julien.p65 510 College & Research Libraries November 2000 Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries: Longitudinal Trends and International Comparisons Heidi Julien A national survey of information literacy instruction in Canadian aca­ demic libraries revealed that trends in teaching objectives, methods, and content have changed little in the past five years. Instructional librarians continue to face numerous challenges, particularly with regard to lim­ ited resources and faculty and student attitudes. Although more than half of the libraries believe they are meeting their instructional objec­ tives, only a minority actually record their objectives formally and evalu­ ation of instructional success remains mostly informal. Findings from the survey are compared with an earlier Canadian study and with simi­ lar work done in the United States and New Zealand. lthough much has been made in the research and profes­ sional literature about the value of information literacy instruction in academic libraries, it is at the level of practice that evaluation of learning outcomes begins. To provide a framework for a future attempt at assess­ ing the outcomes of instruction in Cana­ dian academic libraries, the instructional objectives, practices, and opinions of in­ structional librarians were analyzed. The analysis is longitudinal, noting trends over a five-year period and making com­ parisons with a similar analysis done in New Zealand. In addition, published data from a recent U.S. study are compared with the Canadian data. For practitioners, the data presented may be useful for benchmarking their own instructional activities. From the perspective of re­ searchers interested in analyzing informa­ tion literacy as a concept, understanding how theory is translated into practice in the real world of budget restraints and ambivalent campus cultures is a neces­ sary complement to their endeavors. Methods Ethical approval for the study was pro­ vided by Dalhousie University. In Janu­ ary 2000, a written questionnaire was sent to all university and college libraries in Canada (n = 408). In Canada, colleges (or community colleges) are typically small academic institutions that award job-re­ lated diplomas in technical subjects. For institutions having more than one library, a survey was sent to each library on cam­ pus. The cover letter was directed to the librarian having primary responsibility for instruction at that library so as to en- Heidi Julien is in the School of Library and Information Studies, Faculty of Management, at Dalhousie University; e-mail: hjulien@is.dal.ca. 510 mailto:hjulien@is.dal.ca Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 511 sure that respondents had the adequate background and understanding to an­ swer questions accurately. Respondents were assured of anonymity, both as indi­ viduals and for their institutions. Surveys were sent in English to libraries at En­ glish-language institutions and in French to libraries at French-language institu­ tions. Of 309 English surveys sent, 168 were returned, for a response rate of 54 percent. Of ninety-nine French surveys sent, thirty-nine were returned, for a re­ sponse rate of 39 percent. The overall re­ sponse rate was 51 percent, so it is as­ sumed that the data are reliable. The questionnaire included closed-response items, which were analyzed quantita­ tively. Written comments to open-ended items were analyzed and, using content analysis, grouped into categories where warranted. Representative comments are quoted verbatim to illustrate commonly expressed themes and viewpoints. First-year students are a focus of instruction at 84.6 percent of librar­ ies, undergraduates at 59.1 percent of libraries, and returning adult students at 40.4 percent of libraries. The survey items sought responses on the following topics: • institutional data (type, size, tech­ nological sophistication); • types of instruction provided (i.e., whether there is a formal instructional program); • resources devoted to instruction (human, financial, encouragement); • methods of instruction; • content of instruction (i.e., for which resources and services); • focus of instruction (i.e., to which client groups); • effect of information technology on instructional content and methods; • objectives of instruction (both ac­ tual and ideal); • evaluation of instruction; • opinions about the definition of in­ formation literacy (respondents were pro­ vided with potential elements drawn from a wide range of published literature on information literacy and asked whether they agreed); • opinions about librarians’ degree of responsibility for teaching information literacy skills; • barriers faced by instructional li­ brarians. Because this survey was based on one done in 1995 by Heidi Julien and Gloria J. Leckie, longitudinal trends in instruction in Canadian academic libraries can be dis­ cerned.1 In addition, this analysis makes international comparisons with the re­ sults of a survey of instruction in New Zealand academic libraries done in 1997.2 And finally, this analysis includes com­ parisons with data collected in the United States in 1995. The most recently pub­ lished comparable national data on in­ struction in the United States appear to be from Linda Shirato and Joseph Badics’s report of the 1995 LOEX survey.3 Because the U.S. data, like the Canadian data, were collected in 1995, the results of these two surveys are most strictly comparable. However, care must be taken in interpre­ tation of the U.S. results because the re­ sponse rate for the LOEX survey was only 35 percent. Results and Discussion Respondents Table 1 shows the proportions of survey respondents from libraries serving col­ leges and those serving universities. There was a reversal of the 1995 propor­ tions, with the majority of responses in 2000 coming from university libraries. Table 2 shows the proportions of respon­ dents from libraries