Information Literacy Skills of Students from a UK Business School

1

Information Literacy Skills of Students froma UK Business School

Emel Aktas1, Sepideh Kaffash2 1 Cranfield University, School of Management, Central Ave, Cranfield, Bedford MK43

0AL, United Kingdom 2 University of Massachusetts Boston, Department of Accounting and Finance, 100

Morrissey, United States

AbstractThis article reports on a study analyzing the information

literacy skills of business school students. Data werecollected from Brunel Business School students using aquestionnaire survey and from Brunel University lecturersthrough a focus group study. Results indicate that studentshave lower confidence in performing some tasks related toidentifying the need for information, planning the searchstrategy, gathering information, using data management toolsand developing a personal profile as part of presenting theirsynthesis of information found, accessed and used forspecific purpose. There are also differences between Level 1,Level 2 and Level 3 students in terms of their confidence inperforming the specified task under a particular informationliteracy skill. Moreover, lecturers are aware of thedifficulties faced by students in relation to informationliteracy, in areas similar to those identified via theliterature review and the survey. The results of thisresearch are beneficial in designing information literacyskill development activities in the future.

Keywords: Information Literacy, Higher Education, BusinessSchool Students

1 IntroductionThe business environment is burdened by information overload

(Bawden and Robinson, 2009; Dean and Webb, 2011). Business

2

professionals use information as an input to their decision-making process, so students in business disciplines areexpected to be information-literate and to use informationeffectively. Many information professionals at businessschools have been investigating ways to effectivelycommunicate information literacy skills (Fiegen, 2011). Toput information literacy in context, we first provide itsdefinition according to the Society of College, National andUniversity Libraries (SCONUL):

Information literate people will demonstrate anawareness of how they gather, use, manage, synthesiseand create information and data in an ethical mannerand will have the information skills to do soeffectively.

SCONUL (2011)

A number of information literacy competency standards havegained broad acceptance in providing guidance on teachingthese skills (Eisenberg et al., 2004). Among these standards,those developed by the Association of College and ResearchLibraries (ACRL, 2000), the Australian and New ZealandInstitute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL, Bundy, 2004) andthe SCONUL (2011) are the most widely accepted. The keyskills suggested by these standards are presented in theliterature review.Moreover, business faculty are also challenged to teach

students how to conduct effective business research andevaluate information critically in today’s information-richenvironment (Mclnnis Bowers et al., 2009). That is becauseaccess to information quickly and easily through the Internethas become the usual way of finding the needed informationfor most people in developed countries and the currentgeneration of undergraduate business students has grown up inan abundance of information where “Googling” is the first andforemost action for learning about any matter. However, justbecause students are accustomed to using the Internet does

3

not mean they know where to find information, how to accessbasic business information databases or are able to use theinformation they found effectively with a firm understandingof acceptable ethical practices and applicable legalimplications.

1.1 Rationale of the StudyWe need to be information competent in a complex,

information-driven world. The significance of developing aninformation literate population is widely recognized (Bruce,2004; Catts and Lau, 2008). Information literacy is a broaderterm, which encompasses not only skills but also attitudes toand motivation for learning (Herring, 2004). It is key forbeing part of the society of the 21st century and educators atall levels (primary, secondary, tertiary and professionaleducation) focus on developing information literategraduates.The strategic imperatives of Brunel University (2012)

include encouraging and supporting a vibrant researchcommunity that is research-intensive, creative andcollaborative, and engaged with the world at large. Thestrategic imperatives also require enhancing the studentexperience by focusing on the needs of our students anddeveloping confident, talented and versatile graduates.In this respect, the research on information literacy

skills of our students is highly relevant since it has aresearch-driven approach to enhancing student experience byfocusing on students’ current level of information literacyskills and how they can be improved. The research alsoincorporates the lecturers’ views on information literacy andhow they understand the issues related to this concept. Theoutput of this research can be used for planning how to teachand support learning in our specific subjects, e.g.operations management, business studies or quantitativemethods.

4

1.2 Research QuestionsThis study sought to answer the following research questionsin analyzing the data collected:1. What do students know about finding, accessing and using information?

2. Are there any differences between students at different levels in terms of finding, accessing and using information?

3. What are the views of lecturers in relation to informationliteracy and problems faced by students?

To answer these research questions, this research aimed atsystematically exploring the information literacy skills ofthe students at Brunel Business School in terms of finding,accessing and using the information they need for theirstudies. For this purpose, we conducted a comprehensiveliterature review on information literacy skills andinformation literacy assessment. Informed by the previousstudies in the literature, we designed and conducted aquestionnaire survey for assessment of information literacyskills. We analyzed the data collected by means of thequestionnaire to reveal the current situation of ourstudents’ information literacy skills. Moreover, we conducteda focus group study with lecturers to probe into their viewsof information literacy skills and where they thought thestudents faced the greatest problems in finding, accessingand using information.The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the

literature review on information literacy. Section 3summarizes the methodology employed in the research. Findingsare presented and discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5concludes the paper with suggestions for future research.

2 Literature ReviewInformation literacy was first used as a term by Zurkowski(1974) where Zurkowski put forward for consideration anational goal of achieving information literacy within the

5

following decade. Then, almost two decades later Doyle (1992)listed discrete attributes of an information literate personas someone who:

recognizes the need for information

recognizes that accurate and complete informationis the basis for intelligent decision-making

accesses sources of information including computer-based and othertechnologies

evaluates information organizes information

for practical application

integrates new information into an existing body of knowledge

uses information in critical thinking and problem solving

Since the 1990s, much of the critical information literacyliterature has focused on issues related to the developmentand deployment of information literacy standards (Diekema etal., 2011). The three key information literacy modelsdeveloped by the ACRL, ANZIIL and SCONUL are given in Table 1.The (US) ACRL’s approach to information literacy has beencriticized for emphasizing location of information andomitting one stage of the information seeking process which isrecognizing when information is needed (Johnston and Webber,2003). On the other hand, the (Australian) ANZIIL provides abroader base for information literacy in comparison to theACRL; however, the scope and the plan, which are identified bythe SCONUL as key skills, are not touched upon in this broaderapproach to information literacy.

