Evidence Summary
Gender is a
Variable of Interest for Information Literacy Instruction
A Review of:
Pinto,
M., Sales, D., & Fernández-Pascual, R. (2019). Gender perspective on
information literacy: An interdisciplinary and multidimensional analysis within
higher education settings. Library &
Information Science Research, 41(4), 100979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100979
Reviewed by:
Hilary
Bussell
Librarian
for Political Science, Economics, & Communication
The
Ohio State University Libraries
Columbus,
Ohio, United States of America
Email:
bussell.21@osu.edu
Received: 1 Dec. 2020 Accepted: 18 Jan. 2021
2021 Bussell.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29886
Abstract
Objective – To
identify gender differences that present in 26 information literacy (IL)
learning competencies
using a multidimensional subjective–objective approach.
Design – Two
quantitative survey questionnaires, administered online.
Setting – Five Spanish public universities in
2014.
Methods – Subjects were recruited using a stratified
sampling approach. Two survey instruments were distributed online. The
IL-HUMASS instrument uses Likert scales to measure students’
“belief-in-importance” (BI) of various IL competencies relating to searching,
evaluation, processing, and communication–dissemination, as well as their
self-efficacy (SE) regarding these competencies. The EVALCI-KN instrument
measures students’ actual knowledge (KN) of the same IL competencies using
closed answer options. The data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate
statistics and confirmatory factor analyses.
Main Results – The total number of valid surveys
collected was 1,575 (sampling ratio of 10.39% of eligible students). No
significant differences were found between female and male students’ BI, SE, or
KN in the categories of searching and evaluation. Statistically significant
differences between genders were found relating to SE and knowledge of
information processing (with men having higher scores), and to knowledge of
communication–dissemination (with women having a higher score). Overall,
students’ KN scores were higher than their SE scores. Statistically
significant differences were found among male students in all categories and
dimensions except in SE of evaluation and BI of communication–dissemination and
among female students except in BI of processing. Information science and
pedagogy were the highest scoring degree programs in different dimensions and
categories; tourism and social work were the lowest. Male students’
awareness of the importance of using print sources and assessing the quality of
information could be improved; female students’ awareness of the importance of
knowing information source typologies, academic codes of ethics, and
intellectual property laws could be improved. The authors also state that male
students’ KN should be increased in the areas of schematizing and abstracting
information, handling statistical programs, and knowing the laws on information
use and intellectual property, and they point to the need for instructional support
to improve all students’ SE across all IL categories.
Conclusion – Gender differences were found in various IL competencies as
measured by the three scales (BI, SE, KN). Male students were found to believe
assessment skills to be most important and to believe themselves more prepared
in search skills; however, their actual knowledge was highest in the
communication category. In comparison, female students prioritized
communication skills and believed themselves more prepared in search skills,
with their actual knowledge highest in the search and communication categories.
Among both genders, weaknesses were found relating to BI in four competencies
(use informal electronic sources, know information search strategies,
schematize–abstract information, recognize text structure), to SE in six
competencies (use printed sources, know information search strategies, assess
quality of information, schematize–abstract information, recognize text
structure, write a document), and to KN in five competencies (use printed
sources, use electronic sources, use informal electronic sources, determine
whether information is updated, and know the code of ethics in the academic
field). The students’ mean score was higher for KN than for SE in
searching, evaluation, and communication–dissemination. The authors recommend
instruction or awareness-raising sessions to help students acquire IL
competencies as well as to improve their self-esteem in these areas, with the
design of these sessions incorporating the findings on gender differences. They
also recommend a review of existing syllabi to help “incorporate the gender
perspective into the classroom” (p. 8).
Commentary
This paper builds on the authors’ previous work on
university students’ motivation and SE around IL competencies (Pinto &
Fernández-Pascual, 2017), as well as the body of library and information
science research on gender differences in IL. In a 2017 study, Taylor and Dalal analyzed gender differences in college students’
approaches to searching and evaluating internet sources, and argued that these
differences should inform “librarians’ efforts to meet the needs of all
learners” (p. 106). Pinto, Sales, and Fernández-Pascual contribute to this
effort by investigating gender differences in the context of IL as a multidimensional
learning process. Their work indicates that being information literate is not
simply a matter of possessing certain cognitive skills relating to information,
but also being confident in one’s abilities and appreciating why the skills are
important. This “subjective–objective” perspective gives us a more nuanced lens
for exploring gender differences in IL.
The critical appraisal checklist developed by Glynn
(2006) was used to evaluate this article. The authors note that the two survey instruments
employed in this study were previously validated by other studies. Cronbach’s
alpha was used to confirm the reliability of the instruments. The IL-HUMASS
instrument, which measures students’ perceptions of IL competencies, is
included in an appendix to the article. The EVALCI-KN instrument, which
measures actual levels of knowledge, is linked to in the body of the article,
but the link was not working as of the writing of this evidence summary. The
response rate for the study was 85.78%, which exceeds the recommended minimum
response rate for surveys with a sampling frame of this size (Fosnacht et al., 2017).
The article would have benefitted from an expanded
discussion of gender in a few respects. The authors do not specify how the
gender of participants was determined; this is a potentially significant
limitation, given the focus of the study. Further, the study uses the
male–female gender binary and does not account for nonbinary or genderfluid
students. This may impact the applicability of its
findings for library instruction for gender diverse populations and for
future research on gender in
IL. Finally, it would have been pertinent for the
researchers to have acknowledged in their analysis or recommendations that
female students are often treated differently than their male counterparts,
both in school and in the wider society, and that this may have measurable
effects on SE. Librarians attempting to bolster students’ SE need to grapple
with the reality of institutional sexism, and consider the steps they can take
to counteract it. This is a tall order, given the limitations of the
traditional one-shot model (Bowles-Terry & Donovan, 2016); to do truly
meaningful work in this area, librarians will need to develop programmatic
approaches to integrating gender-conscious IL instruction into curricula.
This research will help library practitioners and
scholars better understand IL as a multidimensional phenomenon. The study
explores IL from subjective and objective perspectives and shows that students’
objective knowledge of IL competencies does not always align with their SE.
These findings should encourage librarians to think about how they can
incorporate activities into their instruction that increase students’ SE and
motivation to learn IL skills. Additionally, by making the case for gender as a
variable to consider when researching IL, the study adds to the evolving
understanding of IL as a socially-constructed concept shaped by our notions of
gender, race, socioeconomic status, and other social categories.
References
Bowles-Terry, M., & Donovan, C. (2016). Serving notice on the
one-shot: Changing roles for instruction librarians. International Information & Library Review 48(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1176457
Fosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., & Peck, L. K. (2017). How
important are high response rates for college surveys? The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0003
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Pinto, M., & Fernández-Pascual, R. (2017). A diagnosis of the levels
of information literacy competency among social sciences undergraduates. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(3),
569–593. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0035
Taylor, A., & Dalal, H.A. (2017). Gender
and information literacy: Evaluation of gender differences in a student survey
of information sources. College &
Research Libraries, 78(1), 90–113. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.90