international · peer reviewed · open access
Information Literacy Seven Corners: Improving instruction by reviewing how librarians, faculty culture, professional literature, technology, and todays college students convergeAbstractThis article reviews library and education literature, as well as the authors personal observation of undergraduate information literacy (IL) instruction sessions, and provides a range of ideas and suggestions for ways in which librarians can increase the effectiveness of IL instruction sessions. The author asserts that there are five major influences that present challenges and opportunities to librarians who wish to increase authentic collaboration with faculty for course-integrated instruction that more fully addresses the higher-thinking skills true information literacy requires. In todays world of expanded electronic access to information and the impact ubiquitous Internet searching has had on students entering or returning to post-secondary education, new strategies must be employed to facilitate instruction that goes beyond procedural skills — the conceptual aspects of information literacy and critical thinking must come to the forefront of library and classroom instruction. IntroductionAcross the United States, in towns large and small, are areas known as “Seven Corners” where the junction of five roads creates seven corners. These unique intersections come into being when two distinct towns or communities expand, eventually meeting each other in an unplanned and slightly awkward manner. These intersections can be quite confusing for drivers, pedestrians, and even the businesses lining each corner. Traffic signals here are distinctly different from those at familiar four-corner intersections, requiring special settings to allow vehicles coming into the intersection from five separate directions to navigate safely and smoothly — traffic flow must be directed to each of the other four available directions. Entry into parking lots to patronize businesses is difficult to identify and access depending on which direction one is coming from. The current state of information literacy (IL) instruction could be described as a Seven Corners area, replete with often-confusing signals, limited visibility, and difficult access. The five roads converging at this one intersection are Librarian Lane, Faculty Culture Way, Technology Boulevard, Publication Place, and Undergraduate Street. All of these thoroughfares converge into one spot — Information Literacy Seven Corners — as the exponential expansion in information meets continually changing computerized access. This paper draws on observations recorded during five separate information literacy instruction sessions for university undergraduates conducted by five instructional librarians from January to March, 2009. This first-hand observation highlighted some of the difficulties that exist at IL Seven Corners, and literature reviews in both library and education journals supplemented and expanded upon the unique challenges currently being faced. Librarian LaneThe American Library Association (ALA) and its two education divisions saw this intersection as it was developing and designed traffic signals in an attempt to coordinate the flow. ALA published “The Final Report from the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy” in 1989, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) published “Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning” in 1998, and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) published “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” in 2000. As attempts to quantify and define what information literacy consisted of, these documents clearly linked libraries and librarians with educators, knowing that “information literacy is not learned through osmosis; it must be taught” (Hylen, 2005, p. 22). In the years since the publication of these documents, librarians from all levels of educational institutions have attempted to ‘clean up’ the confusion at IL Seven Corners by expanding traditional bibliographic instruction to encompass information literacy. Mapping the observations from one specific IL instruction session onto the ACRL (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education illustrated that there was a blend of access-to-information instruction and use-of-information instruction. While ACRL Competency Standards 1 and 2 were addressed in all five of the instruction sessions, Standards 3, 4 and 5 were not included to the same degree. Following is a detailed description of which specific portions of the standards were included in one of the instruction sessions observed. The theme of Standard 1 is “knowing, and determining the extent of, the information needed.” All of the instructions observed covered this area extensively. All of the following were suggested in the documented observation:
Standard 2 deals with procedural issues of accessing information. The documented instruction included:
Standard 3 outlines evaluation of information and its sources, Standard 4 deals with presentation of research, and Standard 5 covers economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information. The only aspects of Standards 3, 4, and 5 covered in the IL instruction session were:
It is clear that procedural skills received substantially more attention than conceptual or higher-order thinking skills did in the instruction session. Instruction focusing on the last three Standards would more fully engage and develop conceptual skills. Technology BoulevardThe Information Age has boomed, and the quantity of information available can be mind-boggling. Internet use has expanded to 72.5 of the American population as of 2008 (Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2009). According to Carlson (2003) there were 15,652 websites discussing information overload (p. 170), and today a search for the phrase “information overload” can result in about 1,770,000 pages. Staff writers at Inc. noted in 1999 that the projected increase in the number of URLs between 1997 and 2002 was 7,349,000 (Inc Staff). More recently (2008), software engineers at noted that “our systems that process links on the web to find new content hit a milestone: 1 trillion (as in 1,000,000,000,000) unique URLs on the web at once!” (Alpert & Hajaj). Access to scholarly journals in digital form has become the standard in post-secondary education, and locating articles has changed dramatically from the days of print indexes. The growth and ubiquitous nature of the Internet, along with the proliferation of electronic databases containing scholarly publications, do require that some procedural instruction (Standard 2) take place. Electronic databases share many of the same functions — such as advanced search, saving citations to a folder, emailing articles to self, and exporting citations — but each vendor interface is organized differently, so there are distinct procedural skills required to use them effectively. Beyond procedures, however, lie conceptual aspects such as identifying the most effective retrieval systems; developing search strategies and redefining them when necessary; critically evaluating information and sources for reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, and point of view or bias; understanding copyright law and fair use principles; integrating new information with previous knowledge; formulating opinions and participating in discourse with others; and determining the most effective method of presenting research findings. The observed instruction sessions covered both procedures and concepts of accessing information; however, the conceptual instruction was minimal. For example, three or four retrieval systems were demonstrated (OPAC, WorldCat, journal database/s, and ) — procedural instruction — and students were allowed time to conduct searches in each and consider the appropriateness of their results — conceptual instruction. The students, however, were not asked to consider the characteristics of retrieval systems or select the most effective retrieval systems; the ones demonstrated were presumably selected ahead of time with this in mind by the librarian conducting the session. The conceptual skills of defining and developing topics and search strategies were not a significant part of the instruction, even though these are some of the most difficult tasks in the research process (Kuhlthau, 1989). While it is possible that some students had already developed individual information-seeking strategies at the early undergraduate level, it is not likely (Leckie, 1996, p. 205). The current state of technology allows for exceptional ease in taking excerpts directly out of documents and various forms of media. Discussion of copyright law and fair use principles in the context of scholarly research is another important conceptual aspect of IL that was not addressed in the instructional sessions observed. Internet search capabilities allow students to bypass librarians, who have historically represented expertise in evaluating sources. Individuals must now use additional critical-thinking in their search process to evaluate the nature and authority of the results. In many cases it can be extremely difficult to differentiate an authoritative website from a spoof website (Bradley, 2006). Additionally, the presentation of student research has morphed from simple type-written papers to an expectation for students to use technology-driven software for word processing, charts and graphs, visual overhead presentations, image creation and modification, and even audio/video creation and editing. Students today not only use ever-changing technology in the gathering stage but also in the presentation stage of research. It is safe to assume that the rapid technology changes experienced in the last four decades will continue long into the future, necessitating high-speed adaptation as Technology Boulevard charges into the IL Seven Corners intersection. Faculty Culture WayCollaboration between librarians and faculty has proven to be a successful strategy to enhance IL instruction (Mackey & Jacobson, 2005, p. 140). This has been especially true when IL instruction is content-centered and tied to specific curricula (Grafstein, 2002). According to Head and Eisenberg (2009), students need context when undertaking research, both academic and personal (pp. 5-10). Without being connected to and addressing an actual research need, IL instruction is ineffective and easily forgotten because of the lack of context. There were differing levels of faculty/librarian collaboration evident in the observed IL instruction sessions, ranging from the professor being absent to the professor conducting the instruction. The most effective session observed clearly showed collaboration between the librarian and the professor. The librarian had no input into creation of the assignment, but there was clear communication between the two of them as to specifics of the assignment and expectations for the instruction session. Additionally, the professor was present, attentive, and proactive throughout the session. Faculty behavior related to IL instruction can demonstrate the level of importance the professor places on students making use of librarians and library research assistance. During the periods when students