6

Table 1) Summary of Information Literacy ModelsACRL ANZIIL SCONULDetermine the extent ofinformation needed

Recognize a need forinformation and todetermine the extent of

Recognize a needfor information(Identify)

Access the requiredinformation effectivelyand efficiently

Find informationeffectively andefficiently

Distinguish ways inwhich theinformation gap may

Evaluate informationand its sourcescritically andincorporate selectedinformation in to ownknowledge base andvalue system

Critically evaluateinformation and theinformation-seekingprocess

Construct strategiesfor locatinginformation (plan)

Use informationeffectively toaccomplish a specificpurpose

Manage informationcollected or generated

Locate and accessinformation (Gather)

Understand many of theeconomic, legal andsocial issuessurrounding the use ofinformation and accessand use informationethically and legally

Apply prior or newinformation to constructnew concepts or createnew understanding

Compare and evaluateinformation obtainedfrom differentsources (Evaluate)

Use information withunderstanding andacknowledge cultural,ethical, economic,legal and social issuessurrounding the use ofinformation

Organize, apply andcommunicateinformation toothers in waysappropriate to thesituation (Manage)

Synthesize and buildupon existinginformation,contributing to thecreation of newknowledge (Present)

ACRL: US Association of Colleges and Research Libraries - a division of the American Library AssociationANZIIL: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy SCONUL: Society of College, Nationaland University Libraries Source: Andretta (2005).

Lupton (2008) analyzed drivers for the emergence ofinformation literacy as an educational outcome in universitiesin three categories:1. Student-centered, inquiry-based pedagogies where the learning environment enables students to build knowledge by asking

7

questions and framing problems for which effective use of information is required,

2. Explosion of information which necessitates integration of effective use of information into the curriculum, and

3. Identification of information literacy as a genericskill and graduate attribute.

Generic skills and graduate attributes are usually consideredwithin the lifelong learning concept (Bundy, 2004) and theyinclude written communication, information literacy, criticalthinking, problem solving, team work and presentation skills.Considering the push in higher education toward generic skillsand graduate attributes, information literacy skills arecritical for our students in connecting disciplinary knowledgeand professional practice. This means that it is crucial tointegrate information literacy skills into higher educationeffectively for our students to be competitively positioned inthe labour market (Gross and Latham, 2007).There is growing recognition of information literacy as a

precursor to participate in the information age. Standards andindicators developed by organizations such as ACRL, ANZIIL andSCONUL facilitate the development of information literacyprograms, as well as assessment tools to measure theattainment of information literacy skills.In a study by Gross and Latham (2009), it was found that

computer literacy, library skills, searching skills, and other“background” abilities such as assessing the quality ofsources, thinking critically about information, and having anawareness of the legal and ethical issues related toinformation use were largely absent in students’ self-assessment of their information literacy skills.The suggestion of Bruce (1997) that students’ experience of

information literacy should be explored to strengthen anycurriculum developed is still valid. Scholarly debatecontinues regarding the most effective ways to teach studentshow to use information (Maybee et al., 2013). Further researchis required, starting from where our students see themselvesin terms of their confidence in the seven information literacy

8

skills proposed by SCONUL (2011) in the third column of Table1 so that we can better embed these skills into the curriculumacross all levels.In a recent study, Diekema et al. (2011) aimed to enable

students to experience information literacy with a focus oninformation use in the construction of knowledge. Theyconcluded that making decisions about authentic problems mightfocus the learner’s attention in new ways, and help shiftstudents’ conception of information literacy from findingsources towards using information to learn. This is one of thekey areas highlighted in the information literacy model ofSCONUL (2011) where evaluating and presenting information isemphasized. That is why, this research followed thecomprehensive information literacy model of SCONUL (2011) inassessing the current status of Brunel Business Schoolstudents.Callinan (2005) showed that there was a difference between a

student’s use of library books at different stages of theirdegree. Almost 40% of first year students did not need to uselibrary books for coursework whereas approximately 4% of finalyear students indicated this to be the case. It was also notedthat a higher percentage of first year students indicatedusing web sites for their coursework than those using librarybooks. That is why, this research investigated the differencesbetween students at different levels in terms of finding,accessing and using information.Requiring the use of library resources for assignments is a

powerful tool that faculty can use to develop their students’information literacy skills. What we tend to forget at timesis not all students have the same competency in informationliteracy skills. For example, Korobili et al. (2011)determined the information-seeking behavior of graduatestudents and identified that students had problems locatingthe most appropriate information resource, and lackedknowledge of search techniques to retrieve informationeffectively from e-sources and search engines. Another pointraised in their study was that too much time was required to

9

explore and retrieve the needed information. A similar findingwas also found in the research of Callinan (2005) where thedifficulty faced by students was summarized as “too slow todownload and hard to find”. That is why, this research soughtthe views of faculty in relation to information literacy andproblems faced by students.

3 Methodology

The research combined quantitative and qualitative researchmethods in order to answer the research questions posed. Withthe purpose of addressing research questions one and two, 27questions adopted from SCONUL (2011) were employed. Thesequestions asked students to self-report their confidence inperforming a variety of tasks related to the seven keyinformation literacy skills identified in Section 2. Students’self-reporting of their performance in information literacyrelated specific tasks is frequently exercised by librariansas well (Neely, 2006). Answers to the third research questionwere sought through a focus group study (Bernard and Ryan,2010) where educators were inquired about information literacyin general and problems faced by students in particular.

3.1 Survey DesignThe survey for business school students comprised of seven keyinformation literacy skills; namely, Identify, Scope, Plan,Gather, Evaluate, Manage and Present. These skills wereadopted from the core model of information literacy for highereducation (SCONUL, 2011) which described the set of genericskills and understandings in relation to information literacy.In order to keep the survey at acceptable length, we focusedon distinct tasks in each information literacy skill. Table 2shows the number of questions under each skill.