serving various stu­ dent population sizes. The majority of responses are from libraries serving fewer than 10,000 students. Instruction: Content and Methods The resources for which instruction is pro­ vided are noted in table 3. The general trend seems to be that fewer libraries in the year 2000 offer instruction for the re­ sources listed than was the case in 1995. A significant drop may be noted for instruc­ 512 College & Research Libraries November 2000 tion on print in- TABLE 1dexes and other Type of Institutions Responding to Survey print materials. Table 4 shows re- Type of Institution Proportion of Respondents (%)sponses that detail 1995 2000the instructional methods used. College or technical institution 52.4* 43.0 Fewer classroom University 47.6 55.6 lectures and demon­ *Combined categories of community college. community college!strations, self-paced university. and college affiliated with a university. library tours, essay workshops, posters, and videos were apparent in 2000 than was the case previously. Conversely, there ap­ pears to be an increase in the use of hands- on instruction in computer labs and in computer-assisted instruction (CAI). The U.S. data suggest that two percent of li­ braries in 1995 had a required credit course and that 30 percent offered a credit course, a proportion significantly larger than is the case in Canada. Overall, similar propor­ tions of libraries in Canada and the U.S. use the various methods listed in table 4. Surprisingly, one exception is that more Canadian libraries are using CAI (12% of U.S. and nearly 30% of Canadian libraries in 1995, and 36% of Canadian libraries in 2000).4 The reasons for this difference are unknown. There has been a significant change over the past five years in student access to databases outside the library and to the Internet in general. In 1995, 53.7 percent of the surveyed libraries provided access to external networks and 68.9 percent pro­ vided access to the Internet, whereas in 2000, 86.5 percent of responding libraries provided access to outside networks and 97.1 percent provided access to the Internet. TABLE 2 Libraries' Investment in Instruction Interestingly, there has been a slight de­ cline in the proportion of respondents who indicated that they provide formal instruc­ tional activities (79.1% in 1995, and 77.4% in 2000). Also noted was a decline in the proportion of libraries that formally record their instructional objectives (27.8% in 1995, and 21.2% in 2000). Placing primary responsibility for instruction with a dedi­ cated instructional librarian also seems to be on the decline: 7.9 percent of libraries in 1995 reported that this was the case for their institution, as compared to only 6.3 percent of libraries in 2000. Reference li­ brarians have responsibility for instruction in 69.1 percent of libraries in 2000, down from 72.6 percent in 1995. Other library staff members, mostly technicians, were given responsibility for instruction in 20.7 percent of libraries in 1995 but now are given this responsibility in 40.6 percent of libraries. This suggests a remarkable dis­ placement of responsibility for instruction from professional librarians to technicians. As is the case in Canada, most academic libraries in the United States appear to place responsibility for instruction with the reference department. Indeed, only 11 per- Size of Institutions Responding to Survey Size of Institution Proportion of Respondents (%) 1995 2000 Fewer than 10,000 FTE students 10,000-20,000 FTE students More than 20,000 FTE students 56.6 21.4 22.0 60.6 18.7 20.7 cent of U.S. librar­ ies have estab­ lished a separate administrative unit for instruction.5 Moreover, there tends to be an ad hoc approach in larger U.S. institu­ tions, with instruc­ tors delivering in­ Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 513 TABLE 3 Resources for which Instruction is Provided Resource Proportion of Respondents (%) 1995 2000 Catalog Library use in general Internet/Web CD-ROM indexes Other print materials Print indexes Classification system Government documents Audiovisual materials 90.7 89.9 92.0 85.1 52.5* 84.1 86.4 79.3 73.5 59.1 76.5 45.7 50.0 40.9 35.8 31.7 21.6 16.8 *Phrased as "other databases accessible outside the institution (e.g. Internet).· struction individually and little overall co­ ordination.6 In 2000, libraries report that investment of staff time in instructional activities dropped significantly after the start of the academic year, when 35 percent of librar­ ies report spending more than ten hours per week on instruction. During the re­ mainder of the year, only 8.9 percent of libraries allocate that much staff time to instruction. The largest proportion of libraries (54.7%) allocates between one and five hours per week to instructional ac­ tivities during the year, apart from the beginning of the academic year. Financial support for instructional activities in libraries appears to be in­ creasing. Distinct and dedicated funding for in­ struction in library bud­ gets has doubled since 1995, when only 5.6 per­ cent of libraries reported dedicated funding, to 11.1 percent today. However, even this increase remains very low. In contrast, the levels of nonfinancial sup­ port (e.g., administrative support, recog­ nition, encouragement) remain approxi­ mately the same. In 2000, 56 percent of respondents report that they experience “full support,” 25.5 percent experience “moderate support,” 13 percent experi­ ence “very little support,” and 5.5 percent experience “no support.” It seems re- TABLE 4 Instructional Methods Method of Instruction Proportion of Respondents (%) 1995 2000 Group instruction for specific courses or subjects Not asked 88.9 Individualized instruction 86.4 82.2 Group library tours 84.0 80.3 Classroom lectures, demos 72.2 66.3 Pathfinders or subject guides 68.5 64.9 Hands-on instruction in lab 43.2 63.9 Library guides/handbooks 69.1 63.5 Computer-assisted