Evidence Summary
Faculty Knowledge of Information Literacy Standards
Has an Impact in the Classroom
A Review of:
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a
student learning outcome. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 38(4),
226-236. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001
Reviewed by:
Giovanna Badia
Liaison
Librarian, Schulich Library of Science and Engineering
McGill
University
Montreal,
Quebec, Canada
Email:
giovanna.badia@mcgill.ca
Received: 3 Dec. 2012 Accepted: 22 Jan. 2013
2013 Badia.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To discover how faculty perceives information
literacy and examine whether professors in different disciplines view and
approach information literacy differently.
Particularly, the study seeks to address the following questions:
- “How do faculty members define or
understand information literacy?
- Are they familiar with existing
standards such as [those from the Association of College and Research
Libraries] ACRL?
- Does the development of a local
definition of information literacy impact faculty understanding?
- How important do instructors believe
information literacy to be for their students? How do they address
information literacy, or expect it to be addressed within the curriculum?
- Are there disciplinary differences in
faculty attitudes toward and approaches to information literacy?” (p. 227)
Design – Survey, i.e., an online questionnaire followed by interviews.
Setting – Colleges and universities
in the United States.
Subjects – 834 faculty members in
anthropology, the natural sciences, computer science, English literature,
psychology, and political science from a sample of 50 American colleges and
universities with undergraduate degree programs.
Methods – An email, containing a
link to a brief online survey, was sent to 834 professors from academic
institutions across the United States. Three faculty members from each
department in six different disciplines from each institution were contacted.
The survey contained a mix of closed and open-ended questions and could be
completed in less than 10 minutes. Respondents were asked to supply their
contact information if they agreed to be phoned for a follow-up interview. The
interview consisted of six questions that were posed to all participants, with
some changes depending on the answers given.
Main Results – Regardless of discipline, the majority of faculty members
who responded to the survey thought that information literacy competencies were
important for their students to master. The majority also rated their students
as only “somewhat strong” in “identifying scholarly materials, identifying
reliable/authoritative information, finding relevant information, citing
sources properly, synthesizing information, and searching databases” (p. 229).
Professors’ answers differed within different disciplines when it came to
showing their own knowledge of information literacy standards, such as those of
ACRL, and assessing the abilities of their students. For example, biology
students’ web searching skills were rated higher than students in English
literature and anthropology. When faculty were asked their opinions about who
should be responsible for information literacy instruction, there was no
straight answer. Many professors agreed that it is the responsibility of both
faculty and librarians. Those faculty members who were knowledgeable about
information literacy standards were also among the ones who included
information literacy instruction in their courses and thought it was important
for their students to learn.
Conclusion – According to the author, the study results show
that possibilities continue to exist for librarians to be part of information
literacy endeavours, but it is still up to the librarians to start and maintain
conversations with faculty on this topic. Because faculty members have not yet
found systematic methods for integrating information literacy into the
curriculum, they might be open to librarians’ suggestions and ideas on this
topic. “Perhaps the most important finding of this study is that knowledge of
and familiarity with information literacy standards is more closely associated
with whether faculty address information literacy in their courses than any
other variable including disciplinary area” (p. 232). Therefore, it is the
librarian’s responsibility to engage in discussions with faculty about
information literacy.
Commentary
Information literacy
is a popular topic in the library science literature, but few studies have
looked at what faculty members think about information literacy. The few
studies that exist examined the attitudes of faculty within a single
disciplinary area, institution, or geographic region (Boon, Johnston, & Webber, 2007; DaCosta, 2010; Gullikson, 2006;
Hardesty, 1995; Leckie & Fullerton, 1999; McGuinness, 2006; Nazari &
Webber, 2011; Singh, 2005; Wu & Kendall, 2006). This study goes
further by investigating the information literacy perceptions of professors in
different disciplines from numerous academic institutions across the United
States. The author states that “the results of this study provide academic
librarians a broader insight into faculty understanding of information literacy
and will help to advance the discourse of information literacy further into the
disciplines” (p. 227).
This reviewer used
Glynn’s EBLIP Critical Appraisal Checklist (2006) to help evaluate the study’s
methodology. The author randomly selected a large sample of 50 colleges and
universities to target. However, the author does not describe how these
institutions were randomly selected, which makes it difficult to say whether
the choice of population is unbiased and whether the results can be applied to
a larger population. The 33.3% average response rate also prevents the results
from being generalized. Nonetheless, the study’s results provide some
thought-provoking observations of faculty attitudes towards information
literacy that librarians can use to engage in discussions with professors about
incorporating information literacy into their courses and program curriculums.
This study encourages
librarians to approach or keep reaching out to faculty about information
literacy, since it “suggests that faculty might be receptive to approaches by
librarians” and “that faculty have a lot of respect for librarians and their
expertise” (p. 232). The professors surveyed appeared to welcome being
contacted by librarians about information literacy and understood the
challenges that librarians face in attracting students to training sessions.
Those faculty members who knew about information literacy standards tended to
include information literacy instruction and assess these skills in their
courses. After reading Saunders’s article, this reviewer has been motivated to
speak about information literacy standards when approaching faculty.
References
Glynn, L.
(2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Library
Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399.