Table 2) Survey StructureInformation

literacy skillNumber ofquestions

10

Identify 4Scope 3Plan 3Gather 4Evaluate 4Manage 3Present 6

Individual questions asked under each skill in Table 2 aregiven in Appendix A Information Literacy Survey Questions. Thestudents were asked to assess their confidence in performingspecific tasks related to information literacy on a 5-pointLikert scale.

3.2 Focus Group Design

Information literacy is generally regarded as a major focusand purpose of librarianship; however, the integration ofinformation literacy into the curricula is critical to equipour graduates with the skills required in today’s professionalenvironment. In order to put information literacy in context,an information literacy activity suggested by Cardwell (2006)started the focus group conversation.

11

This activity asked the participants to think aboutinformation literacy in relation to their discipline and inthe context of approaching a problem. The type of informationand possible resources to find that were also questioned. Afinal question drew the attention of participants on theproblems faced by their students in finding, accessing andusing information. The questions used in the focus group aregiven in Appendix B Information Literacy Focus GroupQuestions.

3.3 Ethics ApprovalBrunel Business School Research Ethics Committee grantedethics approval of the research in April 2012. Data collectioncommenced following the ethics approval. All participants wereinformed of the voluntary nature of their participation andthe anonymous nature of data collection.

3.4 Data CollectionFollowing the ethics approval, the focus group was held in May2012 to inform the questionnaire survey as well (Bernard andRyan, 2010). Initially the author introduced the researchtopic to the participants through a short presentation oninformation literacy. Following the presentations, theparticipants were given approximately five minutes to think ontheir responses to focus group questions. After eachparticipant shared their response to each question, an in-depth discussion followed where unclear points were elaboratedand the views of faculty were explained in detail. Theparticipants’ ideas on the proposed survey design was alsosought in this stage, where information literacy of ourstudents was noted as an important research area and thequestionnaire was regarded as a feasible way of datacollection.Having received positive feedback from the faculty in the

focus group, the author went on transferring the survey intoan online data collection tool, which was Google Forms. TheBrunel Business School Research Ethics Committee approved the

12

research on the basis that invitation to students were not tobe sent by the author for it might imply obligation on theauthor’s own students. Therefore, Brunel Business SchoolAcademic Programs Office sent all students an invitation toparticipate in the survey in July 2012. Due to the limitednumber of responses collected, the author later opened a callfor participation in the research on the Intranet of BrunelUniversity in the orientation week in September 2012. A fewmore responses were collected in this second round of datacollection. It is important to note that general interest inthe research from the student body was below expectations.

4 Findings4.1 Questionnaire Survey with StudentsThe sample surveyed consisted of 28 Business School studentsfrom all three levels. A total of 27 questions were askedunder the seven key information literacy skills suggested bythe SCONUL (2011). The students assessed their confidence inperforming the tasks related to each information literacyskill on a 5-point Likert scales where 1 = Not at allconfident, 2 = Slightly confident, 3 = Somewhat confident, 4 =Very confident,5 = Extremely confident. Initially, we presentthe current level of our students in terms of the tasks underseven information literacy skills (see Table 3) and then ineach subsection we investigate whether there are anydifferences between different levels.

Table 3) Descriptive Statistics

Measure Minimum Maximum Mean Variance

Skewness

Kurtosis

IDENTIFY1 2 4 2.96 0.702 0.07 -1.582IDENTIFY2 2 5 3.18 1.041 0.292 -1.058IDENTIFY3 1 4 2.71 0.878 0.047 -1.006IDENTIFY4 1 5 3.36 1.497 -0.1 -1.236SCOPE1 1 5 3.14 1.46 -0.022 -1.027SCOPE2 1 5 3.29 1.471 0.074 -1.171SCOPE3 1 5 3.25 1.528 -0.135 -1.03

13

PLANI 1 5 3.04 1.739 0.034 -1.004PLAN2 1 5 2.96 1.739 0.279 -1.148PLAN3 1 5 2.93 1.18 0.151 -0.692GATHER1 1 5 2.82 1.708 -0.074 -1.283GATHER2 2 5 3.61 0.692 -0.782 0.048GATHER3 1 5 3.14 1.238 -0.475 -0.368GATHER4 1 5 2.89 1.136 -0.168 -0.688EVALUATEI 1 5 3.14 0.868 -0.006 0.15EVALUATE2 1 5 3.04 1.147 0.314 -0.642EVALUATE3 1 5 3.25 1.528 -0.008 -0.911EVALUATE4 1 5 3.21 1.36 -0.45 -0.483MANAGE1 1 5 2.75 1.38 0.083 -0.635MANAGE2 1 5 3.14 1.238 0.046 -0.317MANAGE3 1 5 3.25 1.306 -0.05 -1.042PRESENTI 2 5 3.43 0.995 -0.03 -0.993PRESENT2 2 5 3.64 0.831 0.174 -0.877PRESENT3 2 5 3.39 1.136 0.104 -1.179PRESENT4 1 5 3.29 1.323 -0.138 -1.082PRESENT5 1 5 3.36 1.423 -0.058 -1.089PRESENT6 1 5 2.96 1.665 0.071 -1.009

In Table 3, average scores tend to group between somewhatconfident and very confident but for none of the individualtasks the means go beyond the score of 4 which would put ourstudents’ confidence level between very confident andextremely confident. Some of the tasks that are notable arethose which have an average score below 3; i.e. where ourstudents feel somewhere between slightly confident andsomewhat confident in terms of performing the particular task.These tasks are fisted in Table 4.

