualifications issues • Most LIS professionals unaware of IL issues • Lack of cooperation and partnerships among authorities / professions in provision of lifelong learning opportunities in all types of settings • Lack of training of LIS staff in lifelong learning issues for the whole population • Difficulties in the integration of IL in the curriculum • Lack of evaluation/accreditation of IL programmes and tools to assess achievement

10. Curriculum Integration • More and more included in France, Spain, Italy • Starting in Portugal, Cyprus, Slovenia • France, Spain: libraries with well established tradition in user education + IL activities in partnerships with faculty more likely to be able to take the Bologna train!

11. Faculty awareness • France: starting slowly but surely. Same question for librarians: ¿do they see the Bologna process as an opportunity? • Spain: difficult, but slowly. • Strong position of University Libraries (REBIUN) gained over the last 15 years • Programs for innovation in teaching/learning: many include partnerships with library staff • Lack of review of IL issues in the evaluation of Graduate programmes, Departments, etc.

12. Collaboration with faculty • France: hard; librarians try, but it works fine only in a few places. IL not to succeed until faculty feel concerned + involved. It will take time • Cyprus: only a few professors understand the issues at stake. Need more marketing and promotion of IL among them • Anywhere: librarians to understand that most faculties do IL training without being aware and without overall planning. Librarians’ role: put the pieces together through analysis and proposals for sound planning

13. Training the trainers • France: initial training at ENSSIB (not enough). Continuous training at regional level through URFIST/FORMIST • European proposals for curriculum reform in LIS education • Training of all professionals having to do with multiliteracies • Spain: Moodle course for LIS professionals and educators on IL issues and programmes (design phase)

14. Ongoing projects and activities • France: • Rencontres Formist; Referentiel EruDist; lots of courses for 1st. year students. FORMIST materials • Chevillotte’s blog (blogformist.enssib.fr) • Spain: • IL plans following evaluation exercises and certification experiments in almost every University Library • On-line materials (e-COMS; Alfin EEES; Alfamed) • Gómez Hernández’ blog (http://alfin.blogspirit.com) • Slovenia: ICPE’s activities (Pejova): proposal for an IL agenda at local/national level • Italy: see Carla Basili’s list of projects/initiatives

15. Academic libraries partnerships • URFIST/FORMIST as an example of cooperation and coordination at regional/national level • FORMIST = learning objects database • Joint strategy for all libraries: • CILIP-SCONUL IL joint venture as a recent example to be followed • ALFINred in Spain • I Plan (2007-2011) Library and Documentation Centers System in Andalusia

16. Main challenges (Chevillotte) • ECTS as opportunity to embed IL in the curriculum • Training of all first year students + going on with training of more advanced students • IL definition, standards, levels (IL paradigm) • Strong professional associations to fight for IL agenda • Big gap among universities in IL provision • IL as a team endeavour • Assesssment of outcomes (SAILS, ETS,...)

17. Main trends/needs (theory/practice) • National standards and tools adaptables to local circunstances (not reinventing the wheel) • Levels: assessment of achievement (SAILS), including information production according to disciplines • IL approaches in networks, not in isolation, local, regional, national, international: IL Fora to take care of IL developments

18. Main trends/needs (theory/practice) • Focus on 1st. year/cycle students • Analysis of courses and programmes to discover IL training practices of professors • Successul libraries in meeting the Bologna requirements have been engaged in IL programmes and awareness raising for quite a lot of time • IL as formally introduced in the teaching and learning programme at local level • Status of teachers/trainers: librarians recognised as faculty?. Clarification of roles, responsibilities: very important for the planning and delivery of training, levels to be achieved, assessment and certification.

19. Main developments 2003-2006 • Prague Declaration Alexandria proclamation • IFLA Raseroka’s motto: Lifelong literacy • WSIS Geneva-Tunis: contribution of libraries • UNESCO IFAP includes IL as priority for all UN agencies • Developments in performance evaluation and quality assurance in libraries: from input/process/output into outcomes/impact evaluation • Rising awareness about the education / information divide (not only “digital divide”)

20. Main developments 2003-2006 • DeSeCo framework of key competencies: Using tools interactively: • Using language, symbols, etc. • Using knowledge and information • Using technology • Constellation of competencies/literacies • IL as key competence to be measured/assessed internationally (DeSeCo framework + PISA, ALL)

21. Issues in the international IL Agenda • IFLA Presidential Committee’s Priorities (P) and Strategic Actions (SA): • P1: advocacy and awareness raising • P2: fostering cooperation and collaboration of all stakeholders in the lifelong learning agenda • SA1: Framework and map of literacies • SA2: Evidence of contribution of libraries • SA3: Training of trainers • SA4: Curricular framework for IL programs: • Accreditation/Evaluation of programs • Assessment/Certification of achievements

22. And my thanks go to... • The University of Helsinki (¡Gracias, Kaisa!) • UNICA’s crew • Sylvie Chevillotte France), Carla Basili (Italy), Zita Correia and Julio Anjos (Portugal), Georgia Roiduli and Agni Zioula (Greece), Andreas K. Andreu (Cyprus), Zdravka Pejova (Slovenia) • My ALFINred colleagues in Spain

23. My sources • IL in Europe, 2003, (ed. C. Basili) • European approaches to IL (ed. S. Virkus), 2003, Library Review, 52, 7 • Virkus, IL in Europe: a literature review, 2003, Information Research, 8 • Pejova, 2006, Workshop on IL inititives for Central & South East European Countries • Chevillotte, 2005, Bibliothèques et IL: un état de l’art, BBF, 50, 2 • Stoll & Blin, 2005, Formation des usagers dans l’enseignement supérieur, BBF, 50, 6 • Pasadas & Gómez, 2006, ALFIN y bibliotecas: agenda de desarrollo; Information Research, 11 (forthcoming)