VanScoy.indd

566

Evidence vs. Anecdote: Using Syllabi
to Plan Curriculum-Integrated
Information Literacy Instruction

Amy VanScoy and Megan J. Oakleaf

Amy VanScoy is Associate Head, Research and Information Services at North Carolina State University;
e-mail: amy_vanscoy@ncsu.edu. Megan J. Oakleaf is Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies,
at Syracuse University; moakleaf@syr.edu.

Many academic library instruction programs seek to integrate informa-
tion literacy skills into the curriculum of academic departments. Previ-
ous literature on this topic generally recommends a “tiered” approach to
curriculum-integrated instruction (CII); these tiered approaches suggest
teaching basic skills to first- and second-year students and advanced skills
to third- and fourth-year students. Many authors identify skills to teach
at each level; however, their recommendations appear to be based on
anecdote and common sense. While both anecdote and common sense
are useful as starting points, librarians who plan CII programs should
use evidence to make instructional decisions. To provide evidence for CII
planning, this syllabus study investigated the research skills required of
first-year students in their first semester at college. The results demon-
strate that most first-semester students are required to find articles and
Web sites to support their assignments, and many students are required
to find books. Some must also find reference books as well as data and
statistical sources to complete their course assignments. These results
suggest that previous recommendations regarding tiered instructional
approaches should be investigated further and revised.

ncreasingly, academic librar-
ies seek to integrate informa-
tion literacy instruction into
the curriculum of academic

departments within the university. The
growth of CII programs is visible in
the library and information sciences lit-
erature. The literature also reveals that
many librarians recommend a “tiered”
approach to CII in which some skills are
taught at an early level and other skills are
taught later in a student’s college career.
In general, these recommendations focus

on instructional efforts on individual
campuses. However, two flaws exist with
these suggestions. First, they do not ap-
pear to be based on research. While years
of professional experience give individual
librarians a wealth of anecdotal data from
which to conceive CII programs, academic
librarians should conduct research to con-
firm their assumptions. Second, most CII
literature focuses on majors or disciplines.
This perspective is conceptually useful
for librarians, but students’ academic
experiences do not fall neatly within

Using Syllabi to Plan Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Instruction 567

the boundaries of a particular major or
discipline. Students take a wide variety
of courses, especially at the beginning of
their academic careers. Therefore, the fo-
cus of CII research should be approached
from a student perspective, not a major or
discipline perspective.

This article describes a student-cen-
tered, evidence-based approach to plan-
ning a CII program at a large, research-
extensive institution in the Southeast.
The study focuses on first-year students
in their first semester at college. The
central research question investigates the
research skills that first-semester, first-
year students are required to perform. To
answer this question, a random sample
of students was selected and their course
syllabi were collected and analyzed.
The results of this study can be used to
determine which skills to include in the
most basic CII tier; they also can be used
to compare previous CII models with
research evidence.

Literature Review
Curriculum-Integrated Instruction
The goal of CII is “to sequence IL through-
out the general education and upper
division curricula in ways that better
meet students’ needs as they advance
in their coursework.”1 Library and in-
formation science literature reveals that
CII programs tend to have multiple tiers
ranging from basic to advanced. There is
no consensus on which skills are “basic”
and which ones are “advanced,” and
there are no recommendations on how
to distinguish the two. In fact, many
authors do not explicitly state the basis
for their recommendations; most appear
to rely on common sense or professional
experience.

Most CII literature focuses on ways to
integrate basic and advanced information
literacy skills into a particular discipline.
For example, several authors describe
the use of CII in medical education. Du-
rando and Oakley advocate the use of
CII in nursing education, but they do not
identify which skills should be taught at

which levels.2 A study by Moore et al also
describes a tiered approach to instruction
for nursing students, but they do not pro-
vide detailed information about the skills.
For example, they say only that “selected
outcomes” from the Objectives for Informa-
tion Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement
for Academic Librarians should be taught
at the basic level.3 A third description of
CII in nursing education is provided by
Dorner, Taylor, and Hodson-Carlton, who
suggest a list of skills to teach nursing
students, but—like Durando and Oakley
and Moore et al—they do not reveal the
process by which they selected the skills.4
Haraldstad describes a CII program for
medical students in Norway. She suggests
teaching a number of skills to first-year
medical students.5 These skills are derived
partially from informal feedback from
students6 and partially from other librar-
ians’ suggestions.7