Table 4) Tasks with low confidenceMeasure TaskIDENTIFY1 Articulating current knowledge on a topicIDENTIFY3 Defining limits to the information need

PLAN2Defining a search strategy with appropriate keywords

PLAN3Selecting the most appropriate search tools andtechniques

14

GATHER1Constructing complex searches appropriate to different resources

GATHER4 Engaging with the community to share information

MANAGE1 Using appropriate data management software and techniques to manage data

PRESENT6 Developing a personal profile in the community using appropriate networks

If the tasks in Table 4 are considered together, it isobserved that they are highly related to each other. Studentsdo not feel themselves as confident as they do in other taskswhen it comes to articulating current knowledge (IDENTIFY1)and defining limits to the information need (IDENTIFY3). Infact, it could be seen in Table 3 that no student feltextremely confident in terms of these two tasks (i.e. maximumscores of 4 in the third column). Therefore, it should beamong the priorities of us, lecturers and the librarypersonnel to elaborate these tasks and assist our students inperforming these tasks.The two tasks in Plan in Table 4, defining a search strategy

(PLAN2) and selecting the most appropriate tools andtechniques (PLAN3) are also interdependent and related to thetask in Manage, which is using appropriate data managementsoftware (MANAGE1). All three can be considered as rathertechnical tasks. Together with these, the first task inGather, constructing complex searches (GATHER1) can also beregarded technical and necessitating practice to excel inthese particular tasks. So, similar to the suggestion above, anumber of activities and practice examples can be prepared toprovide our students with enough opportunity to develop theircompetence and hence confidence in performing these tasks.On the other hand, the fourth task in Gather and the sixth

task in Present are related to social aspects of informationliteracy where engaging with the community (GATHER4) anddeveloping a personal profile in the community (PRESENT6) areassessed. For these two tasks in Table 4, it could be the casethat our students did not feel the need or were asked toperform these in their day-to-day interactions with

15

information. These findings can be considered for designinginformation literacy introductions at the beginning of theacademic year and for embedding information literacy intoassessments.It is evident in Table 3 that there is deviation from

normality in terms of skewness and kurtosis (should be zerofor normally distributed data) in some but not all groups.Moreover, it is not possible to apply parametric methods (one-way ANOVA) to analyze differences in different levels sincethis data is in ordinal scale. The Kruskal-Wallis test is thenonparametric test equivalent to the one-way ANOVA, and anextension of the Mann-Whitney U test which allows comparisonof more than two independent groups where the data iscollected in ordinal scale (Cohen et al., 2011) as is the casein this research. That is why, Kruskal-Wallis test is used forthe analysis of students’ confidence in their informationliteracy skills at different levels. Where significantdifferences were found between different levels of students,multiple comparisons were carried out using the Mann-Whitney Utest. Throughout the analyses, the traditional significancelevel of a = 0.05 is used in the tests.

4.1.1 Information Literacy Skill: Identify

The tasks involved in Identify comprised of articulatingcurrent knowledge on a topic (IDENTIFY1), identifying a lackof knowledge in a subject area (IDENTIFY2), defining limits tothe information need (IDEN- TIFY3) and identifying a searchtopic using simple terminology (IDENTIFY4). Comparison of allthree levels in terms of tasks under Identify are given inTable 5.

Table 5) Kruskal-Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Levels for Identify

LEVEL N IDENTIFY1

IDENTIFY2

IDENTIFY3

IDENTIFY4

1 12 14.042 13.792 10.708 11.6672 8 14.875 12.313 15.813 12.8753 8 14.813 17.75 18.875 20.375Total 28X2 0.074 2.069 5.566 6.195

16

p-value

0.964 0.355 0.062 0.045** p < 0.05

Only for the fourth task in Identify, which is identifying asearch topic using simple terminology (IDENTIFY!), there is astatistically significant difference between the differentlevels (χ2 = 6.195, p = 0.045), with a mean rank of 11.67 forLevel 1, 12.88 for Level 2 and 20.38 for Level 3. If the nullhypothesis of no difference between levels is rejected as isthe case for IDENTIFY4 then it is possible to identify whichpairs of treatments differ by running a Mann-Whitney U testbetween each pair. The test results are given in Table 6.

Table 6) Mann-Whitney U Test for IDENTIFY4

Comparison Teststatistic

p-value

Level 1 with Level 2 42.5 0.659Level 1 with

Level 3 19.5 0.022*

Level 2 with Level 3 13.5 0.045

** p < 0.05

The results in Table 6 suggest that there is a statisticallysignificant difference between Level 1 and Level 3 and Level 2and Level 3 in terms of identifying a search topic usingsimple terminology. There is no difference between Level 1 andLevel 2 in terms of the confidence in this task. This resultcould be due to the fact that our students do search forinformation intensively in the third year as part of theirfinal year project. Moreover, the content and requirements ofmodules in Level 3 also require them to do much moreinformation searching and in this process they gain bettercommand of the related terminology.

4.1.2 Information Literacy Skill: Scope

The tasks involved in Scope comprised of identifying whichtypes of information will best meet the need (SCOPE1),identifying available search tools (SCOPE2), identifying

17

different formats in which information may be provided(SCOPE3). Comparison of all three levels in terms of tasksunder Scope are given in Table 7.

Table 7) Kruskal- Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Levels for ScopeLEVEL N SCOPE1 SCOPE2 SCOPE3

1 12 12.5 13.042 12.8752 8 10.25 12 12.0633 8 21.75 19.188 19.375

Total 28X2 9.623 3.94 4.206

p-value 0.008* 0.139 0.122* p < 0.05

Only for the first task in Scope, which is identifying whichtypes of information will best meet the need (SCOPE1), thereis a statistically significant difference between thedifferent levels (χ2 = 9.623, p = 0.008), with a mean rank of12.50 for Level 1, 10.25 for Level 2 and 21.75 for Level 3.Similar to the analysis done for IDENTIFY4 in Section 4.1.1, aMann-Whitney U test is conducted to identify the differencesbetween each pair of levels. The test results are given inTable 8.