instruction 29.6 35.6 Self-paced library tours 22.8 13.9 Noncredit course 15.4 13.0 Additions to course notes for distance students Not asked 12.5 Essay assistance/workshops 21.6 11.1 Workbook program 8.0 11.1 Posters 21.6 9.6 Credit course 9.9 8.7 Video 17.3 4.3 514 College & Research Libraries November 2000 TABLE 5 Mean Importance Rank for User Education Objectives Reported by Respondents Mean Rank in Importance 1 = highest rank Objective of User Education 1995 2000 Teach students how to find infornation 2.6 (SD*= 2.03) 2.0 (SD = 1.14) in various sources Teach students general research strategies 3.0 (SD = 1.97) 2.4 (SD = 1.25) Teach students how to locate naterials in the library 3.2 (SD = 2.13) 2.8 (SD = 1.71) Teach students how to critically evaluate the quality 3.5 (SD = 2.21) 3.4 (SD = 1.46) and usefulness of infornation Teach students how databases in general are 4.0 (SD = 2.19) 4.2 (SD = 1.52) structured Teach awareness of technological innovations 4.2 (SD = 2.10) 5.2 (SD = 1.20) *SD =standard deviation markable that this generation would have any libraries that provide very little or no support for instructional activities. Publicity for instructional activities re­ mains similar to that reported in the first survey. In 2000, 71.2 percent of libraries send notices to faculty, 44.7 percent use posters, 42.3 percent advertise on the Web, and 34.6 percent place notices in the cam­ pus newspaper. Those groups that are a focus of instruc­ tion have changed little over the past five years. First-year students are a focus of in­ struction at 84.6 percent of libraries, under­ graduates at 59.1 percent of libraries, and returning adult students at 40.4 percent of libraries. An exception to the trend of little change is the attention devoted to teach­ ing staff (faculty). In 1995, only 34 percent of libraries focused instructional efforts on faculty, but by 2000, this effort had in­ creased to 46.6 percent of libraries. The es­ timated proportion of students reached by instructional efforts changed little, al­ though there was a slight increase in the proportion of libraries indicating that they now reach 76 to 100 percent of their stu­ dents (18.1% of respondents in 1995 com­ pared to 23.2% in 2000). Thus, although these are just estimates, it may be that greater numbers of students are receiving some instruction from their campus library. Instructional Objectives When respondents were asked to rank their current instructional objectives, the order of importance remained identical to that expressed in the 1995 survey (table 5). Teaching clients to find information in various sources continues to be the pri­ mary objective of instruction in Canadian academic libraries. Interestingly, the stan­ dard deviations (SDs) of the assigned ranks are lower for the 2000 survey, sug­ gesting a greater degree of agreement among respondents about the relative rank of each objective. When respondents were asked what their preferred instruc­ tional objectives would be, again, the rank order remained the same for both surveys (table 6). Teaching general research strat­ egies is the preferred first objective. Again, the SDs of the assigned ranks are less than they were for the 1995 data, im­ plying greater agreement among respon­ dents about the relative rank of objectives. Respondent comments about how in­ structional priorities have changed over the past five years reveal an increased emphasis on “conceptual skills” and a move “from emphasis on specific sources to [an] emphasis on underlying structures with the idea being that skills will be transferable.” Another respondent noted that “we are concentrating on trying to Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 515 teach structure and research strategies rather than concentrating on specific da­ tabases,” a view echoed by several other commentators. One noted that it is now “more important that students under­ stand [the] research process.” Likewise, many respondents noted that “critical evaluation has become more of an issue.” The latter change has occurred because “in past years, the library collection was the main focus and we know those mate­ rials were ‘good’ because they were pur­ chased based on reviews and faculty rec­ ommendations.” This respondent has identified the key reason why critical thinking and evaluation have gained such prominence recently, because surely this was equally important when dealing with paper-based information. What has changed is that when resources were housed within the boundaries of a library, they were filtered; librarians had previ­ ously evaluated and purposefully se­ lected these resources as worthy and po­ tentially useful. Now that many resources are available directly to clients online, critical evaluation skills must be taught more deliberately. Evaluation Respondents appear less confident in 2000 that they meet their instructional objectives, whether or not their objectives are recorded formally. In 1995, 61.3 per­ cent of respondents reported that they believe they meet their objectives, com­ pared to 52.7 percent in 2000. Trends in evaluation have changed little over the five-year period. In 2000, 76 per­ cent of respondents report that they do informal evaluations with teaching faculty (a slight increase from 70.6% in 1995); 70.2 percent do informal evaluations with stu­ dents (compared to 71.9% in 1995); 41.3 percent do self-evaluation (compared to 40.6% in 1995); 34.6 percent administer feedback questionnaires to students (a de­ cline from 39.4% in 1995); 25.5 percent ac­ tually test students on their knowledge (compared to 26.3% in 1995); and 16.3 per­ cent send feedback questionnaires to fac­ ulty (an increase from 10.6% in 1995). Information Literacy The terms bibliographic instruction (BI), user education, and information literacy in­ struction often are used interchangeably, despite conceptual differences (i.e., BI and user education are associated more