A number of authors recommend CII
programs for students in other scientific
fields and the social sciences. For example,
Nerz and Weiner developed a four-year
CII program for students in engineering.8
The skills addressed by their program are
drawn from Lin’s proposed competencies
for professional engineers.9 Brown and
Krumholz present a model for integrating
information literacy into geomicrobiology
courses, but focus only on upper-level
research skills.10 Smith lists specific skills
for the sciences and recommends a two-
tiered approach—one for freshmen and
sophomores, another for juniors and
seniors.11 Carr and Somerville propose a
two-tiered program of skills for chemistry
students.12 None of these authors articu-
late the criteria used to assign skills to
tiers.13 In the social sciences, one model for
CII exists. Affleck describes a CII program
for education students. Affleck generated
a list of skills based on faculty surveys but
does not separate the skills into basic and
advanced levels.14

Although the discipline-focused CII
literature provides interesting insight into
what librarians believe students studying
specific subject areas should know, it is

568 College & Research Libraries November 2008

important to note that these recommen-
dations have one important limitation:
they view students’ learning needs from
a librarian’s, rather than a student’s, per-
spective. College students do not enroll
exclusively in courses in their major
area. In fact, the early semesters of a col-
lege career are dominated by nonmajor
classes. As a result, librarians who plan
CII programs must consider students’
needs across the curriculum.

While most CII literature is discipline-
focused, there are a few exceptions. Ury
suggests a tiered approach that is not
linked to a particular curriculum, but she
does not explain how she assigned skills to
each tier.15 Orr, Appleton, and Wallin de-
scribe a complex “conceptual framework”
for tiered IL instruction; however, they
do not include skills to be taught at each
level of the framework.16 MacDonald et al
advocate a tiered approach to information
literacy instruction and list specific skills to
be addressed in a for-credit course.17 How-
ever, they do not indicate when students
should take the course or how the course
fits in with other levels of instruction. Har-
rison and Rourke recommend integrating
information literacy skills into the general
college curriculum, but they do not list
specific skills to include.18 Holliday and
Fagerheim also present a non–subject-fo-
cused CII approach, although they embed
the instruction in English composition
courses.19 Unlike other authors who do not
reveal the origin of their recommendations,
Holliday and Fagerheim used a review of
the literature, a survey of librarians, and a
survey of English instructors to generate
a list of skills and phrased them accord-
ing to the Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education.20

In sum, many authors recommend
using tiered CII programs to teach infor-
mation literacy skills and have contrib-
uted significant effort in planning these
programs. Several have produced lists of
skills that should be taught at a basic or
advanced level. A few have justified the
recommendations for placing a specific
information literacy skill in either the ba-

sic or advanced tier. Unfortunately, almost
none have revealed the evidence for their
recommendations. As a result, librarians
who seek to plan evidence-based CII pro-
grams must conduct research of their own
to determine what skills students need at
each level of their college careers.

Syllabus Studies
Because the literature provides insufficient
evidence on which to base CII programs,
librarians must undertake research to
ensure that students learn what they need
to complete course assignments. Syllabus
studies are a useful methodology for
investigating the research tasks required
of students; they provide realistic and
complete pictures of students’ needs. Syl-
labus studies have been undertaken by
past researchers. According to Rambler,
“decisions and actions based at least in
part on findings from a syllabus study
can facilitate the creation of the ideally
responsive and completely curriculum-
integrated library.”21 Sayles also advocates
the study of syllabi. He states, “If it is well
wri�en and complete, it [the syllabus] can
provide the librarian with enough infor-
mation” to plan for instruction.22 Dewald
acknowledges both the time required for
syllabus studies and their benefits. She
writes, “While a syllabus study can be
time consuming, it can provide valuable
information for librarians in improving
academic library services.”23

Many early syllabus studies focus on
how much students are required to use the
library, rather than examining the informa-
tion literacy skills they need to accomplish
their course assignments. Rambler studied
162 randomly sampled syllabi for under-
graduate courses and found that 73%–77%
of lower-level courses required no library
research.24 Lauer, Merz, and Craig also
examined syllabi to determine the amount
of research-based library use and the
sophistication of this use by course level.
As Rambler did, Lauer, Merz, and Craig
found that lower-level courses required
less intensive library use.25 More recent
syllabus studies reveal increased use of