were given time to conduct their own searches, both librarian and professor made themselves available to assist individuals with questions and to review what all the students were doing. Additionally the professor had assigned groups of two to three students to work together on the research. Group or team work allows for those with varying levels of skill to assist each other through the process, thus maximizing their own and each others learning (Keyser, 2000, p. 36). It was evident in this instruction session that teammates were truly working together to search retrieval systems, share the found results, question the appropriateness of individual results, and discuss changes in search terminology. Faculty Culture Way enters the IL Seven Corners intersection, bringing its own traffic patterns with it. According to Hardesty (1995), faculty culture encompasses various expectations of responsibility, stature, and behavior. Professors focus on their area of expertise and emphasize research, content, and specialization. Unless specifically sought out, professors do not take courses on how to teach within their respective graduate programs. (Actually, this is true of librarians as well, making the pedagogy of instruction a relative unknown to those providing IL instruction to undergraduate students.) Many professors view their status as higher than that of librarians, even when librarians are given faculty status. Frequently faculty feel that while it is their responsibility to teach content, it is the librarians responsibility to teach library skills, thus indicating a perceived divide between them (Hrycaj & Russo, 2007). Most academic professors experience and/or feel extreme time constraints due to their teaching load, the research and publishing that are required of them, and service activities in their field. Thus classroom time is considered a valuable commodity with scarcely enough time available to cover the desired content, much less to turn some over to librarians for IL instruction. At most, the standard 50-minute IL instruction session is all they are willing to give, and sometimes it is scheduled when the professor is away at a conference. In the case of one session, a librarian had been embedded in the professors course during the prior year. This year the professor chose to conduct the IL instruction, asking the librarian to serve as back-up help during the hands-on periods. One could infer that this professor felt he had learned everything the librarian knew about IL the previous year and could now remain the one ‘in charge’ of the classroom period. Both the librarian and the session observer found this to be a decidedly unsuccessful IL instruction session that should not be repeated. Librarians also hold their share of attitudes about faculty that undermine the smooth flow of collaboration at IL Seven Corners. According to Given and Julien (2005), librarians exhibit a territorialism with respect to the library—especially its instructional places—quite similar to the territorialism which professors exhibit with respect to their classrooms and students (p. 31). While faculty members frequently believe it is the librarians responsibility to teach library skills, librarians frequently believe that faculty should take a larger role in IL instruction, should know library resources, and should prepare assignments that develop basic library skills. The level of disparity between the two sets of expectations can create a challenge to collaboration. Much of the professional literature in both library and higher education journals still places the onus for IL instruction on librarians, even while strongly suggesting that collaboration between librarian and professor is greatly preferred. Publication PlaceInformation literacy is a phrase that was first coined over 25 years ago (Gilton, n.d.). Research done in 2006 suggests that, of the numerous articles about information literacy written between 2000 and 2005, most were published in library literature; few appeared in non-library journals, i.e. those intended for educators in higher education (Stevens, 2007). A limited re-creation of this research revealed that from 2006 to 2008, the same conditions existed. Stevens contended that librarians are in fact preaching to the choir and should make greater efforts to publish in discipline-specific journals to reach the intended audience: faculty. Having found that this lack of publishing outside of library literature still exists, it is clear that this remains a verdant area of opportunity for librarians. Albitz (2007) suggested that, to some extent, library literature and higher education literature simply do not use the same language to describe a similar topic. Librarians use the phrase ‘information literacy,’ which includes both skills and higher level cognitive activities, while educators use the phrase ‘critical thinking.’ Definitions of information literacy in library literature are more uniform and skill-based than definitions of critical thinking, basically because academic disciplines disagree as to what ‘critical thinking’ actually means. Albitz, however, believes that these two concepts overlap enough to believe they are not inherently different (p. 107). Even though there are differences in the skill sets required for each, it could be said that an information literate person must specifically use critical thinking, and that a critical thinker must be information literate in order to be fully informed (p.101). Both of these strategies — publishing in non-library journals and expanding the nomenclature — are worthy of pursuit; however, the efforts involved will not be easy. The disconnect in perceptions of librarians and professors is well-established — having existed for over 25 years — and the problem is amplified by the entrance of Undergraduate Street into the intersection. Undergraduate StreetThe Internet and -type searching are ubiquitous in the lives of young people entering colleges and universities today. The now defunct Netscape web browser set the stage in 1993, and the ease of searching the vast amount of information located in digital form on the Internet has had 16 years to enter the mainstream lifestyle of youth and adult Americans alike. The eighteen- to twenty-year-old college undergraduates of today have grown up with computer technology and have developed some information-seeking habits of their own (Dresang, 2005, p. 180). These habits generally do not take scholarly research into consideration, so the ongoing need for IL instruction simply must meet the new ‘Net Generation’ on their terms. “What is particular here is the need to adapt the style of communication to the form that connects with the style that the net generation have absorbed by the intense interaction they have had with the world of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the most formative stage of their lives” (Clark, 2008, p. 13). As for the facultys exposure to scholarly research, Feldman and Sciammarella (2000) write, “Many teaching faculty members had completed several degrees before the information technology explosion. They used printed indexes for their research. Now, they must learn a whole new set of rules for doing research … they are not always eager to learn the new skills” (p. 496). Unfortunately, the assumptions of faculty (many with Ph.D.s) as ‘expert researchers’ and the reality of young undergraduates, especially in regard to scholarly research, as ‘novice researchers’ are miles apart, as can be seen in the following table.
It is clear that there are many areas for librarians to address gaps between the assumptions of professors and early undergraduate students. By comparing the two positions, librarians can identify unique ways in which they can bridge this great divide and smooth the IL Seven Corners area for the future. In addition, more and more adults are returning to college classrooms and online courses to either complete previously abandoned degree programs or seek education in order to change careers (Kolowich, 2009). This can bring great challenges to both librarians and professors, as “there is a reasonable possibility that an adult student, through work activity or online community interaction, could be better informed than the teacher in a given topic within a course” (Clark, 2008, p. 14). ConclusionLibrary literature has actually provided many suggestions for addressing the confusion at IL Seven Corners, however these issues have not, until now, been gathered into a comprehensive whole. There are five distinct thoroughfares entering this intersection; each entailing multiple factors to take into consideration. Librarians (Librarian Lane) must continue to engage in collaboration with faculty, especially looking for ways to provide information literacy instruction in connection with meaningful research assignments within the context of the course. One way to encourage faculty to embrace the importance of information literacy instruction is to publish (Publication Place) in the discipline-specific journals that faculty read. Another is to liberally sprinkle the phrase ‘critical thinking’ into the dialogue about information literacy. Faculty may not be teaching Kuhlthaus “Model of the Information Search Process” (1989), but they may be actively providing instruction on critical thinking skills. Further research of non-library literatures use of the phrase ‘critical thinking’ as a substitute for ‘information literacy’ may provide additional insights. It is entirely possible that connecting information literacy and critical thinking skills in the minds of faculty members could be just the ticket for them to assume a larger role in its instruction. Faculty members (Faculty Culture Way) have their own attributes and perceptions of research and have developed personal, discipline-specific information-seeking strategies. Librarians can look for ways to bridge the differences between faculty perceptions and early undergraduate realities, as well as the wide range of technology skills found in returning adult students. Whether that be through direct conversation with faculty or innovative outreach to students, there is much to explore in this area. Technology (Technology Boulevard) is an ever-present and ever-changing reality with which we must all engage. There are many experiential aspects of early undergraduates, who have grown up digital, and of returning adult students, who did not, (Undergraduate Street) that librarians can address through methods of instruction and provision of access to research databases. With the growth of Scholar as an effective means to locate (but not necessarily obtain) scholarly literature, it was recently suggested by Bell (2009) that library websites should change from the link-laden portal model to one that improves usability with tabbed interfaces, simple search boxes, and the ability for more personalization so that the users of today will find reason to utilize it. The current state of information literacy instruction could definitely be described as a Seven Corners area, replete with often-confusing signals, limited visibility, and difficult access. However, signals can be made clearer through continued collaboration, content- and context-driven instruction, and vocabulary choice. Visibility can be enhanced to include the specialized differences between expert and novice researchers so that richer communication and learning develops. Difficult access can be addressed by a fuller understanding of how the world of information has changed for students, both those who have grown up with technologies and information seeking capabilities vastly different than those of the past and those returning to the academic world after time in work environments. This is an exciting time for both librarians and educators who are prepared to embrace change, work together, and improve information literacy instruction for the benefit of our students. ReferencesAlbitz, R. S. (2007). The what and who of information literacy and critical thinking in higher education. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(1), 97-109. Alpert, J. & Hajaj, N. (2008, July 25). We knew the web was big. Message posted to http:// blog.blogspot.com/. Retrieved June 24, 2009. American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information literacy standards for student learning: Standards and indicators. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/informationpower/InformationLiteracyStandards_final.pdf American Library Association. (1989). Final report from the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/professionalresources/infolit/index.cfm Association of College & Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm Bell, S. J. (2009, February 17). The library web site of the future. Inside Higher Ed. Blog, Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/02/17/bell Bradley, P. (2006). Fake websites and spoof websites; evaluating internet resources using false websites. Phil Bradley's website: Making search easier for everyone! Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.philb.com/fakesites.htm Carlson, C. N. (2003). Information overload, retrieval strategies and Internet user empowerment. In The good, the bad and the irrelevant: The user and the future of information and communication technologies. (pp. 169-173). Helsinki. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.iwf.de/pub/wiss/2003_ca_Information_Overload.pdf Clark, P. M. (2008). Technological change and life-long learning: Perfect storm or tornado? Seminar, Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.niace.org.uk/lifelonglearninginquiry/docs/Paul-Clark-technology-evidence.pdf Dresang, E. T. (2005). The information-seeking behavior of youth in the digital environment. Library Trends, 54(2), 178-196. Feldman, D., & Sciammarella, S. (2000). Both sides of the looking glass: Librarian and teaching faculty perceptions of librarianship at six community colleges. College & Research Libraries, 61(6), 491-8. Gilton, D. L. (n.d.). History of information literacy instruction. Online. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.uri.edu/artsci/lsc/Faculty/gilton/InformationLiteracyInstruction-AHistoryinContext.htm Given, L. M., & Julien, H. (2005). Finding common ground: An analysis of librarians' expressed attitudes towards faculty. Reference Librarian, 43(89/90), 25-38. Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197. Hardesty, L. (1995). Faculty culture and bibliographic instruction: An exploratory analysis. Library Trends, 44(2), 339. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Finding context: What today's college students say about conducting research in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, The Information School, University of Washington. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://projectinfolit.org/ Hrycaj, P., & Russo, M. (2007). Reflections on surveys of faculty attitudes toward collaboration with librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 692-696. Hylen, J. (2005). Help students and teachers become information literate. Teacher Librarian, 32(5), 22. Inc. Staff. (1999, January 1). Data Data. Inc.: The Daily Resource for Entrepreneurs. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.inc.com/magazine/19990101/715.html Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17(1), 35-44. Kolowich, S. (2009, January 9). Recession may drive more adult students to take online classes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(19), A.11. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1989). Information search process: A summary of research and implications for school library media programs. SLMQ, 18(1), Online. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/selectkuhlthau2.cfm Leckie, G. J. (1996). Desperately seeking citations: Uncovering faculty assumptions about the undergraduate research project. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 201. Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2005). Information literacy: A collaborative endeavor. College Teaching, 53(4), 140-144. Miniwatts Marketing Group. (2009). Internet growth statistics: Global village online. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm Stevens, C. R. (2007). Beyond preaching to the choir: Information literacy, faculty outreach, and disciplinary journals. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 254-267. Author's BioMargaret Driscoll is a graduate student at the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University. Her current position is Reserves/eReserves Coordinator at California State University Channel Islands. She has previously worked in libraries located in Hong Kong, China and Tempe, Arizona. Her primary interests lie in academic librarianship, especially the areas of information literacy, emerging technologies, accessibility and copyright. |
Contents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright, 2012 Library Student Journal | Contact