closely than information literacy instruc­ tion with training in the use of library resources and structures). Thus, the sur­ vey sought to clarify respondents’ under­ standing of information literacy. Table 7 TABLE 6 Preferred Mean Importance Rank for User Education Objectives Preferred Mean Rank in Importance 1 = highest rank Objective of User Education 1995 2000 Teach students general research strategies 1.9 (SD*= 1.46) 2.1 (SD = 1.24) Teach students how to find infornation in 2.0 (SD = 1.54) 2.4 (SD =1.25) various sources Teach students how to critically evaluate the 2.5 (SD = 1.89) 2.7 (SD = 1.40) quality and usefulness of infornation Teach students how to locate naterials in the library 2.6 (SD = 2.07) 3.5 (SD = 1.75) Teach students how databases in general 3.5 (SD = 2.27) 4.4 (SD = 1.46) are structured Teach awareness of technological innovations 3.7 (SD = 2.36) 5.1 (SD = 1.20) *SD =standard deviation 516 College & Research Libraries November 2000 �� �� ��� �� ��� �� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� � ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ���� ��� ��� �� ��� � �� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� � �� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� � �� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� � �� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� ��� ��� �� ��� � ��� �� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� �� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ���� ��� �� ���� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� � ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� �� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� � ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� �� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ���� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� � ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� � ��� ��� ��� ���� ���� ��� �� ���� ���� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� �� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� ��� ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� � ��� ��� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ���� �� ���� ��� ��� ��� � ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ���� ��� � �� ���� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� � �� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ���� ��� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ���� �� �� ��� ���� ���� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� �� ��� �� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 517 shows how respondents define the term and illustrates their opinions about the degree of responsibility that academic li­ braries ought to take for instruction in the various elements that constitute in­ formation literacy. In addition, it offers comparisons with data from the New Zealand survey.7 Data on understanding information literacy were not collected in the 1995 Canadian survey, so longitu­ dinal comparisons cannot be made.8 Al­ though a majority of Canadian respon­ dents agree that each of these elements is a part of information literacy, few agree on who bears responsibility for instruct­ ing each element. Indeed, one respon­ dent wrote in a marginal note: “What li­ brary would admit to no responsibility in any of these areas?” However, only two of the elements (teaching “under­ standing how to locate efficiently and effectively information from many sources” and teaching “understanding how information is generated, orga­ nized, stored, and transmitted”) are viewed by a majority of Canadian re­ spondents as being the full responsibil­ ity of academic libraries. For teaching six of the eight elements, however, respon­ dents feel partial responsibility. Respon­ dents cited teaching faculty as the other primary group responsible for teaching information literacy but also mentioned a role for students themselves, teaching assistants, campus computing centers, parents, school librarians, and public school teachers. One respondent noted in a marginal comment: I think that responsibility for all of these should be shared between li­ brarians and the teaching faculty. No library and its contents can be an island unto itself, nor can a teacher effectively teach without the support of external information. Students themselves also have to take responsibility for their learn­ ing. Consider it a symbiotic relation­ ship between librarian, instructor, and student—where each benefits from the other. Despite the emphasis in information literacy literature on critical thinking (cf. Sonia Bodi, 1988; Eugene Engeldinger, 1988; Chris Atton, 1994; Craig Gibson 1995), nearly a quarter of Canadian re­ spondents believe that librarians bear no responsibility for teaching clients how to think critically in general.9 Relationships between Variables Chi-square tests were performed on some variables to seek significant differences based on the language of the institution (English or French), type of library (col­ lege or university), and size of library. A significant difference was found between English- and French-language libraries on several variables. For example, English- language libraries were more likely to offer formal instructional activities (x2 = 19.52, df = 1, p = .000; Cramer ’s V = .307). Moreover, English-language institutions were more likely to offer informal instruc­ tion (x2 = 9.69, df = 1, p = .007; Cramer ’s V = .216). Statistically significant differences according to language also were noted for respondents’ beliefs about the definition of information literacy. English-language respondents were more likely to indicate that “recognizing when information is needed” is an element of information lit­ eracy (x2 = 14.62, df = 1, p = .000; Cramer ’s V = .266). Similarly, these respondents were more likely to indicate that “under­ standing some ethical, legal, economic, and socio-political information issues” is an element of information literacy (x2 = 4.44, df = 1, p = .049; Cramer ’s V = .146) and that “understanding that there exists a wide variety of information sources be­ yond the obvious” is an element of infor­ mation literacy (x2 = 4.94, df = 1, p = .04; Cramer ’s V = .155). Finally, English-lan­ guage respondents were more likely to believe that “understanding how to use efficiently and effectively information from many sources” is an element of in­ formation literacy (x2 = 9.91, df = 1, p = .004; Cramer ’s V = .219) and that “know­ ing how to think critically in general” is an element of information literacy (x2 = 8.32, df = 1, p = .004; Cramer’s V = .200). 