Table 8) Mann-Whitney U Test for SCOPE1

Comparison Teststatistic p-value

Level 1 with Level 2

39 0.468Level 1 with

Level 3 15 0.008*

Level 2 with Level 3

7 0.007** p < 0.05

Similar to the case in IDENTIFY4, again, there arestatistically significant differences between Level 1 andLevel 3 and Level 2 and Level 3 students in terms of howconfident they feel in identifying which types of informationwill best meet the need (SCOPE1). There is no differencebetween Level 1 and Level 2 in terms of the confidence in thistask. Again, this result can be beneficial in designing

18

activities for sharpening information literacy skills of ourstudents particularly where they would be required to identifywhich types of information will best meet the need. In fact,this is going to be something addressed in the MG2602Quantitative Methods in Business and Management in the 2013-2014 academic year.

4.1.3 Information Literacy Skill: PlanThe tasks involved in Plan comprised of setting a searchquestion clearly (PLANI), defining a search strategy withappropriate keywords (PLAN2) and selecting the mostappropriate search tools and techniques (PLAN3). Comparison ofall three levels in terms of tasks under Plan are given inTable 9.

Table 9) Kruskal-Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Levels fro PlanLEVEL N PLANI PLAN2 PLAN31 12 13.33 13.25 13.0422 8 12.06

3 12.688 14.563

3 8 18.688 18.188 16.625

Total 28X2 3.163 2.425 0.982p-

value0.206 0.297 0.612

As can be seen in Table 9, there are no statisticallysignificant differences between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3in terms of the confidence in performing the tasks under Plan.Therefore there is no need for further analysis (i.e.comparisons using Mann-Whitney U Test). However, it isbeneficial to note that in general, our students had lowerconfidence in performing PLAN2 and PLAN3 tasks than PLANI (seeTable 4) and this result could provide background informationfor future workshops or seminars on tasks associated withPlan.

4.1.4 Information Literacy Skill: GatherThe tasks involved in Gather comprised of constructing complexsearches appropriate to different resources (GATHER1),

19

accessing online information and data (GATHER2), keeping up todate with new information (GATHER3) and engaging with thecommunity to share information (GATHER4). Comparison of allthree levels in terms of tasks under Gather are given in Table10.

Table 10) Kruskal-Wallis Test:Mean Ranks of Levels for Gather

LEVEL N GATHER1 GATHER2 GATHER3 GATHER4

1 12 13.667 14 13.5 11.2082 8 13.188 13.313 13.5 15.1883 8 17.063 16.438 17 18.75Total 28X2 1.171 0.852 1.127 4.433p-

value0.557 0.653 0.569 0.109

Similar to the case for the information literacy skill Plan,the results in Table 10 suggest that there is not enoughevidence to conclude there are differences in different levelsin terms of their confidence in performing the tasks underGather. Although our students’ confidence in performing thetasks numbered GATHER1 and GATHER4 ranges between slightlyconfident and somewhat confident whereas their confidence inperforming the tasks numbered GATHER2 and GATHER3 rangesbetween somewhat confident and very confident, there is nodifference between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 in terms oftheir confidence in performing each task under Gather.

4.1.5 Information Literacy Skill: EvaluateThe tasks involved in Evaluate comprised of choosing suitablematerial on the search topic (EVALUATEI), assessing theaccuracy, bias and credibility of the information resources(EVALUATE2), reading critically, identifying key points andarguments (EVALUATE3) and identifying when the informationneed has not been met (EVALUATE4). Comparison of all threelevels in terms of tasks under Evaluate are given in Table 11.

Table 11) Kruskal- Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Levels for Evalute

LEVEL N EVALUATEI EVALUATE2 EVALUATE3 EVALUATE4

20

1 1 11.667 11 10.792 11.3752 8 14 14.563 12.688 133 8 19.25 19.688 21.875 20.688Total 2

8X2 4.686 5.797 9.825

7.038

p-value 0.096 0.055 0.007* 0.030*

The results in Table 11 suggest there are statisticallysignificant differences among levels in terms of EVALUATE3,which is related to critical reading (χ2 = 9.825, p = 0.007),and EVALUATE4, which is deciding when to stop searching forinformation (χ2 = 7.038, p = 0.030). Similar to the analysisdone for IDENTIFY4 in Section 4.1.1 and SCOPE1 in Section4.1.2, a Mann-Whitney U test is conducted to identify thedifferences between each pair of levels. The test results aregiven in Table 12.

Table 12) Mann-Whitney U Test for EVALUATE3 and EVALUATE4EVALUATE3 EVALUATE4

Comparison Test statistic p-value Test statistic p-

valueLevel 1 with

Level 239 0.466 40 0.52

Level 1 with Level 3 12.5 0.005

* 18.5 0.018*

Level 2 with Level 3

8.5 0.010*

12 0.025*

The comparison of responses given by students at differentlevels in Table 12 suggest that there are significantdifferences between Level 1 and Level 3, and Level 2 and Level3 as was the case for IDENTIFY4 and SCOPE1. There are nosignificant differences between Level 1 and Level 2 studentsin terms of their confidence in performing the tasks numberedEVALUATE3 and EVALUATE4. This result could inform theinformation literacy skill development activities designed bythe Library and the Brunel Business School for Level 1 andLevel 2 students with specific focus on these two tasks underEvaluate.

4.1.6 Information Literacy Skill: ManageThe tasks involved in Manage comprised of using appropriate

21

data management software and techniques to manage data(MANAGE1), demonstrating awareness of issues relating to dataprotection, copyright

22

and plagiarism (MANAGE2) and meeting the standards of conduct for academic integrity (MANAGE3). Comparison of all three levels in terms of tasks under Manage are given in Table 13.

Table 13) Kruskal-Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Level for Manage

LEVEL N MANAGE1 MANAGE2 MANAGE3

1 12 15.417 13.958 11.1252 8 10.125 12 14.3753 8 17.5 17.813 19.688Total 28X2 3.721 2.3 5.584p-

value0.156 0.317 0.061

Similar to the comparison of levels for Plan and Gather,there are no statistically significant differences betweenLevel 1, Level 2 and Level 3 students in terms of theirconfidence in performing the tasks under Manage (see Table13). Therefore, there is no need for further analysis (i.e.comparisons using Mann- Whitney U Test). It is worth to notethat our students’ confidence in performing the MANAGE1 taskwas lower than their confidence in performing other tasksunder Manage. So a program aimed at developing our students’skills in using data management software and techniques couldbe offered to students at all levels.

