University of Sheffield, October 27, 2009

Sophie BuryBusiness Librarian, York University Libraries,

Toronto, Canadasbury@yorku.ca, www.sophiebury.ca

An Investigation of the Information Literacy Instruction Practices, Attitudes, and Knowledge of University Faculty: Results of a Web-based Survey at York University, Canada

Background & motivation for study

Much about role of faculty librarian collaboration in information literacy planning and instruction written by librarians for librarians. Literature rich in second-hand accounts of

faculty behaviour. Lack of research studies exploring faculty

attitudes, perceptions, behaviours and practices. (McGuinness, 2006).

Existing research studies show evidence of a disconnect between faculty and librarians around teaching roles. Greater understandings of respective roles and

cultures could be fostered by more research.

Yet information literacy competencies, to be taught well, require substantial input from faculty. (Gullikson, 2006)

York University Libraries’ Information Literacy Manifesto (2005-2010) Assessment a core strategic priority including

needs assessment with faculty.

Goals of learning more about

Faculty perceptions of York students’ information literacy habits, needs, and IL competency levels.

Faculty perceptions’ of the importance of IL competencies & IL instruction among students.

Faculty experiences with and estimation of current information literacy instruction at York University.

Faculty beliefs re ideal frameworks for IL instruction at York University. Explored by reference to only a few areas of

investigation.

Methodology

Web-based Survey (envisaged as stage one). Primarily closed-ended questions. Comments invited and faculty quite responsive.

Spring 2007.

All full-time faculty at York.

221 usable responses.

Data analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Cross-tabulations, chi-square testing.

Statistically meaningful analysis possible at very broad disciplinary level: Sciences & Engineering (N=48) Social Sciences & Humanities (N=130) Professional Schools - Business & Law (N=39)

Faculty perceptions of students’ IL competencies

Faculty concerns re student IL ability (based on comments analysis)

Heavy reliance on free web. Lack of motivation to go beyond this. Heavy reluctance to use print resources.

Perceptions of their own abilities, higher than actual abilities.

Failure to distinguish between online library resources and internet more generally.

Skills in distinguishing between types of resources lacking. Scholarly versus popular especially.

Faculty perceptions of students’ IL competencies: Different levels

Faculty perceptions of students’ IL competencies: Mean rankings (scale 1-7)

* = differences across disciplines found to be statistically significant.

1st-2nd Year Undergrads*

3rd-4th year Undergrads*

Graduate Students

Across all disciplines

2.82 4.08 5.32

Sciences and Engineering

2.74 4.21 5.42

Social Sciences & Humanities

2.72 3.96 5.33

Professional Schools (Business & Law)

3.61 4.59 5.21

Faculty overwhelmingly recognise the value of fostering IL competencies among students

York University study establishes this. Repeated Finding in Other Studies

Cannon (1994)

Leckie & Fullerton (1999)

McNamara-Morrison (2007)

Webber, Boon & Johnston (2005)

Faculty perceptions of the importance of individual IL competencies

Rankings on scale of 1-7, with 7 indicating highest level of importance, and 1 indicating the lowest

Mean,Median

Capable of defining a research topic effectively

Able to identify information appropriate to a given research question

Understand how information is communicated in the primary discipline which they are studying

Understand the differences between scholarly and popular sources

Able to distinguish between primary and secondary sources of information

Able to identify appropriate search tools (e.g. databases, online research tools) to find needed information

Capable of formulating effective search strategies when looking for needed information within online research tools

Understand how to critically evaluate library information sources found

Understand how to critically evaluate information found on the free web

Able to effectively synthesize information gathered from different sources

Understand issues relating to academic integrity

Capable of citing information sources correctly

6.35, 76, 66.37, 7

6.58, 76.45, 7

6.21, 6

6.21, 6

6.51, 7

6.64, 7

6.49, 7

6.6, 7

6.27, 7

Faculty perceptions of the importance of individual IL competencies

Gullikson (2006) found 61 out of 87 of ACRL IL Standards for Higher Education given ranking of 3.25/4 or higher.

Weetman (2005) reports that a vast majority of faculty (ranging from 85% to 97%) say each skill as defined by SCONUL “seven pillars” is essential by the end of the course.

Both this study and Gullikson (2006) Highest ranked competencies fall within

standards three, four and five. Lowest ranked competencies fall within

standard two.

Appropriate roles & information literacy instruction: What faculty think

York studyShould be a collaborative endeavour between librarians and faculty: 78.7% - faculty and librarians together. 10% - librarians only. 7.1% - faculty only. 4.3% - either faculty or librarians.

Other studies – mixed findings: Substantial support for collaborative model –

Cannon (1994), Gonzales (2001), Leckie & Fullerton (1999).

Faculty feel little or no responsibility for teaching information literacy – Thomas (1994), McGuinness (2006).

Appropriate roles & information literacy instruction: What faculty do

York University: Disconnect between belief and practice.

Note, however, statistical significance of gender as demographic variable: female

faculty found to incorporate IL Instruction more than male faculty.

Corroborated by findings of other studies

Manuel, Beck & Molloy (2005) in a review of the LIS literature conclude that:

“various studies report that 55 to 85% of the faculty do not use librarian-provided instruction”

Only Thomas (1994) found gender to be significant – female faculty 2.5 times more likely to introduce instruction than male faculty.

Who is doing the teaching?

The non-adopters: why some faculty offer no IL instruction

47.1% of York faculty are not incorporating IL instruction.

