the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -This article aims to assess student achievement of higher-order information literacy learning outcomes from online tutorials as compared to in-person instruction in science and health science courses.Methods -Information literacy instruction via online tutorials or an in-person one-shot session was implemented in multiple sections of a biology (n=100) and a kinesiology course (n=54). After instruction, students in both instructional environments completed an identical library assignment to measure the achievement of higher-order learning outcomes and an anonymous student survey to measure the student experience of instruction.Results -The data collected from library assignments revealed no statistically significant Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.3 96 differences between the two instructional groups in total assignment scores or scores on specific questions related to higher-order learning outcomes. Student survey results indicated the student experience is comparable between instruction groups in terms of clarity of instruction, student confidence in completing the course assignment after library instruction, and comfort in asking a librarian for help after instruction.Conclusions -This study demonstrates that it is possible to replace one-shot information literacy instruction sessions with asynchronous online tutorials with no significant reduction in student learning in undergraduate science and health science courses. Replacing in-person instruction with online tutorials will allow librarians at this university to reach a greater number of students and maintain contact with certain courses that are transitioning to completely online environments. While the creation of online tutorials is initially time-intensive, over time implementing online instruction could free up librarian time to allow for the strategic integration of information literacy instruction into other courses. Additional time savings could be realized by incorporating auto-grading into the online tutorials.

Although the issues of diversity and representation are often discussed within academic librarianship in Canada and the United States, the field has made little headway in being inclusive of the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) who work within it. If academic libraries are to become truly authentic and inclusive spaces  where BIPOC are central not only to shaping the values of a library but also to determining how those values are accomplished, we must examine the traditional ways in which libraries function. One of these traditions is a reliance on bureaucracy and its associated practices such as structured group work and meetings, which are presumed to be inherently neutral and rational ways of working. Critical examinations of bureaucracy within higher education reveal how its overadoption is absurdly at odds with the social justice–oriented missions of most libraries. Furthermore, not all who are involved in libraries are equally harmed through this overreliance on bureaucracy; this article employs Critical Race Theory to uncover the insidious and specific deleterious impacts bureaucracies can have on BIPOC library workers. The antithesis of a neutral system, bureaucracy instead functions to force assimilation into a system entrenched in whiteness.

It is self-evident that academic libraries and librarianship are changing in substantive ways, ranging from the types of material we collect, the way we approach information literacy instruction, to our positions within college and university organizational charts. In response to a rapidly changing environment, library administrators may try to quickly bring about changes in library policies, structure, and more. However, in the process, library administrators may inadvertently adopt rigid top-down approaches that can disenfranchise and disengage library workers, resulting in outcomes that serve neither students or workers. A servant leadership approach to authority and influence may be a means to reverse this frustrating trajectory. Servant leadership requires that administrators focus on the existing expertise and the development potential of library workers as the means for ensuring fulfillment of the library’s mission in an environment of constant change. Furthermore, this approach requires administrators to begin by accepting library workers’ perspectives as their reality, instead of dismissing those perspectives. This approach shares the same foundations of two central practices of librarianship: reference and instruction. Librarians must believe users’ information needs, listen to their experiences and with this information, consider ways to aid the user in progressing toward their goal. A challenge to this approach is that it requires more work for library administrators and library workers through consideration of different types of information and looking closely at voices of disagreement and resistance. While servant leadership appears more complex with slower progress, the end result of sincere engagement and effort by everyone in the library has the potential to aid in achieving the changes needed to keep academic libraries thriving.

No abstract

Collections assessment in academic libraries has experienced a shift in recent years from projectbased models to continuous models that aim improve the responsivity of library collections to campus needs. This article reports on how one university library used a library committee with representation from across library departments to develop a holistic, ongoing Collection Management Cycle. This newly created process evaluates the entire library collection over a five-year period and aligns with library reporting requirements for university program review to minimize additional workload and improve the impact of external reporting activities.