These came out of discussions with one of the History faculty here and are intended as a template for instruction here; however, they should be easily tweakable for more general use. As always, comments are appreciated [though no one ever wants to comment on history competencies ].

Lower Division Library Skills

The Lower Division student:

1. Can identify, and distinguish between, primary and secondary sources.
   • The student should be able to define what is a primary and what is a secondary source.
   • The student should know when to use a primary source vs. when to use a secondary source when working on assignments.
2. Can identify and evaluate sources in various media.
   • Can locate and make use of scholarly reviews.
   • Can articulate a strategy for the evaluation of sources:
     • accountability
     • accuracy
     • bias
     • currency
     • scholarly standards
3. Can identify resources (electronic and print) for locating primary and/or secondary sources.
   • The student should be able to locate relevant databases via the Library's web page.
   • The student should be able to execute searches in the library catalog that will yield relevant resources.
     • Execute author, title, and journal title searches.
     • Use subject terms to locate primary sources.
     • Use subject terms to locate reference materials (indexes, encyclopedias, bibliographies).
     • Use subject terms to locate secondary materials.
   • The student should be able to execute searches in online search engines that will yield appropriate resources.
     • Use history-specific web portals:
       • History on the Web (http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/history/web.html)
       • History Matters (http://historymatters.gmu.edu)
       • World History Matters (http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorymatters/)
       • American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov)
4. Can execute search strategies for electronic and print resources specific to the discipline.
   • Can locate relevant material in a print index or bibliography.
   • Can locate relevant articles and reviews in electronic databases:
     • America: History & Life
     • Historical Abstracts
     • JSTOR
     • Academic Search Premier
5. Can locate primary and secondary sources (electronic and print) both within the library and outside of it.
   • The student can execute searches in the library catalog to find materials and use the catalog record to locate the resource within the library.
   • The student can identify and use union catalogs (print and online) to locate materials not held by the Georgia State University Library.
     • GIL Universal Catalog
     • Emory University Library Catalog
     • WorldCat
6. Understands what plagiarism is and the importance of proper citation.

Upper Division Library Skills

In addition to all Lower Division Library Skills, the Upper Division student:

1. Can identify electronic and print resources for other fields that are relevant to historical research.
   • The student should be able to locate relevant databases via the Library's web page:
     • Anthropology Plus
     • MLA Bibliography
     • Philosopher's Index
     • Web of Science
     • Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
   • The student should be able to execute searches in the library catalog that will yield relevant resources.
     • Use subject terms to locate reference materials (indexes, encyclopedias, bibliographies).
     • Use subject terms to locate secondary materials.
2. Can follow scholarly discussions and debates in the secondary literature.
   • Can identify and locate review essays.
   • Can use citations from scholarly articles to identify threads of a scholarly conversation.
   • Can use citation indexes to locate secondary sources that cite books or articles.
3. Understands the rules that govern the use of rare materials (archives, manuscripts, and rare books).
   • Is familiar with the policies and procedures of GSU's Special Collections and other repositories (locally and state-wide).
4. Can identify and locate professional opportunities such as calls for papers, conference announcements, and sources of funding.

UPDATE: Sorry about the poor formatting with the initial post; it didn't look that way when I clicked the "Publish" button.

OK, here's a draft of some research competencies for undergraduate history students. These assume some exposure to information literacy standards and are intended as, perhaps, a second tier. I really, really, really would appreciate any feedback on this. I will not feel bad if you have only negative things to say!

Undergraduate Research Competencies for History (Draft)

1. Can identify, and distinguish between, primary and secondary sources.

• The student should be able to define what is a primary and what is a secondary source.
• The student should know when to use a primary source vs. when to use a secondary source when working on assignments.

2. Can identify resources (electronic and print) for locating primary and/or secondary sources.

• The student should be able to locate appropriate databases via their institution's web page.
• The student should be able to execute searches in the library catalog that will yield appropriate resources (Use subject terms to locate primary sources and use subject terms to locate reference materials [indexes, encyclopedias, bibliographies]).
• The student should be able to execute searches in online search engines that will yield appropriate resources (and can identify history-specific web portals).

3. Knowledge of search strategies for electronic and print resources specific to the discipline.

• Can locate appropriate materials in a print index or bibliography.
• Can locate appropriate materials in electronic databases (book reviews, articles, dissertations).

4. Can locate primary and secondary sources (electronic and print) both within the library and outside of it.

• The student can execute searches in the library catalog to find materials.
• The student can identify and use union catalogs (print and online) to locate materials not held by their institution (Regional catalogs; WorldCat).

5. Can identify and evaluate sources in various media.

• Evaluate primary sources (through use of reviews and references).
• Evaluate secondary sources (through use of reviews and references).

Time now permits me to work a little more doggedly on the whole history research competencies thing. This is something that the RUSA-History Section/Instruction & Research Committee is working on (and I guess that I am spearheading somewhat). It does seem silly to me that the committee have dibs on this work, so I encourage anyone interested in the process to join in – that's what blogs are for.

