1 Making Sense of Librarian-Led Information Literacy Instruction A doctoral thesis presented by Moddie V. Breland Jr. to the Graduate School of Education In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the field of Education College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts 8/13/19
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Making Sense of Librarian-Led Information Literacy Instruction
A doctoral thesis presented
by
Moddie V. Breland Jr.
to the
Graduate School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in the field of
Education
College of Professional Studies
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts
8/13/19
2
Copyright © 2019
Moddie V. Breland Jr.
3
Abstract
This study explored how undergraduate faculty made sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six undergraduate faculty that
taught at least two sections of a general education course at Woodlawn College. Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used to analyze transcripts and identify four
superordinate themes and twelve subthemes. The four superordinate themes that emerged from
the transcripts were 1) faculty understand the concept of information literacy in similar ways to
library professionals, 2) faculty believe there are distinctive roles librarians and faculty play in
teaching students information literacy, 3) faculty have a positive perception of librarian-led
information literacy instruction, and 4) faculty encountered challenges with librarian-led
information literacy instruction. This study suggests that there are opportunities for librarians to
further assess how faculty incorporate information literacy, what role they believe librarians
serve in promoting information literacy, and how they would integrate information literacy
concepts into their classroom.
Keywords: information literacy instruction, role theory, faculty perceptions, academic
libraries
4
Table of Contents
Copyright ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgement Page................................................................................................................ 11
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................ 12
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 13
Significance of the Research Question ......................................................................................... 14
Research Problem and Research Question ................................................................................... 15
Definition of Key Terminology ................................................................................................. 15
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 16
Critics of Role Theory ............................................................................................................... 19
Rationale .................................................................................................................................... 20
Application of Role Theory ....................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 23
What is Information Literacy? ...................................................................................................... 23
Standardizing Information Literacy .......................................................................................... 24
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education ..................................................... 26
5
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 27
Information Literacy Instruction’s Impact on College Students ................................................... 27
Types of Information Literacy Instruction Session ................................................................... 28
Information Literacy Instruction Debate ................................................................................... 30
Impact on Student Success ........................................................................................................ 31
Perceived Impact by Students ................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 34
History of Academic Libraries and Academic Librarians ............................................................ 35
Librarians Role as Faculty ......................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 38
Faculty Perception of Information Literacy .................................................................................. 38
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 40
Faculty’s Experiences Collaborating With Others ....................................................................... 41
Faculty Experiences Collaborating With Other Faculty ........................................................... 42
Faculty Experiences With Librarians and Information Literacy Instruction ............................ 43
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 45
Summation .................................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter Three: Research Design .................................................................................................. 48
6
Qualitative Research Approach .................................................................................................... 48
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis ................................................................................ 49
Phenomenology ..................................................................................................................... 50
Hermeneutics ......................................................................................................................... 52
Rationale for IPA ...................................................................................................................... 52
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 53
Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 55
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 57
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 58
Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research ..................................................................................... 60
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 61
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 61
Transferability ........................................................................................................................... 62
Internal Audit ............................................................................................................................ 62
Self-reflexivity and Transparency ............................................................................................. 63
Social locality ........................................................................................................................ 63
7
Personal experiences ............................................................................................................. 64
Professional experiences ....................................................................................................... 65
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 66
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 67
Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis ........................................................................................... 68
The Research Site ...................................................................................................................... 70
The Participants ......................................................................................................................... 70
Participant Background ............................................................................................................. 71
Theme 1: Faculty Understand the Concept of Information Literacy in Ways Similar to Library
Professionals ................................................................................................................................. 72
Access Information ................................................................................................................... 72
Evaluate Information ................................................................................................................. 74
Utilize Information .................................................................................................................... 75
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 76
Theme 2: Faculty Believe There are Distinctive Roles Librarians and Faculty Play in Teaching
Students Information Literacy ...................................................................................................... 77
Faculty Have a Role in Incorporating Information Literacy in Assignments ........................... 77
Faculty Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy ............................................................ 78
Librarians Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy Inside the Classroom..................... 80
8
Librarians Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy Outside the Classroom .................. 82
Librarians Have a Role in Supplementing Instruction .............................................................. 83
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 86
Theme 3: Faculty Have A Positive Perception of Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction
....................................................................................................................................................... 87
Receptive to Librarian-led Information Literacy Sessions........................................................ 87
Expectations Were Met While Working With Librarians ......................................................... 90
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 92
Theme 4: Faculty Encountered Challenges With Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction
....................................................................................................................................................... 94
Concerns About Teaching Techniques ..................................................................................... 94
Concerns About Instructional Content ...................................................................................... 96
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 100
Summation .................................................................................................................................. 101
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications for Practice ............................................................. 104
Findings....................................................................................................................................... 107
Faculty Understand the Concept of Information Literacy in ways similar to library
professionals. ........................................................................................................................... 107
9
Faculty Believe There are Distinctive Roles Librarians and Faculty Play in Teaching Students
Information Literacy ............................................................................................................... 111
Faculty Have a Positive Perception of Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction ......... 116
Faculty Encountered Challenges With Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction ......... 119
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 121
Recommendation for Practice ................................................................................................. 123
Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 126
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 128
References ................................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 156
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 157
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 158
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 160
Appendix E .............................................................................................................................. 163
10
List of Tables
Table 4.1 ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5.1 ..................................................................................................................................... 106
11
Acknowledgement Page
To Whom Much Is Given, From Him Much Will Be Required- Luke 12:48 (NKJV)
To God Be the Glory! I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my chair, Dr.
