This document discusses the importance of integrating library instruction into university courses. It notes that while students are often required to complete research papers, library instruction is usually limited to brief one-time sessions. The document proposes ways to more fully integrate instruction, such as making it mandatory for core classes, tailoring sessions to specific course needs, creating online tutorials, and embedding librarians within departments. Benefits include improved student research skills, better faculty support, and enhanced library services. Examples of successful programs at various universities are provided.

1. COURSE INTEGRATED
LIBRARY
INSTRUCTION
Danielle Portway
Fall 2011
LIBR 210

2. Importance of Library Instruction
• Students at universities are required to do research papers, no matter the
major.
• English, World Civ./History, sometimes Science courses.
• “Faculty-Librarian collaboration can be an elegant solution…to develop
these academic skills.” (Hollister, 2008)
• Skills which teachers find lacking in students, much to their frustration.
• Increased use of the Internet does not mean increased information
literacy. (Stowe, 2011)
• Actually less.

3. Library Instruction Currently
• Repeated constantly throughout course of study .
• Usually 45-75 minute sessions, once or twice per class (Stowe, 2011, 85).
• Faculty seems to prefer one session per class (Hollister, 2008)
• Some would rather not even involve the library as it takes time away from instruction.
• Partial coverage
• Not mandatory
• Faculty choice to implement (Hollister, 2008)
• In one ear, out the other syndrome
• Retention is minimal with one session. (Callison, 2001)
• Course-relatedness does not convey necessity (Callison, 2001)

4. Ways to Implement Further Integration
• Make part of curriculum classes that are mandatory at the university.
(Callison, 2001)
• Especially useful for required classes like World History (Hollister, 2008) and
basic English classes.
• Examples in successful practice
• Long Island University and the Brooklyn Campus Library (Stowe, 2011)
• Class-integration of library instruction for English classes
• Albany Medical College (Geyer & Irish, 2008)
• Web-based self-directed learning, building on past comprehension throughout

5. Ways to Implement Further Integration
• Work with faculty to tailor classes for more in-depth learning of library
resources.
• Outside meetings with faculty to determine class needs and best ways to instruct
• Learn faculty preferences and adjust accordingly
• Creation of products like web guides customized with faculty. (Hollister, 2008)
• Collaborate with teachers to best suit classes.
• Example in successful practice
• University at Buffalo (Hollister, 2008)
• Librarian outreach to create a partnership
• Adjusted each semester to suit needs of departments

6. Ways to Implement Further Integration
• Create online tutorials to compliment classes or replace entirely (Gilbert
et al, 2006)
• Takes less time and money to do.
• Also can be openly available and hold attention better. (Callison, 2001)
• Example in successful practice
• San Jose State University and the King Library (Gilbert et al., 2006)
• Online tutorials to assist students

7. Ways to Implement Further Integration
• Embed librarians “within a course, an academic department or college
structure” (Jacobs, 2010).
• Librarians assigned to work in tandem.
• Offer office hours and appointments for one-on-one consultations with students
and faculty. (Hollister, 2008)
• Example in successful practice
• University of Alabama (Keever & Raymond, 1976)
• Personalized learning (4 units) and librarian/teacher instruction (7 sessions)

8. Benefits from Further Integration
• Student results
• Better understanding of resources, citations and plagiarism (Stowe, 2011)
• More access to librarians and familiarity with reference services (Jacobs, 2010)
• Library results
• Better communication with faculty and students to help with assignments (Jacobs,
2010)
• Better understanding of what is needed to be added to library’s collection (Jacobs,
2010)
• Faculty results
• Less frustration over students lacking research skills for papers (Hollister, 2008)

9. Sources
• 1. Stowe, B. (2011). “I can’t find anything” Towards establishing a continuum in curriculum -integrated library
instruction. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 81-97.
• 2. Gilbert, L. M., Liu, M., Matoush, T, & Whitlatch J. B. (2006). Assessing Digital Reference and Online
Instructional Services in an Integrated Public University Library. The Reference Librarian, 95/96, 149-
172.
• 3. Jacobs, W. N. (2010). Embedded Librarianship is a Winning Proposition. Education Libraries, 33(2), 3-10.
• 4. Keever, E. H. & Raymond J. C. (1976). Integrated Library Instruction on the University Campus: Experiment
at the University of Alabama. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2(4), 185-187.
• 5. Geyer, E. M. & Irish, D. E. (2008). Isolated to Integrated: An Evolving Medical Informatics Curriculum.
Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 27(4), 451-461.
• 6. Hollister, C. V. (2008). Meeting Them Where They Are: Library Instruction for Today’s Students in the World
Civilizations Course. Public Service Quarterly, 4(1), 15-27.
• 7. Callison, D. (2001). Integrated Instruction. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17(5), 33-39.