Anyway, I've been looking at AHA guidelines and want to work through the "Historical Thinking Benchmarks" found in Benchmarks for Professional Development in Teaching of History as a Discipline. [I'm listening, incidentally, to the Bell Orchestre CD as I do this - it's quite good if you go for that sort of thing] The Benchmarks are geared to K-12 teaching, but there are a few general principles to be drawn from them. Many of the competencies I list below will be redundant, but I want to get them out on the table and then I/we can reassemble as needed.  I won't list all of the benchmarks because some of them are too out of scope for library-centric purposes.

1. Analysis of primary and secondary sources. This is fairly obvious, and we draw from this a number of competencies (that is, what students would have to know how to do in order to achieve this benchmark):

• Can identify, and distinguish between, primary and secondary sources
• Can identify when primary or secondary sources are called for
• Can identify appropriate resources (electronic and print) for locating primary and secondary sources

2. An understanding of historical debate and controversy. History, as a discipline, is "a complex process of critical dialogue" (AHA Statement on Standards, Section 2), and students have to be aware of that conversation.

• Can identify appropriate resources (electronic and print) for locating secondary sources
• Can locate scholarly book reviews
• Can identify and locate scholarly articles & journals
• Can use citations from scholarly articles to identify threads of a scholarly conversation
• Can use citation indexes to locate sources that cite books or articles [this is perhaps a weird obsession of mine, but I've found that grad students here, and some faculty, really like following citation trails to identify who is participating in a scholarly conversation; this is likely a graduate student competency]

3. Appreciation of recent historiography through an examination of how historians develop differing interpretations.  I can't think of anything not covered in #2.

4. Analysis of how historians use evidence.  Ditto.

5. An understanding of bias and points of view.  See what I mean by redundancy?  But maybe someone will have thoughts on these.

6. Formulation of questions through inquiry and determining their importance.  This seems to head in the direction of helping students figure out how to put together a research topic.  The gloss on this one refers to using historical works to identify the major questions guiding the work and then developing one's own questions about the general topic.  This could be a useful exercise in helping students initiate the research process – or, at least, the concept could prove useful in assisting undergrads (the exercise itself wouldn't fit into a BI session).

The remaining benchmarks are too out of scope, so I won't get into them. 

As many librarian readers may recall, there are five "pillars" of information literacy:

1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.
2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.
3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
4. The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
5. The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. (Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, Section 7, "Standards, Performance Indicators, and Outcomes").

I want to focus on no. 5, the one about the social uses of information. There are three components ("performance indicators") of this part: an understanding of the legal, ethical and socio-economic factors related to the use of information (copyright, freedom of speech, privacy/security, economic barriers to information); a willingness to follow laws, etiquette, ethics of information access and use; uses correct documentation/cites sources/gives credit where credit due. This is all well and good: everyone should be aware that there are barriers to access, that there are laws pertaining to the use of information, and we definitely want people to be aware of plagiarism and avoid it. However, lately I've been wondering if this part, for all of its prohibitionism, is missing something, something more positive and productive relating to the social uses of information.

In pitching a wiki for an undergraduate history methods course (which I have described before), I focused on the importance of collaboration and collegiality, playing off of the Prof. who has been sounding the same note with her students: no historian is an island, to paraphrase Donne. The importance of the collaborative nature of scholarship is embedded in the AHA Statement on Standards too: "Membership in this profession is defined by self-conscious identification with a community of historians who are collectively engaged in investigating and interpreting the past as a matter of disciplined learned practice;" and "Historians strive constantly to improve our collective understanding of the past through a complex process of critical dialogue—with each other, with the wider public, and with the historical record—in which we explore former lives and worlds in search of answers to the most compelling questions of our own time and place" ("Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct", Section 1 and 2). I don't think this emphasis on the importance of dialogue is unique to the historical profession: one of the platforms of higher education as a whole is dialogue and the exchange of ideas.

When I talk about citing sources to students, I always think of something a Professor from my undergrad days said:  "I don't read articles anymore, just footnotes."  Footnotes are not important simply because they document a writer's use of someone else's ideas; footnotes are a form of communication.  Scholars read a paper and want to know where the ideas come from so that they too can follow paths indicated via citations; footnotes also often communicate scholarly identity (citing certain thinkers puts one in a certain scholarly camp).  But how successful are we in communicating the importance of citations to students?  Importance not just because we want to check their papers, as it were (for punitive reasons), but because we want to show students how to communicate their learning and their successes to others.  Because we want students to know how to share what they've discovered.

The change in emphasis from negative (cite your sources so we know whether or not you're cheating) to positive (citing the sources you use is a way of participating in the scholarly community) is fairly simple and emphasizing the importance of sharing information does not have to preclude reference to plagiarism and its attendent perils.  Isn't it better to emphasize that college students are participating in a scholarly community?

The difficulty is how to assess/measure such an outcome – how do you measure collaboration?  I'm not sure, but encouraging (or even requiring, along the lines of "class participation") sharing resources via a course wiki is an interesting step in that direction.

I'm getting away from my larger point here (it's not just citations):  collaboration.  Sharing information, collaborating with others, working as part of a larger conversation among scholars and the public at large – shouldn't these be a part of an information literacy scheme?  Don't we want to help produce citizens/scholars who not only know how to use information, but share what they've discovered?