518 College & Research Libraries November 2000 Beliefs about academic libraries’ de­ gree of responsibility for teaching some elements of information literacy also var­ ied significantly by language. For in­ stance, English-language respondents were more likely to believe that libraries bear only partial responsibility for teach­ ing students about “understanding how to use efficiently and effectively informa­ tion from many sources” (x2 = 10.78, df = 2, p = .005; Cramer ’s V = .229). The rea­ sons for these differences by language of institution are unknown; explication of these differences would be a matter for future research. The majority of comments indicated that the primary change was a move from instructor-led demonstrations to hands-on instruction in a com­ puter lab. Significant relationships also were found between type of institution (col­ lege/university) and a number of other variables. For instance, university librar­ ies are more likely to offer formal instruc­ tion (x2 = 6.41, df = 2, p = .041; Cramer ’s V = .176). Similarly, respondents from uni­ versity libraries are more likely to believe that “recognizing when information is needed” is an element of information lit­ eracy (x2 = 11.06, df = 2, p = .004; Cramer ’s V = .231). Respondents from university libraries also are more likely to believe that academic libraries bear at least par­ tial responsibility for teaching “recogniz­ ing when information is needed” (x2 = 10.29, df = 4, p = .036; Cramer ’s V = .160). Not unexpectedly, a statistically signifi­ cant relationship exists between type of institution and size of institution (x2 = 64.83, df = 4, p = .000; Cramer ’s V = .400; i.e., university libraries serve significantly larger populations than do college librar­ ies). Therefore, it is not surprising that sta­ tistically significant relationships would be found between institution size and these same variables. Indeed, libraries serving student populations of 10,000 to 20,000 are significantly more likely than expected to report that “recognizing when information is needed” is an ele­ ment of information literacy (x2 = 10.32, df = 2, p = .006; Cramer ’s V = .225), and libraries serving populations greater than 20,000 are significantly more likely than smaller libraries to include “understand­ ing some ethical, legal, economic and socio-political information issues” as an element of information literacy (x2 = 6.80, df = 2, p = .033; Cramer ’s V = .183). Effects of Technological Change Respondents were asked to what degree they believe that technological change has affected both the delivery and the content of instruction. In 2000, the number of re­ spondents indicating that technology has affected instructional delivery “not at all” or “slightly” decreased (12.9% compared to 23.9% in 1995), whereas the proportion of respondents indicating “a great deal” of influence on delivery increased (48.6% compared to 40.9% in 1995). The influence of technological change on the content of instruction has remained fairly constant, with 2.4 percent of libraries reporting in 2000 that they notice no influence, 13.5 percent noting only a “slight” influence, 44.7 percent noting “quite a bit” of influ­ ence, and 37 percent noting “a great deal” of influence. This range of responses also can be reflected in the variety of positive, negative, and ambivalent comments ex­ pressed by U.S. respondents to the LOEX survey.10 Indeed, the comments quoted in the U.S. survey report echo to a large de­ gree those provided by the Canadian re­ spondents below. Respondents who indicated that infor­ mation technology had changed the way they delivered instruction also were asked to provide, via open-ended writ­ ten comments, examples of such change. The majority of comments indicated that the primary change was a move from in­ structor-led demonstrations to hands-on instruction in a computer lab. For librar­ ies without a computer lab, instructional delivery moved from static overhead pre­ sentations to more dynamic online pre­ sentations, using PowerPoint™ and real- time Web access. One respondent wrote: http:survey.10 Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 519 More reliable networking capacity and more network drops in our building make for greater confi­ dence level. [We are] less wary of technology than in previous years, more confident because technology actually works now. [We have] bet­ ter infrastructure, thanks in large part to grants to improve instruc­ tors’ access to technology. Likewise, respondents who indicated that information technology had changed the content of their instruction were asked to provide examples of such change. Open-ended written comments sug­ gested that instruction now includes “a wider range of tools and formats” and that the emphasis now is “on Web-based resources, Internet resources, [and] criti­ cal evaluation skills.” Traditional content has been “added [to] in terms of [the] quantity of what is taught and complex­ ity (e.g., different search platforms, elec­ tronic products).” One respondent summed up these changes by noting that now “less time is spent on content and quite a bit on ‘how to.’” This sentiment was echoed by another respondent who noted that: far more time is spent explaining the technical or