4.1.7 Information Literacy Skill: PresentThe tasks involved in Present comprised of using informationand data found to address the original question (PRESENTI),summarizing documents and reports (PRESENT2), incorporatingnew information into the context of existing knowledge(PRESENT3), synthesizing and appraising information fromdifferent sources (PRESENT4), analyzing and presenting dataappropriately (PRESENT5) and developing a personal profile inthe community using appropriate networks (PRESENT6).Comparison of all three levels in terms of tasks under Presentare given in Table 14.

23

Table 14) Kruskal-Wallis Test: Mean Ranks of Levels for Present

LEVEL N PRES’Tl

PRES’T2

PRES’T3

PRES’T4

PRES’T5

PRES’T6

1 12 12.5 11.25 12.875 11.5 12.208 10.0422 8 12.75 14.375 13.438 12.25 11.938 15.0633 8 19.25 19.5 18 21.25 20.5 20.625Total 28X2 4.066 5.434 2.197 8.208 6.315 8.381p-

value0.131 0.066 0.333 0.017* 0.043* 0.015*

* p < 0.05

The results in Table 14 suggest there are statisticallysignificant differences among levels in terms of the tasksnumbered PRESENT4, which is related to synthesizinginformation from different sources (χ2 = 8.208, p = 0.017),PRESENT5, which is related to analyzing and presenting data (χ2

= 6.315, p = 0.043), and PRESENT6, which is related todeveloping a personal profile in the community (χ2 = 8.381, p =0.015). Similar to the analysis done for IDENTIFY4 in Section4.1.1, SCOPE1 in Section 4.1.2, and EVALUATE3 and EVALUATE4 inSection 4.1.5, a Mann-Whitney U test is conducted to identifythe differences between each pair of levels. The test resultsare given in Table 15.

Table 15) Mann-Whitney U Test for PRESENT4, PRESENT5 and PRESENT6PRES’T4 PRES’T5 PRES’T6

Comparison Teststat’c

p-value

Teststat’c

p-value

Teststat’c

p- value

Level 1 with Level 2

44 0.745 47.5 0.968 27.5 0.101Level 1 with

Level 3 16 0.009* 20 0.025

* 15 0.009*

Level 2 with Level 3

10 0.017*

12 0.029*

16 0.083* p < 0.05

The comparison of responses given by students at differentlevels in Table 15 suggest that there are significantdifferences between Level 1 and Level 3 and Level 2 and Level3 in PRESENT4 and PRESENT5 as was the case for IDENTIFY4,SCOPE1, EVALUATE3 and EVALUATE4. However, for PRESENT6, thereis a significant difference only between Level 1 and Level 3but no evidence of difference between Level 2 and Level 3. Itis worth to remember that PRESENT6 is found to be among those

24

tasks where our students have lower confidence in performingthe given task (see Table 4). It is related to developing apersonal profile where we might be of assistance to ourstudents in introducing the importance of this task in termsof developing information literacy skills. On the other hand,there are no significant differences between Level 1 and Level2 students in terms of their confidence in performing thetasks numbered PRESENT4, PRESENT5 and PRESENT6. This result aswell could be taken into consideration in the process ofdesigning information literacy skill development activitiestargeted at different levels.

4.1.8 Reliability of the Survey

Reliability is an assessment of the degree of consistencybetween multiple measurements of a variable. The reliabilityof seven key information literacy skills is given in Table 16with the Cronbach’s a reliability measure which ranges from 0to 1 where values 0.60 to 0.70 deemed the lower limit ofacceptability (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 16) Reliability AnalysisInformation literacy skill

Cronbach’s aNumber ofitems

Identify 0.84 4Scope 0.921 3Plan 0.91 3Gather 0.798 4Evaluate 0.908 4Manage 0.831 3Present 0.933 6

As can be seen in Table 16, each Cronbach’s a measurecorresponding to each information literacy skill is above theagreed upon limit of 0.70. So, the internal consistency of theinformation literacy scale is achieved. We can be confidentthat the questions under each information literacy skill wereable to measure the respective skill.

25

4.2 Focus Group with Staff

Four colleagues participated in the focus group study whichwas held in May 2012. Two of the participants were from StaffDevelopment, one from School of Social Sciences and one fromSchool of Sport & Education. Their disciplines were HumanComputer Interaction, History, Economics and ICT in Education,respectively. The participants were asked about their views oninformation literacy, the approach followed to solve a problemin their discipline, the type of information that wouldgenerally be of importance and relevance, the resources usedfor obtaining this information and the problems faced bystudents while finding, accessing and using information.

4.2.1 What does information literacy mean?

In terms of what information literacy meant in a particulardiscipline, a participant highlighted that step by stepapproaches tended to be adapted in their discipline. Otherparticipants agreed that this was indeed common in theirdisciplines as well. One participant commented: “Difficulty isbeing confident in expressing that you don’t know what youdon’t know.”Information literacy meant reading journals and papers. It

was mentioned that final year students had rather poorinformation literacy skills at the onset of their researchproject, but they improved in the process of writing theirdissertation. The assistance given to students in this processwas rather ad-hoc; a systematic approach was not followed, atleast by the educators.It was commented that information literacy meant a series of

tasks similar to those in the definition by Doyle (1992); butit was asserted that this was what we as educators wouldadvocate; however, what happened in practice was different,i.e. the process was not linear but in fact the performance inspecific tasks were interconnected, a simultaneous improvementwas likely to occur in a number of these tasks, rather than ina linear fashion where student learned to identify the need

26

and then identified the types of information they needed andso on.

4.2.2 How would a student approach a problem?

It was revealed in the discussion that the student “should”approach finding, accessing and using information using themodels by ANZIIL or SCONUL. However, motivation for seekinginformation might be lowered because they were unable to useinformation with understanding as well as to synthesize andbuild upon existing information.