Diletta Masiello, and my second reader, Dr. Mounira Morris, for their guidance and assistance
through the dissertation process. I would also like to thank my third reader, Dr. Susan Moscou,
for her mentorship throughout the entire dissertation process. Lastly, I would like to
acknowledge, my former chair, Dr. Valdez, for his help during the initial stages of my
dissertation and the proposal process.
The completion of my dissertation would not have been possible without Jesus Christ,
who strengthens me, and the people He has surrounded me with. I have been blessed with the
support of my lovely wife, Melissa M. Breland, who serves as a source of motivation and
inspiration. I have also been blessed by the support and words of encouragement from both my
parents, Moddie V. Breland Sr. and Vivian D. Breland, and my sister Adrienne Breland-Gardner.
Lastly, I am thankful to be blessed with caring family and friends that have always believed in
me.
12
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Although information literacy skills are essential to student success and are widely
endorsed by accrediting organizations, the number of librarian-led information literacy sessions
have declined at many institutions of higher learning (Kline, Wallace, Sult, & Hagedon, 2017;
Hayes, McNeilly & Johnson, 2018; Saunders, 2013; Leeder & Lonn, 2014; White-Farnham &
Gardner, 2014). Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this dilemma is that even though
undergraduate faculty acknowledge that their students’ information literacy skills are deficient,
they often resist opportunities to collaborate with librarians to help improve those competencies
(Saunders, 2013; McGuinness, 2006). In order to better serve the needs of today’s college
students, “a more expansive and nuanced understanding of how faculty perceive information
literacy” is required to develop information literacy programs and curricula (Cope & Sanabria,
2014, p. 476).
The purpose of this Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study was to
understand how Woodlawn College (a pseudonym) undergraduate faculty made sense of
librarian-led information literacy instruction. At this stage in the research, information literacy is
defined as “the ability to effectively and efficiently locate, evaluate, synthesize and use
information in a variety of contexts” (Folk, 2016, p. 11). Librarian-led information literacy
instruction occurs when a classroom faculty member schedules a librarian to join their class to
teach these literacy skills. Knowledge generated from this study is expected to inform
administrators, classroom faculty, and librarians on how they can collaborate with one another to
meet the learning needs of college students.
13
Statement of the Problem
Information literacy is the ability to effectively and efficiently find, evaluate, process, and
use information (Folk, 2016). The information literacy level of many students entering college
today is inadequate (McGeough & Rudick, 2018). According to the 2010 Project Information
Literacy study, eighty percent of 8,353 students surveyed across 25 U.S. campuses reported they
experienced difficulty starting their research assignments (Head, 2013). An even more troubling
statistic is that half of those students surveyed also struggled with finding information, assessing
the quality of information retrieved, and using information to solve problems (Head, 2013).
Although faculty recognize the importance of information literacy and acknowledge their
students are inadequate in this area, they often resist opportunities to collaborate with librarians
to improve this competency (Saunders, 2013; McGuinness, 2006). There are four prominent
reasons why faculty are reluctant to collaborate with librarians that emerge from the research
literature. The primary reason is that classroom faculty are unfamiliar with the roles librarians
serve in higher education (Leckie & Fullerton, 1999). The second excuse for the lack of
collaboration is that faculty are unsure of the scope of information literacy and therefore assume
they address this skill set through their course content (Saunders, 2012). The third notable cause
to emerge from the literature is that faculty are averse to working with librarians because they do
not perceive them to be instructors but as instructional support staff (Ducas & Michaud-Oystryk,
2004). Lastly, the research also suggests that faculty believe a student’s information literacy
level gradually improves over time without assistance (Badke, 2011; McGuinness, 2006).
There have been few studies conducted on faculty perceptions of information literacy
instruction in recent years and there is a pressing need to better understand why faculty choose to
embed information literacy instruction into their courses (Bury, 2011; Yousef, 2010). Since the
14
college landscape has shifted so drastically over the years, in terms of accreditation standards
and technology, it is critical to investigate, qualitatively, what are the perceptions of college
faculty. Therefore, this study sought to examine how Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty
made sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction.
Significance of the Research Question
The rationale for this study is the researcher’s interest in expanding research on how
faculty perceive librarian-led information literacy instruction in order to address why faculty are
hesitant to collaborate with librarians for pedagogical purposes. By understanding the
perceptions faculty have on information literacy instruction, librarians could improve their
instructional outreach and instructional techniques. According to Kim and Shumaker (2015),
faculty perception studies on information literacy instruction could be used to inform librarians
on how to communicate and collaborate with faculty in relation to effectively integrating
information literacy instruction into courses.
Understanding and examining the lived experiences of undergraduate faculty who engage
in librarian-led information literacy instruction is important because library instruction sessions
are becoming deprioritized (O’Toole, Barham, & Monahan, 2016; Kline et al., 2017; Saunders,
2012; Leeder & Lonn, 2014). The aim of this study is to open a dialog between faculty and
librarians as to how both parties can collaborate to ensure that students receive a quality
education (Cope & Sanabria, 2014). This research will give faculty a voice as to how
information literacy sessions should be conducted so that librarians could better serve the needs
of students without duplicating instruction (Leckie & Fullerton, 1999). Faculty could use the
findings of this study to learn about the various roles academic librarians serve at institutions of
higher learning as well as understand the meaning and purview of information literacy in the
15
context of higher education (Saunders, 2012).