Using Syllabi to Plan Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Instruction 569

libraries. Dewald studied the amount of
“library use or required research,”26 as
well as “the types of assignments given to
business students”;27 however, she limited
her study to courses required of business
majors and did not include electives or
multiple sections of courses. Dewald
found that 56%–60% of 100-level courses
required “no research or library use”;
51%–56% required “some research or
library use for shorter assignments”; and
only 8%–9% required “significant research
projects.”28 Dewald also recognized the
need to consider required courses outside
the business school. She estimated that 94
percent of business students would have
to do some research during their first year
as a result of English composition and a
first-year seminar.29

Other syllabus studies focus on types
of assignments requiring library use. For
example, Rambler completed a syllabus
study that categorized library assign-
ments into groups including “library
reviews,” “periodical assignments,” and
“research.”30 Bean and Klekowski exam-
ined syllabi for categories of library use
including “research paper/report/project”
and “bibliography or literature search.”
Bean and Klekowski also included an
“other” category made up of “journal,”
“essay,” and “case study” assignments.31
Williams, Cody, and Parnell mined online
syllabi for types of library assignments
such as “research papers/projects/reports/
speeches,” “group projects, books review
and special projects,” and other categories
for reserve materials and optional use of
library materials.32

These syllabus studies provide help-
ful insight into how much students use
libraries and what types of assignments
they are asked to complete. However,
they do not focus on the outcomes
students must achieve to be successful;
consequently, additional investigation is
merited in this area.

Methodology
T h i s s t u d y e m p l o y e d a s y l l a b u s
methodology to examine the research

tasks required of first-semester, first-
year students at a large university in the
southeastern United States that admits
approximately 4,000 new students per
year.

A random sample of 350 first-semes-
ter, first-year students was obtained from
the university registrar, a sample size
large enough to make inferences to the
population of first-year students at the
university. The information provided
for each student included the sections
and courses in which the student was
enrolled. This information was entered
into a relational database for analysis.
Then, the syllabi and available assign-
ment descriptions for each student
were collected via course Web sites or
through instructor contacts. Because not
all instructors responded to the research-
ers’ request for information, syllabi for
every course could not be obtained. In
fact, complete course information was
collected for only 139 students. Next, the
course information for all 350 students
was carefully examined. If class assign-
ments did not require students to com-
plete any research tasks, a value of “no”
was entered into the database. When
class assignments required completion
of a research task, a value of “yes” was
entered and the assignments were ana-
lyzed to determine which broad types of
research tasks were required.

Because CII programs are skill-based
approaches to instruction, librarians
who develop them need to know what
skills students are required to demon-
strate to complete their assignments.
As a result, the categories used in this
study focus on the outcomes students
are required to demonstrate through
the completion of tasks, rather than the
amount of library use or the assignment
outputs (such as a “research paper” or
“annotated bibliography”). The broad
categories of outcomes were: 1) find
Web sites; 2) find articles; 3) find books;
4) find reference books; and 5) find data
and statistics. At first glance, these out-
come categories appear to be focused

570 College & Research Libraries November 2008

on Standard 2 of the Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Educa-
tion, “The information literate student
accesses needed information effectively
and efficiently.” However, each outcome
category includes skills associated with
other Standards. For example, students
required to “find articles” must be able
to recognize the need for an article, select
a database, construct a search, evaluate
results, locate a print or online copy,
and cite the article—skills that can be
mapped to multiple Standards.

Results
For the total sample of 350 students, anal-
ysis of student syllabi and assignment de-
scriptions revealed that 97 percent of the
students were required to find research
resources during the first semester of their
first year of college. For the 139 students
for whom complete course information
was collected, all were required to find
research resources.

When the data was examined by type
of resource, 87 percent of the 350 students
studied were required to find articles to

FIGURE 1
Students Required to Find Specific Resource Types Based on

Partial Course Information (n = 350)

87 84

29 27

100

Articles Web sites Books Reference Books Data & Statistics

FIGURE 2
Students Required to Find Specific Resource Types Based on Complete

Course Information (n = 139)

94 95

40 40

100

Articles Web sites Books Reference Books Data & Statistics

Using Syllabi to Plan Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Instruction 571

complete their assignments, 84 percent
were required to find Web sites, and 74
percent were required to find books (see
figure 1). Fewer students were required
to find reference books (29%) and data or
statistics (27%) to complete their courses.
These percentages increased for the 139
students for whom complete course
information was available (see figure 2).
Ninety-four percent of students were
required to find articles, 95 percent were

required to find Web sites, and 85 percent
were required to find books. Forty percent
of these students were required to find
reference books and data or statistics.