mechanical operations: how to access electronic indexes and full-text materials—not to mention how to download, e-mail and print from these sources, all of which ‘do things’ differently. This is somewhat at the expense of how to find infor­ mation; but for the most part, we have dealt with this by lengthening the sessions. Naturally, these changes mean that in­ structors now “have to understand [their] own internal networks, servers and bud­ gets.” However, another respondent wrote that in her library, “we teach more about concepts and less about button pushing or page turning.” The increased emphasis on evaluation was interesting to note. One respondent wrote: “[Now there is] more emphasis on evaluation of sources, more emphasis on transferable information literacy skills, [and] more computer/technical skills taught.” These changes in instructional content may come as a surprise to some students. One respondent reported that “a comment on a recent library instruc­ tion [evaluation form] stated ‘Why is the LIBRARY [sic] demonstrating what we can find on the Internet[?]’ They don’t understand ‘Internet’ is how we now de­ liver our journals, our reference materi­ als, almost everything.” Another respondent indicated that: It has become imperative to discuss critical, ethical, legal and moral is­ sues because of the lack of control over ‘published’ information on the Internet. Whether we want to or not, librarians must give a crash course on logic and critical analysis—be­ cause we can longer evaluate or ‘se­ lect’ resources for our patrons. Stu­ dents are in over their heads, have way too much information and need to be ‘guided’ through the maze. When asked whether they believe that technological change has increased par­ ticipation in instruction, the respondents’ responses from the 1995 and 2000 surveys are much the same (73% in 1995 and 75% in 2000 report yes). However, there seems to be slightly less enthusiasm for the pos­ sibility that technological change has im­ proved instruction. In 1995, 67.5 percent of respondents indicated that this was the case, compared to only a slight increase to 72.1 percent in 2000. Written comments noted the reasons for increased interest on the part of stu­ dents. Instruction is now “more visually attractive, [and] has made student re­ search more productive/successful. Also many students feel stressed by rapidly changing technology and participating in instruction helps them ‘keep up.’” In ad­ dition, many respondents noted that in­ struction is now “more dynamic and pre­ 520 College & Research Libraries November 2000 cise” as well as “engaging.” “Hands-on instruction has made sessions more inter­ active.” “Anything that can be ‘hands on’ is more interesting than the old ‘building’ tours.” Students, noted respondents, “re­ spond very well to the technology. It’s a faster-paced presentation and more pro­ fessional in appearance.” Students now “see the relevance of library instruction.” Several respondents noted that “if it’s on a computer, it’s sexy. Books are boring!” One commented that “electronic tools are ‘sexy’, faster, [and that] interest = intimi­ dation = participation.” Respondents also supported their be­ liefs as to whether information technol­ ogy has improved instruction, comment­ ing that current efforts are now “more dynamic and powerful,” “you can reach more students with more resources,” and “if students are more interested and par­ ticipate more readily, then I think they are absorbing more information as well.” New technologies also have helped some respondents reach distance learners more effectively. Delivery of instruction is more efficient and relevant, less theoretical, and more customizable (individualizable) in general, it was reported; and technology has provided “more opportunities to stress critical thinking” and “higher level skills.” Despite this assertion, however, some respondents recognize that critical thinking skills are independent of tech­ nology: “The most important content is teaching critical research skills which are independent of the particular technology in many ways.” Technological change also has pro­ vided network connections that allow instructors “to answer database questions ‘on the fly,’ [so instruction] can be more spontaneous and more relevant.” Instruc­ tors now can “reach different kinds of learners (not just auditory learners),” and students have a greater “ability to see the steps involved [in research].” Another respondent disagreed, arguing that “with [the] focus on technology, there is less time to devote [to] talking about strategy, [the] nature of information sources, etc.” On the downside, despite increased stu­ dent interest and participation, there is occasionally “great frustration on everyone’s part when the hardware or software doesn’t work!” Another respon­ dent noted that “the downside is that people can get interested in the technol­ ogy rather than the content.” Several re­ spondents commented that “instruction is different, not necessarily better.” A thoughtful summary comment noted that: I think IT achieves some efficiencies (e.g., modular development) and economies of scale (can deliver to more students) which theoretically should free us to focus on pedagogi­ cal development. Are there en­ hanced outcomes? There is no evi­ dence yet to support this. Improved instruction has led to other changes for librarians: Instructors have to be “better prepared,” “we have had to sharpen our tools … and our skills in teaching the use of this plethora of re­ sources.” Other comments included: “real-time demonstrations and subse­ quent practice in [the] student lab means fewer basic questions are asked and the questions that do come up are more logi­ cal and pertinent than without hands-on experience,” and “more students come to [the] library for follow up assistance.” Barriers Faced by Instructors Two final open-ended questions were in­ cluded on the survey