The purview of this research also has implications for macro audiences, e.g. accrediting
agencies, the global community, our society, etc. The results of this research could add to the
growing support for all college accrediting agencies to consider information literacy curricula
crucial to student learning outcomes (Saunders, 2012). Furthermore, this research adds to the
expanding literature that information literate people can exploit the information market for the
benefit of their country (Webber & Johnston, 2000; Webber & Johnston, 2017). Lastly, this
research could further demonstrate that information literacy is connected to democratic ideals
and life-long learning.
Research Problem and Research Question
The problem of practice investigated in this paper pertains to how the primacy of
librarian-led information literacy instruction has waned within higher education. Although
information literacy skills are essential to life-long learning and student success, the decline in
instructional sessions are a result of the attitudes held by faculty (Saunders, 2013; O’Toole et al.,
2016). The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the lived experiences of Woodlawn
College undergraduate faculty who participated in librarian-led information literacy instruction.
The research question this study aimed to answer was: How do Woodlawn College
undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction?
Definition of Key Terminology
Information literacy. For the purposes of this study, this term is defined as the ability to
effectively and efficiently locate, evaluate, process, and use information in various situations and
contexts (Julien, 2016). In addition, information literacy is knowing how to use information to
16
inform decisions made in one’s own daily life (Julien, 2016).
Librarian-led information literacy instruction. For this study, librarian-led
information literacy instruction is defined as a pedagogical approach whereby a librarian visits a
class one or more times for the purpose of teaching information literacy skills. During the
classroom visit, the librarian teaches students “transferable skills such as critical thinking and
information evaluation” (Julien, Gross, & Latham, 2018, p. 179).
Undergraduate faculty. For this study, undergraduate faculty are defined as college
instructors, who are ranked at the level of instructor or above, that teach at least two general
education course sections or work in an academic program that is only supportive of
undergraduate students. Undergraduate faculty are responsible for teaching general knowledge
as opposed to professional, vocational, and/or technical content (Liberal arts, 2018).
General education courses. According to the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education (2014), general education courses are classes that are designed for students to acquire
and demonstrate essential skills such as written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning,
critical thinking, technological competency and information literacy.
Theoretical Framework
Role theory was first articulated in the 1920s and 1930s by scholars including Georg
Simmel, George Herbert Mead, Ralph Linton, and Jacob Moreno (Biddle, 1986). Despite its
name, role theory is not a theory but a framework by which explanatory theories are developed
(Stryker, 1995). Role theory is a framework that focuses on social behavior and the notion that
“human beings behave in ways that are different and predictable depending on their respective
social identities and the situation” (Biddle, 1986, p. 86). In this theoretical framework, beliefs,
17
attitudes, and expectations are what guide behavior at the individual and collective level (Turner,
2001).
The approaches of role theory that served as the basis for this research were the
organizational and cognitive perspective. Organizational and cognitive role theory were applied
to this research endeavor because most empirical studies conducted by role theorists apply either
of these two theoretical approaches (Biddle, 1986; Guirguis & Chewning, 2005; Vora, Kostova,
& Roth, 2007). The basic premise of organizational role theory is that people interact with one
another with assumptions about how others should behave in a particular setting or organization
(Galletta & Heckman, 1990). Over time these assumptions become entrenched and shared
among different cohorts of people within an organization. Under organizational role theory,
behaviors that align with a person(s) expectation are reinforced while behaviors that are
misaligned are punished or ignored. The primary foci of cognitive role theory are surveying how
“a person perceives the expectations of others” and what effects those perceptions have on the
individual’s behavior (Biddle, 1986, p. 74).
The two dominant principles of organizational role theory are role conflict and role
ambiguity. According to Vora, Kostova and Roth (2007), role conflict is defined as the extent to
which an individual’s role is incompatible with the expectations of others in the organization.
Generally, role conflict is experienced by persons who are in boundary spanning roles, which are
roles that are within the purview of more than one area. Because of role conflict, people are
subjected to stress, tension, conflicting pressure, lower productivity, and decreased job
satisfaction (Biddle, 1986). Role conflict articulates the perceptions and subjective problems
associated with participation in an organization.
Role ambiguity occurs when a person is unaware of what they are responsible for, what is
18
expected from them, and how they will be evaluated (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970).
According to Rizzo et al. (1970), this experience, due to lack of information, could cause an
individual to avoid the source of stress or use coping mechanisms to deny the reality of the
situation. Similar to role conflict, role theorists associate role ambiguity with dissatisfaction,
distrust, low performance, anxiety, stress and distorted reality (Rizzo et al., 1970; Bray &
Brawley, 2002; Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981).