Data were also examined to deter-
mine the variety of types of resources
an individual student may have to find.
Seventeen percent of the 350 students
were required to find all five resource
types examined for this study (see figure
3), although, for some assignments, it

FIGURE 3
Students Required to Find Multiple Resource Types Based on Partial Course

Information (n=350)

91
83

17
9

100

At least one Two or more Three or more Four or more All types Could not be
determined

FIGURE 4
Students Required to Find Multiple Resource Types Based on Complete

Course Information (n=139)

100 96
89

100

At least one Two or more Three or more Four or more All types

572 College & Research Libraries November 2008

was not clear exactly which types of re-
sources were required. For the group of
139 students for whom complete course
information was collected, 26 percent
were required to find all research types
(see figure 4).

The finding that 97 percent of first-
year students are required to find re-
search resources in their first semester
of college confirms Dewald’s estimation
that 94 percent of first-year students are
required to locate research resources,
an estimation based on the research
demands of first-year writing courses.33
However, not all institutions require a
writing course in the first semester, as
is the case at the study institution. To
determine the impact of first-year writ-
ing courses on the study results, the
data was analyzed again, using course
information from only the 197 students
of the sample that were not enrolled in
the first-year writing course. This analy-
sis revealed that, among the students
not enrolled in first-year writing, 82
percent were required to find articles,
83 percent were required to find Web
sites, and 74 percent were required to
find books. In addition, 30 percent were
required to locate reference books, and
28 percent were required to locate data
and statistics.

Discussion
The study results suggest that many
early recommendations regarding tiered
instructional approaches should be re-
examined. Indeed, the evidence generated
by this study can be directly compared to
several previous works. For example, the
current study revealed that 91 percent of
first-year students in the study sample
were required to find a least one resource
type. This result updates conclusions that
56%–77% of lower-level courses don’t re-
quire research.34 The earlier findings sug-
gest that first-semester, first-year students
are not required to complete many re-
search tasks. However, a student-centered
examination of syllabi and assignment
descriptions reveals a different picture.

This study suggests that that most first-
semester students need to find articles,
Web sites, and books to complete their
assignments. This may not be a surprise
to many librarians; however, some of the
proposed CII programs do not cover these
tasks in the basic tier. For example, a few
authors list finding articles as an important
first-year skill,35 but others suggest waiting
until the sophomore year,36 a recommen-
dation that is not supported by the finding
that 87 percent of students must achieve
this outcome in their first semester of col-
lege. Furthermore, although the current

FIGURE 5
Students Not Enrolled in First-Year Writing Who Were Required to Find

Specific Resource Types (n=197)

82 83

30 28

100

Articles Web sites Books Reference Books Data & Statistics

Using Syllabi to Plan Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Instruction 573

study finds that 84 percent of incoming
students must find Web sites to complete
their assignments, only Smith and Harald-
stad list the skill at a beginning level.37 Ury
and Dorner, Taylor and Hodson-Carlton
list finding Web sites as an upper-level
skill,38 while Nerz and Weiner and Carr
and Somerville omit this skill from their
CII programs.39 The current study also
showed that 74 percent of students are
required to find books. Fortunately, most
of CII programs suggest that this skill be
addressed during the freshman year.40 Ury
recommends it for the sophomore year,41
and Carr and Somerville do not include
this skill at all.42

This study also shows that nearly a
third of incoming students are required
to find reference books to complete their
course assignments. Several authors
recommend teaching students this skill
during the basic level of CII.43 On the
other hand, Ury recommends finding
reference books as an upper-level skill,44
and Dorner, Taylor, and Hodson-Carlton
and Haraldstad do not include this skill
in their CII recommendations.45 Like
reference books, more than a quarter of
students must find data and statistics to
complete their assignments. However,
none of the previous CII literature sug-
gests teaching students this skill.