instrument. The first asked respondents to identify the barri­ ers they face as they provide instruction, and the second asked for general com­ ments about instruction. Overwhelm­ ingly, respondents indicated that their primary barriers fall into two categories: limited resources (staff, time, and equip- ment/facilities related), and the difficul­ ties encountered with faculty and student attitudes that hinder positive relation­ ships with librarians and impede effec­ tive instruction. Of the 164 respondents to this question, 46.3 percent specifically mentioned difficulties with faculty (fac­ Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 521 ulty not valuing information literacy in­ struction); 40 percent commented on the lack of appropriate, up-to-date equipment and space for instructional purposes; 39.6 percent mentioned the lack of time for planning and delivering instruction; 31.7 percent cited insufficient staff to meet in­ structional demands; and 26.8 percent reported issues relating to student atti­ tudes toward libraries and librarians that impede instructional effectiveness. Curi­ ously, a significant difference was found between English- and French-language institutions on the degree to which a lack of equipment and facilities acts as a bar­ rier to instruction: respondents from En­ glish-language libraries were signifi­ cantly more likely to comment on this problem (x2 = 6.02, df = 1, p = .014; Cramer’s V = .171). It also is apparent that many library instructors believe that ac­ cess to appropriate instructional space must be available in the library, which ac­ tually may not be required when most re­ sources demonstrated are electronic in nature. In addition, where other instruc­ tors generally are accustomed to travel­ ing to various buildings and classrooms on the campus to do their teaching, librar­ ians appear to remain tied to their famil­ iar physical locations. As one respondent wrote: [Barriers include] lack of interest from students in formal instruction, faculty not encouraging their stu­ dents to take advantage of instruc­ tion, lack of suitable facilities (e.g., we have a small library and just use our public terminals for instruction thus limiting the number of stu­ dents and inconveniencing other users). Another telling comment was: “TIME [sic] to prepare adequately, equipment that breaks down … no BI classroom with computers even though we’ve been ask­ ing for eight years!, BURNOUT [sic].” Stu­ dents’ attitude problems attributed by respondents included apathy, misconcep­ tions about the availability of information on the Web, misconceptions about their expertise in searching for and evaluating electronic information, and “low expec­ tations of [the] library and librarians.” Barriers relating to faculty focused on their reluctance to share instructional time and their unwillingness to recognize that librarians have instructional capabilities and useful skills to teach. One respondent noted facing a “lack of credibility ascribed by the faculty to this function.” Another wrote: “Librarians at our institution are not seen as partners in the teaching pro­ cess … faculty take us for granted and do not share information.” Several respon­ dents suggested that faculty lack skills themselves: “If faculty members don’t know how to use libraries and informa­ tion resources, they do not give their stu­ dents appropriate assignments and do not actively encourage their students to gain these skills.” These sentiments were ech­ oed in the following comment: “Some [faculty] will not arrange for library in­ struction, will not check to see if resources are in the library, will not inform us of their assignments or return calls (assume we can teach by osmosis).” General comments also picked up on some of the earlier themes. One respon­ dent noted that “library instruction would be improved by greater integra­ tion with classroom work [and] greater integration with instruction by teaching faculty.” On campuses where this integra­ tion is occurring, positive benefits are ac­ cruing: Because they are already so busy, students will not come to work­ shops in the library if they are vol­ untary. The best thing for us has been to work with faculty to make the information literacy component a required assignment, usually tied to a research paper assignment that already exists in their courses. Stu­ dents see the direct relevance of the instruction. They come to library workshops out of a felt need. Fac­ ulty are enthusiastic because they don’t have to do any extra marking 522 College & Research Libraries November 2000 (librarians just submit the marks to them). A fully curriculum-inte­ grated programme of information literacy works better for our stu­ dents than a separate (voluntary) course, whether for credit or non­ credit. Many respondents echoed this empha­ sis on the need for curriculum integration. However, other campuses seem to have some way to go: “We have managed to increase participation levels by aggressive promotion and then delivering the goods. Overall, though, we feel we still miss too many potential people who need help,” noted one respondent. Another wrote: “Support is getting better, but we are strong advocates, as are the learners, for more time for research instruction.” At a different campus, there is: very positive attention and focus within the University community on creating a good environment for teaching and learning … there is active pursuit of partnerships among service providers and ad­ ministration to provide instruc­ tional support. Library staff are ac­ tively engaged in developing and promoting their teaching role in the University community. Elsewhere, there is less enthusiasm: “Instruction is not promoted as the library can barely handle the present level of in­ struction,” and “with only one librarian providing instruction we have reached the limit of what we can offer. More per­ sonnel and support are