A major component of cognitive role theory is role-taking. Lynch (2007) described role-
taking as a process whereby a person anticipates the behavior of those they interact with and
consequently take on the role of others. Turner (1956) surmised that role-taking can occur based
on observation or assumption. The critical point of role-taking is that an individual may or may
not identify with the role of the other and instead “retain a clear separation of identity between
the self-attitudes and the attitudes of the other” (Turner, 1956, p. 319). Depending upon this
negotiation, the role-taker and the “other” will encounter either role conflict or role
accommodation (Lynch, 2007). Role accommodation is the process whereby individuals align
their behaviors “to the social context so as to act in a manner thought to be appropriate to the
situation” (Lynch, 2007, p. 384).
A central concept in role theory that explains how people socially interact with one
another is consensus (Jackson, 1998). Consensus is any normative agreement or shared
definition among a group of individuals (Zai, 2015). Consensus occurs when individuals
socialize and interact with each other in a similar way (Andrew et al., 2012). It is also evident
when individuals recognize the role of others (Zai, 2015). When consensus is reached between
individuals or groups, an organization runs efficiently because it mitigates role conflict and role
ambiguity (Andrew et al., 2014).
19
Critics of Role Theory
Despite the popularity of the concept of role within the social sciences, some scholars in
the field have criticized role theory (Biddle, 1986; Jackson, 1998). The source of this criticism
comes from how authors differ in their definition of the term “role”. Biddle (1986) claimed,
“some authors use the term role to refer to characteristic behaviors, others use it to designate
social parts to be played, and still others offer definitions that focus on scripts for social conduct”
(p. 68). Biddle (1986) further stated that in spite of the criticism and interpretation of key
concepts, role theorists tend to use the same philosophic orientation and research methodology.
Even though role theorists generally conduct empirical research using the organizational
approach, it has faced criticism for several reasons. Organizational role theory is mainly
criticized because it only focuses on how an organization influences conformity at the expense of
the individual (Zai, 2015). Organizational role theory does not account for new roles created by
and within the organization, which often contributes to role conflict. In addition, organizational
role theory assumes that organizations are “rational, stable entities, that all conflicts within them
are merely role conflicts, and that the participant will inevitably be happy and productive once
role conflict is resolved” (Biddle, 1986, p. 74). Lastly, organizational role theory does not
“provide a definitive understanding of the array of the non-work roles that can cause stress and
dissatisfaction in the workplace” (Wickham & Parker, 2007, p. 447).
The cognitive approach to role theory has faced similar scrutiny by scholars. Biddle
(1986) pointed out that the major criticisms of cognitive role theory were that it relies too heavily
on American culture, it ignores the fluidity of human connection and it disregards the
environment where interaction takes place. Lastly, cognitive role theory is criticized because it
fails to focus on how the social structure creates roles but rather on how one reacts to and within
20
roles (Zai, 2015; Guirguis & Chewning 2005).
Rationale
The rationale for using role theory as the theoretical framework for this study is that it
sheds new light on why faculty refuse to grant librarians access to their classrooms. This theory
offers new insight because there are few studies that address faculty perceptions of information
literacy instruction (Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Bury, 2011) and even fewer that apply role theory.
Additionally, role theory uncovers how faculty perceive librarians and the work they do.
Another reason for applying role theory was that it can engender critical change to the
problems librarians have with faculty. Understanding the role faculty believe librarians should
serve in higher education could start the dialogue for change. In addition, ascertaining the
experiences faculty have with information literacy instruction could help librarians improve their
pedagogy. Lastly, discerning what faculty understand about information literacy instruction
could lead to a mutually beneficial collaborative experience.
To fully develop this research project, the organizational and cognitive approach of role
theory was utilized. The rationale for applying the cognitive approach was that it illuminates the
experiences faculty have when librarians teach information literacy in their classes. Cognitive
role theory helps explain how faculty perceive librarians and their role in instruction.
Furthermore, this perspective illuminates what reaction faculty have to collaborating with
librarians. Organizational role theory was not only necessary for the empirical portion of this
research, but it was also essential to revealing why faculty value or devalue information literacy
instruction. The role conflict and role ambiguity constructs of the organizational approach to
role theory were also critical to the development of this study because it provided a rubric for the
21
types of resources that should be collected and augmented to the literature review.
Even though there has been pushback against the organizational and cognitive
perspectives to role theory, the literature has shown that they are still viable approaches for
research. Galletta and Heckman (1990) astutely pointed out that despite its shortcomings
organizational role theory is useful in explaining the critical juncture where the larger social
structure interacts with the individual. Furthermore, a substantial amount of empirical research
conducted by role theorists have used either the organizational or the cognitive perspective
(Biddle, 1986; Guirguis & Chewning 2005).
Application of Role Theory
The research question this dissertation sought to examine was “How do Woodlawn
College undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction?”
Role theory was influential in the design of this inquiry in two ways. First, role theory situated
the research question in a way that could be investigated qualitatively. Secondly, role theory
helped focus the study around the participants’ experiences, attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs.
Role theory allowed the research investigation to explore four major questions during the
interview process. How do faculty define information literacy? What skills and/or behaviors
must a student acquire in order to demonstrate that they are information literate? What role do
faculty serve in teaching information literacy? Finally, how do faculty explain their
understanding of a librarian’s role in teaching information literacy skills?
Role theory helped to frame each interview so that it solicited the beliefs of the subject.
Role theory also facilitated in structuring the interview questions in a way that allowed faculty to
express what role they believed librarians served in higher education. If this articulated role
22
differs from what most of the faculty at Woodlawn College believed constitutes the scope of
academic librarians’ work responsibilities, then perhaps this could lead to a conversation as to
how both stakeholders could collaborate with one another to help students.