Recommendations for Future
Research
Much of the previous CII literature fo-
cuses on students in individual majors or
disciplines. To gain a complete picture of
the research skills required of first-year
students, the present study did not adopt
this approach. However, at some institu-
tions, students enroll in courses in their

major in their first semester and pursue
a strictly discipline-focused track. For
these institutions, it is possible that there
would be some disciplinary differences
between students in various majors. In
this study, the sample size was not large
enough to allow analysis by major. Still,
a discipline-focused approach to the CII
research merits future investigation.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that first-se-
mester, first-year students have required
research needs: they must be able to find
articles, Web sites, and books to complete
their assignments. For some incoming
students, all of these skills are mandatory.
Therefore, the basic tier of CII should in-
clude, at a minimum, instruction on find-
ing articles, Web sites, and books. Nearly a
third of students require additional skills
to successfully complete assignments in
their first semester, including finding ref-
erence books and data or statistics.

It is important to note that this re-
search, conducted during one semester
at one institution, indicates the presence
of trends in the needs that first-year
students have, but it is not necessarily
generalizable to other colleges and uni-
versities. As a result, librarians planning
CII programs should undertake their
own syllabus studies. The evidence pro-
duced by future studies could be used
locally to inform instructional decision-
making and be shared more broadly to
continue the professional conversation
on this topic. Once constructed, an evi-
dence base for CII will allow librarians
to develop sound, strategic instruction
and help students achieve the skills they
need to succeed.

Notes

1. Wendy Holliday and Bri� Fagerheim, “Integrating Information Literacy with a Sequenced
English Composition Curriculum,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6 (Apr. 2006): 170. Available
online at h�p://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v006/6.2holliday.pdf.
[Accessed 30 September 2008].

2. Paola Durando and Patricia Oakley, “Developing Information Literacy Skills in Nursing
and Rehabilitation Therapy Students,” Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 26 (Winter
2005): 7–11.

574 College & Research Libraries November 2008

3. Deborah Moore, Steve Brewster, Cynthia Dorroh, and Michael Moreau, “Information
Competency Instruction in a Two-Year College: One Size Does Not Fit All,” Reference Services
Review 30, no. 4 (2002): 301.

4. Jennifer L. Dorner, Susan E. Taylor, and Kay Hodson-Carlton, “Faculty-Librarian Col-
laboration for Nursing Information Literacy: A Tiered Approach,” Reference Services Review 29,
no. 2 (2001): 136.

5. Anne-Marie Haraldstad, “Information Literacy: Curriculum Integration with Medical
School’s Syllabus,” Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries 12, no. 2/3 (2002):
195.

6. Ibid., 193.
7. Ibid., 194.
8. Honora F. Nerz and Suzanne T. Weiner, “Information Competencies: A Strategic Approach”

(paper presented at the annual conference and exposition of the American Society for Engineering
Education, Albuquerque, N.M., June 24–27, 2001).

9. Poping Lin, “Leading Ideas: Core Information Competencies Redefined: A Study of The
Information Education of Engineers,” Association of Research Libraries. Available online at www.
arl.org/bm~doc/li11.pdf. [Accessed 30 September 2008].

10. Cecelia Brown and Lee R. Krumholz, “Integrating Information Literacy into the Sciences
Curriculum,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Mar. 2002): 111–23.

11. Eleanor M. Smith, “Developing an Information Skills Curriculum for the Sciences,” Issues
in Science and Technology Librarianship no. 37 (Spring 2003). Available online at www.istl.org/03-
spring/article8.html. [Accessed 30 September 2008].

12. Carol Carr and Arleen Somerville, “Coping with the Transformation of Chemical Informa-
tion,” in Using Computers in Chemistry and Chemical Education, ed. Theresa J. Zielinski and Mary
L. Swi� (Washington, D.C.: ACS, 1997), 109–31.

13. Brown and Krumholz, “Integrating Information Literacy into the Sciences Curriculum”;
Carr and Somerville, “Coping with the Transformation of Chemical Information”; Smith, “De-
veloping an Information Skills Curriculum for the Sciences.”

14. Del Affleck, “A Curriculum-Integrated Bibliographic Instruction Programme at the Aca-
demic Level,” Education Libraries Bulletin 29 (Summer 1986): 43–47.

15. Connie Ury, “A Tiered Approach to Bibliographic Instruction: The MEDAL Program,”
Research Strategies 12 (Fall 1994): 247.

16. Debbie Orr, Margaret Appleton, and Margie Wallin, “Information Literacy and Flexible
Delivery: Creating a Conceptual Framework and Model,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27
(Nov. 2001): 457–63.