Reasons given:

Curriculum too full and not enough time (61.1%). Leckie & Fullerton (1999) & Cannon (1994) = approx

25%, while Thomas (1994) = 53.9%.

Lack of awareness (18.8%). Larger factor in most other studies: Cannon (1994)=

40%; Gonzales (2001)=46%, Leckie & Fullerton (1999)= 31%.

Other reasons included: Not faculty’s responsibility (22.2%). Students can teach themselves these

competencies(22.2%). Students have these competencies already (13.3%).

Faculty views on the impact of IL instruction

York study shows wide recognition of some benefit 47.5%= substantial impact. 37.5% = some impact. 7.5%=minimal impact. 1.2% = no impact. 6.2% = unsure.

Other studies widely found librarian-led instruction of value Gonzales (2001) – 68.4% describe as “very useful.” Cannon (1994) – 96% indicated instruction useful. Leckie & Fullerton (1999) – 77% found it useful. Manuel, Beck & Molloy (2005) – 15 out of 21 faculty

interviewed reported positive impact of instruction on student research.

Faculty views on the impact of Librarian Led IL instruction

38 faculty comments received.

Results in higher quality papers, assignments, or results (40%) Cannon (1994) =86%, Leckie & Fullerton (1999 )=

57%, Manuel, Beck & Molloy (2005) = 10 out of 21 faculty interviewed.

Results in higher student confidence in conducting research and greater awareness of the value of IL (29%) manifested in behaviours such as: Higher use of the library. Greater tendency to consult faculty and librarians

about research questions. Positive comments by students after the IL session Manuel, Beck & Molloy (2005) report one third of

faculty interviewed observe same type of improvement.

Other observations: Students improved ability to cite resources correctly. Heightened ability to differentiate between scholarly

and popular resources. Greater competency in synthesizing information.

Faculty beliefs re ideal frameworks for IL instruction at York University.

Faculty beliefs re ideal frameworks for IL instruction at York University.

Optional or required?

25 faculty comments received:

15 out of 25 express unwaivering support for mandating this type of instruction somewhere, with only four expressing reservations.

Five faculty show support with qualifications. Provide it only where students shown to

need it.

Sample comment: “The competency itself should be mandatory, Whether the instruction should be depends on what competency the students have already achieved.”

Faculty beliefs re ideal frameworks for IL instruction at York University.

Optimal IL Delivery Mechanisms

Disconnect between what is done, and what faculty believe should happen: In practice, most faculty adopting IL

instruction within class time (79% during lectures, 36% during tutorial time, 12% outside class).

Optimally 39% of faculty believe IL instruction should take place outside scheduled class time, and only 45% think it should happen during class time.

Thomas (1994) and McGuinness (2006) find similar strong believe in NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) approach.

Faculty beliefs re ideal frameworks for IL instruction at York University.

Optimal IL Delivery Mechanisms

In-class, outside class, or online?

63 faculty comments received.Asked to comment on in-class, outside class, or online.

Integration during class time at some point in a program desirable (33 comments).

Multi-method approach optimal (31 comments)

Assignments or task-specific objectives essential to ensure learning (7 comments).

Reservations due to lack of time (9 comments).

Conclusions

Implications for Practice: Flexible approach to IL models and approaches

desirable as faculty preferences vary. Case for investigating further the role and place

of faculty development in an IL program. Need for stronger library advocacy role.

Implications for Research: More research to gain deeper understanding of

why faculty choose not to adopt IL instruction. More research to obtain more in-depth

understanding of faculty views on models of information literacy instruction which are most effective or desirable.

Bibliography

Anita Cannon, “Faculty Survey on Library Research Instruction,” RQ 33, no. 4 (1994): 524-41.

R. Gonzales, “Opinions and Experiences of University Faculty Regarding Library Research Instruction: Results of a Web Based Survey at the University of Southern Colorado,” Research Strategies (April 18, 2001): 191-201.

Shelley Gullikson, “Faculty Perceptions of ACRL's Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 6 (November 2006): 583-592.

Gloria J. Leckie and Anne Fullerton, “Information Literacy in Science and Engineering Undergraduate Education,” College and Research Libraries 60, no. 1 (January 1999): 9-29.

Claire McGuinness, “What Faculty Think-Exploring the Barriers to Information Literacy Development in Undergraduate Education,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 6 (November 2006): 573-582.

Laurie McNamara Morrison, “Faculty Motivations: An Exploratory Study of Motivational Factors of Faculty to Assist with Students' Research Skills Development,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 2, no. 2 (2007).

Bibliography

Kate Manuel, Susan E. Beck, and Molly Molloy, “An Ethnographic Study of Attitudes Influencing Faculty Collaboration in Library Instruction,” The Reference Librarian 43, no. 89 (2005): 139-60.

Annmarie B Singh, “A Report on Faculty Perceptions of Students' Information Literacy Competencies in Journalism and Mass Communication Programs: The ACEJMC Survey,” College & Research Libraries 66, no.4 (July 2005): 294-310.

J. Thomas, “Faculty Attitudes and Habits Concerning Library Instruction: How Much Has Changed Since 1982?,” Research Strategies (1994):209:223.

S. Webber, S. Boon, and B. Johnston. “A Comparison of UK Academics' Conceptions of Information Literacy in Two Disciplines: English and Marketing.” Library and Information Research News 29, no. 2005 (2005): 4-15. .

Jacqui Weetman, “Osmosis - Does It Work for the Development of Information Literacy?,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 5 (September 2005): 456-460.