Conclusion
Even though information literacy skills are crucial to student achievement, the number of
instruction sessions conducted by librarians are declining at many institutions of higher learning
(Kline et al., 2017; Leeder & Lonn, 2014). In order to serve the needs of college students, it is
essential to understand how faculty perceive information literacy so that an effective library
curriculum could be developed (Cope & Sanabria, 2014; Berg, 2018; Julien et al., 2018; Dubick,
2013). Julien et al. (2018) noted that improvements to information literacy instruction could
only occur when instructional practices were studied and understood. Since the amount of
literature on faculty perceptions regarding information literacy is scarce, there is a pressing need
to understand why faculty choose to collaborate with and embed librarians in their courses
(Bury, 2011). The purpose of this interpretative phenomenological study is to understand how
Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction. In order to achieve this, the organizational and cognitive approaches of role theory
served as the theoretical framework. Role theory has been chosen to serve as the framework of
this study because it aided in uncovering how faculty perceived librarians and the work they do.
Furthermore, role theory was influential in the development of the studies literature review,
research question, research design, and interview prompts. In the next section of this paper, the
literature review is delineated on several topics related to the interactions between faculty and
librarians.
23
Chapter Two: Literature Review
There have been a limited number of studies conducted on faculty perceptions of
information literacy instruction and there is a pressing need to understand why faculty choose to
embed information literacy instruction into their courses (Bury, 2011; Yousef, 2010). The
literature shows that many institutions are not increasing their efforts to include information
literacy instruction into its curricula despite its importance to student learning and success
(Kline, Wallace, Sult, & Hagedon, 2017; Saunders, 2013; Leeder & Lonn, 2014). The goal of
this qualitative study was to determine how Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty make
meaning of librarian-led information literacy instruction. The main implication of this research
is that it informs librarians on how to communicate and collaborate with faculty with respect to
embedding information literacy instruction into credit-bearing courses.
The literature review is divided into six sections. The first section of the review defines
the term information literacy and discusses what it means to be information literate. The second
and third segment of the review elucidates the impact information literacy has on college student
success and surveys the history of academic libraries and the roles librarians have served as
educators over time. The fourth and fifth sections explore what the literature reports are the
understandings faculty have about information literacy and what experiences they have
collaborating with other instructional stakeholders, including librarians. The final portion of this
review concludes with a summary of the arguments to this chapter and the implications of this
research project.
What is Information Literacy?
The American Library Association (ALA) defines information literacy as being able to
24
effectively and efficiently locate, evaluate, process and use information in various situations and
contexts (Julien, 2016). Although this definition has functioned since the 1980s, there is still
much debate about the term’s usage and definition (Folk, 2016). The major opponents of the
information literacy nomenclature believed the term is too vague of a concept and self-
legitimizing for librarians (Folk, 2016; Bombaro, 2016). The other scholars who opposed the
concept argued that there is no concrete way to define the term (Bougatzeli, Togia, &
Papadimitriou, 2015; Julien, 2016).
The reason the concept of information literacy is so abstract is that its contemporary
usage has expanded beyond printed objects to digital and/or multimedia materials (Julien, 2016).
In light of this concept’s purview, perhaps the most useful definition of information literacy is
“the ability to effectively and efficiently locate, evaluate, synthesize and use information in a
variety of contexts” (Folk, 2016, p. 11). Julien (2016) astutely expounded on the definition
further by adding that information literacy also includes knowing how to use information to
inform decisions made in one’s own daily life. Julien (2016) argued that information literacy “is
essential to sustainable human development, participatory civic societies, sustainable world
peace, good governance, and the fostering of intercultural knowledge and mutual understanding”
(p. 126). Other scholars have added that information literacy enables students to become
independent, lifelong learners within our democratic society (Bougatzeli et al., 2015; Schroeter
& Higgins, 2015). Although the definition of information literacy is constantly evolving, the
concept remains the same, which is the ability of someone to access, use, and communicate
information effectively (McKeever, Bates, & Reilly, 2017).
Standardizing Information Literacy
Librarians and information scientists have distanced themselves away from the debate
25
over information literacy nomenclature by focusing on what it means to be information literate
and how students can effectively learn information literacy skills (Folk, 2016). In an effort to
standardize the term information literacy, the Association of College and Research Libraries
(ACRL) created competencies for information literacy respective to students in postsecondary
education that was subsequently adopted by ALA. According to ACRL, an information literate
student is able to:
Define and articulate the need for information and select strategies and
tools to find that information.
Locate and select information based on its appropriateness to a specific
information need.
Organize and analyze the information in the context of specific
information needs and understand the appropriateness for the audience.
Synthesize, process, and present the information in a way that is
appropriate for the purpose for which the information is needed.
Evaluate discrete pieces of information as well as the entire information
seeking process (as cited by Bougatzeli et al., 2015, p. 18).
ACRL also stated that an information literate student “understands many of the
economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses
information ethically and legally” (Maybee, 2006, p. 80). All of these information literacy
standards established by ACRL are used to help academic librarians develop instructional plans,
devise strategies for library assessment, and set learning outcomes for their institution.