27

Moreover, it was highlighted that not being able to performhigher level tasks should trigger recognizing the need forinformation, hence the frameworks were indeed circular.The participants commented that graduates and lecturers had

developed research skills and undergraduate students couldbenefit from this; however, undergraduate students were notalways aware of the resources available to them.Particularly, undergraduate students were expected to read

materials that provided background information which wouldcreate motivation to undertake one’s own search forinformation. They were also expected to review the relatedacademic literature and position the paper’s intendedcontribution in the context of their discipline and specificresearch problem. However this did not happen until thestudents were in their final year of studies.It was also stated that the first search would comprise the

keywords / problems identified by the students. It was usualthat students did not understand the topic at this time ofinitial search. The first instance of search would take placein Google or other search engines, followed by library anddatabase searches.

4.2.3 What information would be of interest?The information that was of interest to participants wasrelated to their specialization areas; including professionaldevelopment and human resources. Pedagogical data was ofinterest to all participants. Moreover, psychology, culture,case studies and research data were highlighted as informationfrequently used in social sciences and business.In general, academic articles, policy reports, discipline

related books (sometimes textbooks) would be of interest toboth staff and students. It was concluded that the informationrequired would depend on the specific problem at hand.

4.2.4 What resources are paramount?The key resources of information were identified by theparticipants as people and research databases. It was asserted

28

that the most useful information tended to come from people,because they had gone through the process of finding,accessing and using information in a related area before.Moreover, a range of methodologies, research databases,

library resources, electronic journals that were available forinstance via the library, literary resources (books), onlineresources (reports, special publications) and websites werementioned by the participants.

4.2.5 What problems do your students face in relation tofinding, accessing and evaluating information?The focus group participants highlighted information overloadas one of the most prominent problems faced by students. Itwas put forward that students had difficulty in unpicking theproblem to identify the information needed. Usually where tostart was a problem for students across different disciplines.Educators asserted that students acted in good faith when

searching for information and had issues with recognizingaccurate and reputable information as well as testing thevalidity and quality of information.Another problem mentioned was associated with collecting

information and relating this to their non- academic life. Itwas also reiterated in the focus group discussion thatstudents did not always know how to correctly formulate thequestion to obtain relevant materials or to assess the qualityof information and select quality sources. Sometimes filteringthrough overload of information was exhaustive.These findings are in line with the study of Korobili et al.

(2011) where information retrieval and the time required toexplore information were found to be critical problems facedby students. What was not mentioned in the study of Korobiliet al. (2011) but raised in this focus group was that studentsoften failed to produce correct referencing and citing of theworks they used in their assignments.

5 Concluding RemarksThis research set out to investigate the current status of our

29

students in terms of the tasks considered as part ofinformation literacy skills owing to its first researchquestion. It was found that our students had lower confidencein eight specific tasks related to Identify, Plan, Gather,Manage and Present. These tasks were related to articulatingcurrent knowledge on a topic, defining limits to theinformation need, defining a search strategy, selecting themost appropriate search tools, constructing complex searchesappropriate to different resources, engaging with thecommunity, using data management software and developing apersonal profile in the community. Therefore, these taskscould be given specific attention during library sessions aswell as in lectures and seminars.Following that, the second research question was inquiring

about the differences between confidence of students atdifferent levels in performing the specified tasks. There wereno difference in terms of the 10 tasks under Plan, Gather andManage. On the other hand, differences were between differentlevels in identifying a search topic using simple terminology,identifying which types of information will best meet theneed, reading critically, identifying key points andarguments, identifying when the information need has not beenmet, synthesizing and appraising information from differentsources, analyzing and presenting data appropriately anddeveloping a personal profile in the community usingappropriate networks. Where differences were found, they wereusually between Level 1 and Level 3 and between Level 2 andLevel 3 students. In majority of the tasks, there were nodifferences between Level 1 and Level 2. This finding is inline with the findings of Callinan (2005) where informationliteracy competence improved as the students progressed intheir program.Arts et al. (2006) explored stages in managerial problem-

solving skills of participants beginning with formal educationand continuing through the professional workplace setting.They found that progress in expertise in terms of informationliteracy is not so straightforward or linear as often assumed.

30

So there is a possibility of relapse in information literacyskills gained during the university education in a few yearsfollowing the commencement of professional life. In thatrespect, the university can take action proactively and offerchallenges sharpening these skills for their graduates as partof life-long learning activities.In the fight of the extant literature and the findings of

this research we conclude that learning and teaching methodsshould engage students in more advanced information literacy.Neely (2006) reported that exposure, experience, attitude andstudents’ relationships with their instructors were majorfactors affecting information literacy outcomes. That is whyinformation literacy should be tightly embedded in thecurricula of business programs as well as programs of otherdisciplines.

5.1 Limitations and Suggestions for Future StudiesIt should be recognized that this is a small scale researchand one should be cautious in generalizing its results.However, the research and its results are useful for settingthe background for a larger scale study.Another point to note is that this research employed a self-

assessment questionnaire, where the students were asked theirconfidence in completing the tasks associated with the seveninformation literacy skills. A recommendation for futureresearch would be to combine this research design withlibrarians’ information literacy assessment tools to revealwhether what students believe they know is translated intopractice. For example, multiple choice questionnaire, analysisof bibliographies, quiz/test, portfolio, essay, observation,simulation and final grades (Walsh, 2009) could be consideredin addition to or as complementary to the self-assessment.Educational institutions must prepare students for the very

competitive workplace. For that purpose, information literacyskills should be effectively integrated into the businessschool curriculum; however, this requires development ofcollaborative partnerships between teaching faculty and

31

librarians. Findings of this research could be used asbackground for a project aiming at developing suchpartnerships.

ReferencesACRL (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education.Association of College and Research Libraries, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency. cfm,accessed on 8 Nov 2011.

Andretta, S. (2005). Information Literacy: a Practitioner’s Guide. ChandosOxford.