There is an article in the current (Feb. 2006) issue of AHA Perspectives that discusses the relationship between information literacy and student use of primary sources. Where Will They Find History? The Challenges of Information Literacy Instruction by Lynn D. Lampert “recapitulates and expands upon” remarks made at an ALA 2005 annual meeting session devoted to the question of information literacy among undergraduate students taking history courses. Lurking in the background of Lampert’s argument is the information literacy trope of the undergraduate information seeker: woefully unequipped to navigate library collections (both virtual and physical) and will only use Google/the Internet to do research.

The main argument of the article is that primary sources are important, but students are not using them. Lampert claims on p. 23 that “very few history majors actually work with unpublished or published primary source materials until their senior year of undergraduate studies or graduate school.” I’m not so sure about this, and Lampert does not provide supporting evidence for this assertion: what about all of those accursed readers so many history undergrads slog through? And from which students are so often forced to write essays?

Anyway, her point is that students aren’t using primary sources to write papers – they don’t acquire primary source literacy. Lampert touts programs (like the one at her own institution) that “provides students and future teachers with greater exposure to primary source materials and practical examples of how historical research is conducted” (p. 24). Which makes sense and reiterates what seems to be/should be the focus of undergrad history instruction – the importance of primary sources for understanding the past (while at the same time teaching that all-important point of historical literacy: primary sources can’t always be taken at face value). Of course, if students aren’t incorporating primary sources into their papers, it may be because professors aren’t making them. Which Lampert addresses by calling for collaboration between historians and librarians to create assignments that focus on primary-document literacy as well as reaffirm the importance of the library (as “the laboratories of historians” – she’s quoting an earlier Perspectives article).

This is all fine stuff, though the article ends with the specter that haunts librarianship: Google (our metonym for the popularity of Internet search engines). Lampert here employs the information literacy trope mentioned above, leading to a formulation rooted in a metaphysics of presence that always bugs me: “Until we show them contrary evidence – through demonstrations based on both print and digitized collections that our universities have secured access to through library collection development efforts – they will continue to rely on the inferior tools and resources that have hitherto offered them ’success’ in locating and using ‘relevant’ resources in the past” (p. 25). First off, freely available online resources like American Memory or History Matters kick ass on a lot of resources acquired through traditional library collection development efforts (though American Memory is of course a digital version of library resources, but still); I won’t even get into open access. By denying the usefulness of freely available resources, Lampert undermines her cause: the point is to make sure students know about good resources wherever they may be. Actually, no – the point is to get students interested in history and to get students working with historical materials wherever they might be (or at least, that’s the point of some of Lampert’s article). Secondly, waving library resources at students because the truth will free them from the demon Internet is silly. I thought the idea was collaboration in creating assignments that encourage use of primary sources? So encourage teaching faculty to create assignments based around the resources the library has. Or appreciate that there is a lot of very useful primary material available online and encourage students to use it. Yes, there are situations in which only library resources will work; there are also situations in which freely available Internet resources will work. Let’s not act as if librarians are civilized and students are savages simply because students use the Internet.

I’ve set up a page of links on my History research guide: Research Guidelines or Writing Guides (or go to http://www.library.gsu.edu/research/hist and look under “Helpful Info” for the link to “Research Guidelines and Writing Guides”). The last link is to a page created by the ACRL Instruction Section that provides links to readings on the topic; in particular, note the first article from AHA Perspectives (“Best Practices“), but all look useful. If you have further suggestions, please leave a comment.

This is a week late, mostly because I’ve been sick and also swamped with instruction this semester. Anyway, I attended my first ALA meeting, spending three days in San Antonio, Texas (a place I’d never been to before). San Antonio is a nice enough place – I enjoyed walking to and from my hotel via the Riverwalk – but a hard place for vegetarian who doesn’t eat dairy. Food wasn’t all bad though, and I had some fantastic guacamole.

The Midwinter meetings started off as a disappointment for me (I won’t fully name names, but will say that AAMES needs to have people show up at its meetings or else cease existence), but I ended up having a lot of fun. I was surprised at how much fun I had, as I am usually very uncomfortable around strangers and am not much given to networking. I even learned a lot in the vendor area, finding some print sets of primary sources that will be useful for my library’s collections.

Most important for me, as a History Librarian, was the meeting in which a bunch of librarians discussed research competencies for history undergrads and grad students. I think this will be a useful project, especially with many universities requiring departments to measure learning outcomes/assess teaching (beyond the course evals). The trick is to balance what the historical profession sees as its professional standards with the academic library world standards for information literacy; or maybe downplay library standards in favor of professional standards. Which leads one in the direction of the “Rochester Model” – that is, Stanley Wilder’s contention that librarians should view students as disciplinary apprentices rather than generic “information seekers.” I have to admit that I’m sympathetic to this model, but I would be since I’m a subject librarian.

So for the next few weeks, look to this space for thoughts on research competencies for history students as I try to think through different issues and work toward a draft of some sort. If there are any readers out there interested in the topic, I invite you to play along.