26
Although ACRL is the major contributor to the information literacy standards adopted by
ALA, the United Kingdom’s Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL)
and the Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) has also
provided input for these widely accepted competencies. SCONUL emphasized in its standards
for the United Kingdom, which ALA endorsed, that an information literate person possesses
transferrable information seeking skills. ANZIIL contributed to the ALA standards by adding
the notion that an information literate person can either “manipulate existing information or use
existing information to create new knowledge” (Folk, 2016, p. 18). The overlap between the
standards of ACRL, SCONUL, and ANZIIL helped ALA define the core competencies of an
information literate student as well as develop the framework for information literacy for higher
education.
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education
In 2016, ACRL addressed the issues that plagued the “Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education” by devising the “Framework for Information Literacy for
Higher Education” (Gross, Latham, & Julien, 2018). According to Conor (2016), the newly
devised framework seeks to draw from the various nuances of information literacy, which
included the concepts of metaliteracy and metacognition. While the old information literacy
standards focused on measurable outcomes, the framework hones in on six “frames” or
“threshold concepts” which are abstract ideas that pertain to a discipline and are difficult for
students to comprehend (Bauder & Rod, 2016). The six frames identified by ALA’s
“Framework for information literacy in higher education” (2015) are:
Authority is Constructed and Contextual
27
Information Creation as a Process
Information has Value
Research as Inquiry
Scholarship as Conversation
Searching as Strategic Exploration
All six frames are accompanied by lists of “knowledge practices” and “dispositions” that
highlight what behaviors or perspectives are necessary of an individual to be a master in the
respective area (Reed, 2015; Vosseler & Watts, 2017). Vosseler and Watts (2017) asserted that
the new framework describes an information literate person from a holistic perspective,
“focusing not only on skills but also on the habits of the mind that belong to good consumers and
producers of information” (p. 530).
Conclusion. The term information literacy is a complex term that can differ in meaning
depending on the context (Julien, 2016). The concept of information literacy is abstract because
its scope expands beyond print materials to digital and/or multimedia formats (Julien, 2016). In
light of the contributions by ACRL, SCONUL, and ANZIIL, most librarians identify information
literacy as the “ability to recognize an information need and to find, evaluate and make effective
use of the needed information” (Bougatzeli et al., 2015, p. 17). The addition of the framework
for information literacy in higher education provided an opportunity for librarians to address
students’ information literacy needs holistically.
Information Literacy Instruction’s Impact on College Students
The three most prominent models of information literacy instruction are “one-shot”
28
sessions, embedded sessions, and credit bearing library courses. Scholars have often debated
which of these instructional methods is most effective at teaching students information literacy
skills (Matthew & Schroeder, 2006; Davis & Smith, 2009; Owusu-Ansah, 2004). Although the
argument has not been settled, researchers have reported that information literacy instruction, in
general, has a positive impact on student success (Eng & Stadler, 2015; Cook 2014). The
research literature also suggests students feel better prepared for college when given library
instruction (Dubicki, 2015).
Types of Information Literacy Instruction Session
Jacobson and Germain (2004) cogently argued that information literacy instruction views
the concept of information from a holistic perspective and embraces “the idea of teaching library
constituents about information resources, including non-library materials and electronic
resources” (p. 112). The research literature indicates that there are three models of information
literacy instruction at the postsecondary level: “one-shot” sessions, embedded sessions, and
library credit-bearing courses. A “one-shot” library session is characterized as a single librarian-
led presentation on information literacy (Van Epps & Nelson, 2013). “One-shot” library
sessions are usually delivered in an “active” way. Active information literacy instruction is a
type of instructional session that allows the students to participate in the learning process with
the use of technology (Detlor, Booker, Serenko & Julien, 2012). Detlor et al. (2012) contended
that this type of instruction “advocates an active learning approach where students… are
encouraged to use their higher-order thinking skills while engaged in activities that help them
think critically and explore their own attitudes and values” (p. 148). Although “one-shot”
sessions are difficult to teach, librarians have reported positive experiences with classes that last
longer than 50-minutes (Tran, Miller, & Aveni, 2018).
29
Unlike the traditional “one-shot” model where a librarian visits a class once and
addresses everything a student needs to know about research (Hoffman et al., 2017), an
embedded session is a more integrated approach (Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016; Van Epps &
Nelson, 2013; Detlor et al., 2012). Embedded sessions move beyond suggesting and providing
resources for students and classroom faculty (Hoffman et al., 2017). Embedded instruction
sessions are taught by embedded librarians who “spend significant time in the classroom, create
course assignments and research guides, conduct research and engage in scholarship with
teaching faculty, and have a presence in course management software” such as blackboard
(Norelli, 2010, p. 69). Embedded librarians are located in the spaces of students and faculty,
physically or virtually, because of their expertise in the discipline they are providing instruction
(Drewes & Hoffman, 2010; Hoffman et al., 2017). Librarians who teach embedded information
literacy sessions have earned graduate degrees in the discipline for which they provide
instruction. Faculty view embedded librarians as “instructional collaborators” because the
librarian has a responsibility for providing “repeated assistance to students within a course,
department, or college” (Zanin-Yost, 2018)
Library credit-bearing courses are classes that students can take for credit towards
graduation (Wang, 2006; Daugherty & Russo; 2011; Booth, Lowe, Tagge, & Stone, 2015) and is
the least offered model of instruction (Cohen et al., 2016). Library credit-bearing instruction
takes a structured and comprehensive approach to teaching information literacy principles
(Wang, 2006). Although there are some exceptions, library credit-bearing instruction is not
geared to a specific academic discipline. Instead, it teaches general and broad concepts of
information literacy (Cohen et al., 2016). Unlike “one-shot” sessions that strictly teaches library
or research skills, credit-bearing courses are designed to help students with higher-order learning
30
regarding finding, evaluating, and using information (Sobel, Ramsey & Jones, 2018).