17. Mary C. MacDonald, Andree J. Rathemacher, and Joanna M. Burkhardt, “Challenges in
Building an Incremental, Multi-Year Information Literacy Plan,” Reference Services Review 28, no.
3 (2000): 240–47.

18. Justin Harrison and Lorna Rourke, “The Benefits of Buy-In: Integrating Information Literacy
into Each Year of an Academic Program,” Reference Services Review 34, no. 4 (2006): 599–606.

19. Holliday and Fagerheim, “Integrating Information Literacy with a Sequenced English
Composition Curriculum.”

20. Ibid., 179.
21. Linda K. Rambler, “Syllabus Study: Key to a Responsive Academic Library,” Journal of

Academic Librarianship 8 (Jul. 1982): 156.
22. Jeremy W. Sayles, “Course Information Analysis: Foundation for Creative Library Sup-

port,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 10 (Jan. 1985): 344.
23. Nancy H. Dewald, “Anticipating Library Use by Business Students: The Uses of a Syllabus

Study,” Research Strategies 19, no. 1 (2003): 33–34.
24. Rambler, “Syllabus Study,” 159.
25. Jonathan D. Lauer, Lawrie H. Merz, and Susan L. Craig, “What Syllabi Reveal about Library

Use: A Comparative Look at Two Private Academic Institutions,” Research Strategies 7 (Fall 1989):
171.

26. Dewald, “Anticipating Library Use by Business Students,” 34.
27. Ibid., 35.
28. Ibid., 37.
29. Ibid., 42.
30. Rambler, “Syllabus Study,” 157.
31. Rick Bean and Lynn M. Klekowski, “Course Syllabi: Extracting Their Hidden Potential”

(paper presented at the Sixth Annual Off-Campus Library Services Conference, Kansas City, Mo.,
Oct. 1993): 3–4.

32. Lisa M. Williams, Sue Ann Cody, and Jerry Parnell, “Prospecting for New Collaborations:
Mining Syllabi for Library Service Opportunities,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 30 (Jul. 2004):

Using Syllabi to Plan Curriculum-Integrated Information Literacy Instruction 575

270–75.
33. Dewald, “Anticipating Library Use by Business Students,” 42.

34. Dewald, “Anticipating Library Use by Business Students”; Rambler, “Syllabus Study.”
35. Affleck, “A Curriculum-Integrated Bibliographic Instruction Programme”; Carr and

Somerville, “Coping with the Transformation of Chemical Information”; Dorner, Taylor, and
Hodson-Carlton, “Faculty-Librarian Collaboration”; Haraldstad, “Information Literacy”; Smith,
“Developing an Information Skills Curriculum for the Sciences.”

36. Nerz and Weiner, “Information Competencies”; Ury, “A Tiered Approach to Bibliographic
Instruction.”

37. Haraldstad, “Information Literacy”; Smith, “Developing an Information Skills Curriculum
for the Sciences.”

38. Dorner, Taylor, and Hodson-Carlton, “Faculty-Librarian Collaboration”; Ury, “A Tiered
Approach to Bibliographic Instruction.”

39. Nerz and Weiner, “Information Competencies”; Carr and Somerville, “Coping with the
Transformation of Chemical Information.”

40. Affleck, “A Curriculum-Integrated Bibliographic Instruction Programme”; Dorner, Taylor,
and Hodson-Carlton, “Faculty-Librarian Collaboration”; Nerz and Weiner, “Information Com-
petencies”; Smith, “Developing an Information Skills Curriculum for the Sciences.”

41. Ury, “A Tiered Approach to Bibliographic Instruction.”
42. Carr and Somerville, “Coping with the Transformation of Chemical Information.”
43. Affleck, “A Curriculum-Integrated Bibliographic Instruction Programme”; Carr and Somer-

ville, “Coping with the Transformation of Chemical Information”; Nerz and Weiner, “Information
Competencies”; Smith, “Developing an Information Skills Curriculum for the Sciences.”

44. Ury, “A Tiered Approach to Bibliographic Instruction.”
45. Dorner, Taylor, and Hodson-Carlton, “Faculty-Librarian Collaboration”; Haraldstad,

“Information Literacy.”

A suite of services offered by the

Association of Research Libraries

LibQUAL+
Charting Library Service Quality...

Looking for library service assessment tools?

Over 1000 libraries worldwide
have used the LibQUAL+ ® Web-based survey

Monday, January 26, 2009, 8:30–10:00 a.m.