required, plus an understanding on the part of the univer­ sity administration and academic realm as to the necessity of the endeavor.” Another respondent wrote that in­ struction “has suffered drastically from downsized staff/budgets at a time stu­ dents need more attention because of technology—they are required to use elec­ tronic resources but are often not taught how. We know there is a widening gap between what is expected and the sup­ port provided, and know there is a role for the library which we have stopped performing.” A similarly unfortunate comment stated: “I see instruction as being per­ ceived as even less important than it was ten years ago. The speed and ease of Web technology obscures the need for learn­ ing searching and evaluating skills.” A similar comment indicated that the re­ spondent was “underutilized and under­ valued.” Another wrote: the irony of a Master in Library Sci­ ence is that Instruction is not part of the curriculum. Some of the best instruction will come from those who have already taught. It is diffi­ cult for instructional classes in li­ braries to be taken seriously if the person is not trained in teaching and is not comfortable or effective at classroom delivery. Respondents clearly identified areas needing improvement. As one com­ mented, “We need to write a library in­ struction goals document, agree on stan­ dards, and test for results.” Blame was laid elsewhere, too: Fighting the ‘instant gratification’ of audio-visual junior students. Brightly colored hair, skateboards and attitude. ‘Entertain me’ is all they seem to care about. Only very slick presentations impress them, they have an appalling lack of in­ terest in the content. When most li­ brary journals, reference materials, and databases are delivered over the Web, a huge problem are these young students who think they know anything and everything on the Web. Although the LOEX survey did not specifically report a similar concern with faculty and student attitudes, the U.S. re­ spondents clearly indicated that resource restrictions were a significant barrier to their instructional efforts.11 http:efforts.11 Information Literacy Instruction in Canadian Academic Libraries 523 Conclusions The data obtained in the current Canadian survey raise several questions. And for those interested in improving instruction, they present some significant concerns. For example, does the apparent trend to re­ place professional MLIS-trained librarians with library assistants for instructional purposes portend a de-professionalization of instruction? Is such a question even ap­ propriate in light of the general lack of training for instruction provided to pro­ fessional librarians during their MLIS de­ grees? This question is related to the con­ tinuing lack of attention paid to other aspects of instruction. Although there are obvious examples where instructors have taken responsibility for learning how to teach well, and where libraries have de­ voted significant resources to the instruc­ tional function, there is a remarkable level of apparent neglect for instruction in Ca­ nadian academic libraries. This neglect, perhaps unavoidable in the context of bud­ get restraints, must influence the attitudes of faculty and students on campus toward libraries’ instructional efforts. Does the continuing lack of formally recorded in­ structional objectives, in combination with a lack of dedicated funding and formal evaluation mechanisms, bode well for the success of information literacy instruction? This author has explored this question elsewhere but it continues to dog this criti­ cal area of service.12 That these findings remain relatively constant seems noteworthy in light of the apparent emphasis on information lit­ eracy on the ACRL Web page (http:// www.ala.org/acrl/). It must be noted that a similar emphasis is not evident for the Canadian Association of College and Uni­ versity Libraries, although this body does have an interest group devoted to instruc­ tional concerns. If instructional librarians would like their efforts to be taken seri­ ously and valued on campus, there must be a clear demonstration that information literacy instruction is resourced ad­ equately, has been well planned, is deliv­ ered by trained instructors, and has posi­ tive and practical outcomes for clients. Although these outcomes may seem ob­ vious to librarians, they appear not to be perceived by faculty and students, at least on many campuses. The nature and ex­ tent of such outcomes are being pursued in the next phase of this study. Notes 1. Heidi Julien and Gloria J. Leckie, “Bibliographic Instruction Trends in Canadian Academic Libraries,” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 22 (July 1997): 1–15. 2. Heidi Julien, “User Education in New Zealand Tertiary Libraries: An International Com­ parison,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 24 (July 1998): 301–10. 3. Linda Shirato and Joseph Badics, “Library Instruction in the 1990s: A Comparison with Trends in Two Earlier LOEX Surveys,” Research Strategies 15, 4 (1997): 223–37. 4. Ibid., 230. 5. Ibid., 228. 6. Ibid. 7. Julien, “User Education in New Zealand Tertiary Libraries.” 8. Julien and Leckie, “Bibliographic Instruction Trends in Canadian Academic Libraries.” 9. Sonia Bodi, “Critical Thinking and Bibliographic Instruction: The Relationship,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (July 1988): 150–53; Eugene Engeldinger, “Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography,” RQ 28 (winter 1988): 195– 202; Chris Atton, “Using Critical Thinking as a Basis for Library User Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Nov. 1994): 310–13; Craig Gibson, “Critical Thinking: Implications for Instruction,” RQ 35 (fall 1995): 27–35. 10. Shirato and Badics, “Library Instruction in the 1990s,” 236. 11. Ibid. 12. Julien, “User Education in New Zealand Tertiary Libraries.” www.ala.org/acrl http:service.12