Information Literacy Instruction Debate
The consensus regarding “one-shot” instruction is that although these sessions may have
some positive effects on student success, it is the least effective pedagogical method (Tang &
Tseng, 2017; Powell & Kong, 2017; Hoffman et al., 2017). Powell and Kong (2017) argued that
“one-shot” sessions were less than desirable because they were “difficult to assess, limited by the
course instructors’ syllabus and assignment, and repetitive to teach” (p. 519). Van Epps and
Nelson (2013) added that “one-shot” sessions were problematic because it does not prepare
students “for the challenges of research, problem solving and continuous learning” (p. 5). Van
Epps and Nelson (2013) also noted that “one-shot” sessions were undervalued by students.
Advancing the argument even further, Tang and Tseng (2017) argued that “one-shot” sessions
were troublesome because they easily overwhelm students with information and only benefit
students working on a specific course assignment.
The general agreement among library scholars is that embedded library instruction and
library credit-bearing instruction are optimal methods of pedagogy. According to Norelli (2010),
embedded instruction afforded a librarian the opportunity to observe and adjust to students’
needs as necessary. Some scholars, however, believe embedded instruction is not effective
enough (Matthew & Schroeder, 2006; Davis & Smith, 2009; Owusu-Ansah, 2004). Owusu-
Ansah (2004) argued that unlike embedded instruction, library credit-bearing sessions have the
advantage of expanding the scope of information literacy beyond merely teaching skill sets.
Even though there are pros and cons to both embedded and library credit-bearing instruction,
most academic librarians agree the more integrated information literacy instruction is into the
curriculum the greater the student learning outcomes (Van Epps & Nelson, 2013; Hardesty,
31
Lovrich & Mannon, 1982; Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016; Riehle & Weiner, 2013).
Impact on Student Success
The literature suggests that information literacy instruction has significant benefits to
student success. Student success constitutes a student’s academic performance while they are
matriculated in college. The standard measures for student success are standardized test scores,
grade point averages (GPA), and earned credit hours (Walker & Pearce, 2014). The measures at
the institutional level for student success are retention, persistence and graduation rates (Walker
& Pearce, 2014). It is worth noting that retention and persistence are two distinct measures in
higher education institutional research. Persistence is the “continued enrollment or degree
completion at any institution within higher education” and it allows movement between
institutions (Strayhorn, 2017, p. 1108). Retention is defined as the continued enrollment of a
student at the same institution where he or she has begun their studies (Strayhorn, 2017).
Numerous studies have shown that information literacy instruction has a positive impact
on students’ GPA (Wang, 2006; Black & Murphy, 2017; Squibb & Mikkelsen, 2016; Wong &
Cmor, 2011; Bowles-Terry, 2012). Wang (2006) noted in her study that students that completed
library credit-bearing courses performed better in their classes and received higher grades.
Squibb and Mikkelsen (2016) reported that students, who participated in courses that were
embedded with information literacy instruction, were more successful in their coursework
because their research papers were of a higher quality. Squibb and Mikkelsen (2016) also
surmised that the students in their study wrote higher quality research papers because they
developed information literacy skills that enabled them to find “suitable sources with multiple
viewpoints that were supported with evidence” (p. 177).
32
In a study conducted in Hong Kong, a group of researchers observed that the more
exposed students were to information literacy instruction the higher their overall grade point
average (GPA) (Wong & Cmor, 2011). Bowles-Terry (2012) affirmed that repeated information
literacy instruction had a positive impact on student success and also, that there was a significant
difference in GPA between graduating seniors offered library instruction in upper-level courses
compared to those who were not.
In addition to having an impact on GPA, the literature also suggests that information
literacy instruction has a significant influence on retention, persistence, and graduation rates
(Eng & Stadler, 2015; Catalano & Phillips, 2016; Cook, 2014; Soria, Fransen, & Nackerud,
2017; Selegean, Thomas & Richman, 1983). Cook (2014) observed in her study that students
who completed library credit-bearing courses graduated at a significantly higher rate than
students who did not enroll in these courses. Cook (2014) also observed a correlation between
library instruction and persistence. She reported that students whose overall GPA decreased
between the transition from high school to college were more likely to graduate if they
completed a library credit-bearing course compared to those who did not enroll in the course.
Soria, Fransen, and Nackerud (2017) concluded from their study that students that participated in
library instruction courses had a significantly higher probability of remaining enrolled in college.
Lastly, Selegean, Thomas and Richman (1983) found that students who finished library credit-
bearing courses had a higher persistence rate than students who did not take the courses but had
similar grade point averages and SAT scores.