Arts, J. A., Gijselaers, W. H., and Boshuizen, H. P. (2006).Understanding managerial problem-solving, knowledge use andinformation processing: Investigating stages from school tothe workplace. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(4):387 - 410.

Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side ofinformation: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and

32

pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2):180-191.

Bernard, H. R. and Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data:Systematic Approaches. Sage.

Bruce, C. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. AuslibPress.Bruce, C. S. (2004). Information literacy as a catalyst foreducational change. A background paper. In Lifelong Learning:Whose responsibility and what is your contribution?, The 3rd International LifelongLearning Conference, Yeppoon, Queensland. Central QueenslandUniversity Press.

Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand informationliteracy framework. Principles, Standards and, Practice, 2.http://www.literacyhub.org/documents/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf, accessed on 8Nov 2011.

Callinan, J. E. (2005). Information-seeking behaviour ofundergraduate biology students: A comparative analysis offirst year and final year students in University CollegeDublin. Library Review, 54(2):86-99.

Cardwell, C. (2006). Professional development and graduatestudents: Approaches to technical and information competence.In Martin, A. and Madigan, D., editors, Digital Literacies forLearning, pages 206-214. Library Association Publishing.

Catts, R. and Lau, J. (2008). Towards Information Literacy Indicators.Unesco.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methodsin Education. Routledge.

Dean, D. and Webb, C. (2011). Recovering from informationoverload. McKinsey Quarterly, 1:80-88.

Diekema, A. R., Holliday, W., and Leary, H. (2011). Re-framinginformation literacy: Problem-based learning as informedlearning. Library & Information Science Research, 33(4):261 - 268.

Doyle, C. S. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacywithin the national education goals of 1990. Final report tonational forum on information literacy, summary of findings,http://www.eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED351033.pdf, accessed on 08 Nov 2011.

33

Eisenberg, M. B., Lowe, C. A., and Spitzer, K. L. (2004).Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age. GreenwoodPublishing Group.

Fiegen, A. M. (2011). Business information literacy: Asynthesis for best practices. Journal of Business & FinanceLibrarianship, 16(4):267-288.

Gross, M. and Latham, D. (2007). Attaining informationliteracy: An investigation of the relationship between skilllevel, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library &Information Science Research, 29(3):332 - 353.

Gross, M. and Latham, D. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions ofinformation literacy: Defining, attaining, and self-assessingskills. College & Research Libraries, 70(4):336-350.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2010).Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson.

Herring, J. E. (2004). The Internet and, Information Skills: a Guide forTen,chers and, School Librarians. Facet.

Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy inhigher education: A review and case study. Studies in HigherEducation, 28(3):335-352.

Korobili, S., Malliari, A., and Zapounidou, S. (2011). Factorsthat influence information-seeking behavior: The case ofGreek graduate students. The Journal of Academic Libra,rianship,37(2):155-165.

Lupton, M. (2008). Evidence, argument and socialresponsibility: First-year students’ experiences ofinformation literacy when researching an essay. Higher EducationResearch, & Development, 27(4):399-414.

Maybee, C., Bruce, C. S., Lupton, M., and Rebmann, K. (2013).Learning to use information: Informed learning in theundergraduate classroom. Library & Information Science Research,.

Mclnnis Bowers, C. V., Chew, B., Bowers, M. R., Ford, C. E.,Smith, C., and Herrington, C. (2009). Interdisciplinarysynergy: A partnership between business and library faculty

34

and its effects on students’ information literacy. Journal ofBusiness & Finance Librarianship, 14(2):110-127.

Neely, T. Y. (2006). Information Literacy Assessment: Standards-basedTools and, Assignments. ALA Store.

SCONUL (2011). The SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy. SCONULWorking Group on Information Literacy,http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf, accessed on 8 Nov 2011.

Walsh, A. (2009). Information literacy assessment where do westart? Journal of Libra,rianship and, Information Science, 41(1): 19-28.

Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The Information Service EnvironmentRelationships and, Priorities. Related, Paper No. 5. ERIC.

35

Appendix A Information Literacy Survey QuestionsThe responses are collected on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Not at all confident, 2= Slightly confident, 3 = Somewhat confident, 4 = Very confident, 5 = Extremelyconfident

IDENTIFY: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to identifyinga personal need for information?1 - Articulating current knowledge on a topic2 - Identifying a lack of knowledge in a subject area3 - Defining limits to the information need4 - Identifying a search topic using simple terminology

SCOPE: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to assessingcurrent knowledge and identifying gaps?1 - Identifying which types of information will best meet the need2 - Identifying available search tools3 - Identifying different formats in which information may be provided

PLAN: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to constructingstrategies for locating information and data?1 - Setting a search question clearly2 - Defining a search strategy with appropriate keywords3 - Selecting the most appropriate search tools and techniques

GATHER: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to locating andaccessing information and data?1 - Constructing complex searches appropriate to different resources2 - Accessing online information and data3 - Keeping up to date with new information4 - Engaging with the community to share information

EVALUATE: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to comparingand evaluating information and data?1 - Choosing suitable material on the search topic2 - Assessing the accuracy, bias and credibility of the information resources3 - Reading critically, identifying key points and arguments4 - Identifying when the information need has not been met

MANAGE: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to organisinginformation professionally and ethically?1 - Using appropriate data management software and techniques to manage data2 - Demonstrating awareness of issues relating to data protection, copyright andplagiarism3 - Meeting the standards of conduct for academic integrity

PRESENT: How confident are you in performing the following tasks related to applying theknowledge gained?1 - Using information and data found to address the original question2 - Summarising documents and reports3 - Incorporating new information into the context of existing knowledge4 - Synthesising and appraising information from different sources5 - Analysing and presenting data appropriately6 - Developing a personal profile in the community using appropriate networks

Appendix B Information Literacy Focus Group QuestionsYour School:Your discipline:1. What does information literacy look like in your discipline?2. How would someone working in your discipline approach a given problem?3. What information would be of interest?4. What resources (primary and secondary sources, research databases, websitesetc.) are paramount?5. What problems do you or your students face when you look for information?