Perceived Impact by Students
Despite the evidence of numerous research studies concluding that information literacy
instruction has a direct impact on persistence, graduation rates, and GPA, some scholars are still
33
skeptical (Wong & Webb, 2011; Bowles-Terry, 2012). Many of the studies that set out to
determine if information literacy instruction had an effect on student success only find
correlations between the two factors and are rarely able to prove causality (Wong & Webb, 2011;
Bowles-Terry, 2012; Badke, 2014). Besides determining whether information literacy
instruction has an effect on student success, it is also important to ascertain what value students
perceive they get from this type of instruction. Badke (2014) suggests this is a better way to
gauge the impact of information literacy instruction. If a student is able to clearly articulate how
being information literate is pertinent to coursework and daily life, the librarian has helped the
student reach his or her learning outcome.
Several studies have shown that prior to participating in an information literacy session,
many college students have a negative attitude towards the research process using the library’s
resources (Yevelson-Shorsher & Bronstein, 2018; Kwon, 2008; Denison & Montgomery, 2012;
Klentzin, 2010). Some students found the experience so frustrating that they ventured the
“perceived easy route of using unvetted internet sources rather than peer-reviewed literature”
(Paterson & Gamtso, 2017, p. 145). Detlor et al. (2012) observed in their study that students
perceived library instruction as being instrumental in helping them feel less anxious and more
confident about finding library resources. Dubicki (2015) also concluded in her study that
“students experienced a robust growth in their skills” and “acquired confidence in their ability to
conduct research” after engaging in library instruction (p. 682). Dubicki (2015), however, added
to the existing literature that students perceived library instruction most helpful when it was
practiced immediately and in the context of an assignment.
In addition to arguing that library instruction helps alleviate anxiety for college students,
the research also indicates that students hold credit-bearing library instruction in the highest
34
esteem. Daugherty and Russo (2011) discovered in their study that upper-level college students,
who took a library credit-bearing course, retained the information literacy skills they learned in
that course. The majority of the students surveyed in their study reported that they valued
information literacy sessions because they were able to use those skills learned in other courses
to conduct academic database searches, navigate the physical library, and use Boolean search
techniques. The students in the study also articulated that they used their acquired information
literacy skills “outside of the classroom in day-to-day activities” and for “non-academic reasons”
(Daugherty & Russo, 2011, p. 324). Lebbin (2006) observed from a focus group of students that
they appreciated the library credit-bearing instruction model because the skills they learned were
helpful for research assignments in other classes.
Conclusion. The literature suggests that of the three information literacy instructional
forms, library credit-bearing instruction is the most effective for students because of the amount
of time librarians spend reviewing information literacy skills. “One-shot” sessions, which have
the least amount of instructional time, are only effective when students are active participants in
the learning process (Detlor et al., 2012). The major theme to emerge from the literature
regarding the effectiveness of information literacy instruction was that the more integrated it was
into the curriculum the greater the student learning outcomes (Van Epps & Nelson, 2013).
Another theme that emerges from the literature is that information literacy has a
significant effect on student GPA, persistence, retention, and graduation rates (Eng & Stadler,
2015; Catalano & Phillips, 2016; Cook, 2014; Soria, Fransen, & Nackerud, 2017). Although
scholars have a difficult time proving causality, they accept that there is a correlational
relationship between library instruction and certain student success measures (Wong & Webb,
2011; Bowles-Terry, 2012; Badke, 2014). Researchers have found that students affirm
35
information literacy helps them with their coursework and day to day lives (Detlor et al., 2012;
Dubicki, 2015).
History of Academic Libraries and Academic Librarians
Academic libraries started as a division to institutions of higher education in the late 18th
century when colleges and universities allotted funds to construct library buildings, collect print
materials, and hire professional librarians to preserve and organize the items purchased (Zai,
2015). Prior to the 18th century, the library consisted of “professors, students, administrators, or
some other combination thereof, gathering books into makeshift colleges in an available closet,
office, or classroom” (Zai, 2015, p. 1). By the end of the 19th century, college libraries
transitioned from serving as museums of print records to a place where students could take
credit-bearing courses.
In the early 20th century, the materials housed in many university and college libraries
had grown so large that librarians began to assist students with navigating through the
collections; this assistance began the advent of reference services. Once reference services
became the focus of academic libraries, however, librarian-led instruction began to wane in
academia (Zai, 2015). It was not until the 1960s that librarian-led instruction was reinvigorated
by the promotion and advocacy of information literacy by ALA. This rejuvenation in library
instruction led to a number of colleges granting faculty status to librarians (Rice-Lively &
Racine, 1997).
In 1959, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) created standards
that articulated and clarified the role of a college library. ACRL defines the function of the
college library as “supporting instructional programs and meeting user demands for services”
36
(Owusu-Ansah, 2001, p. 287). The standards were revised in 1975 to shift the focus of libraries
to teaching and guiding patrons to library materials. The ACRL standards were changed again in
1997 to emphasis the library’s role in preparing students not only for academic research but also
for “teaching them to use information sources as citizens, as consumers, [and] as professionals”
(Owusu-Ansah, 2001, p. 288).
In the 21st century, the role of academic librarians shifted due to “the increased
availability of and improved access to computing and information technology” (Rice-Lively &
Racine, 1997, p. 33). Academic librarians are now responsible for duties such as working with
faculty on copyright issues, creating digital repositories, managing scholarly communications,
promoting 3D printing and makerspaces, and facilitating digital authorship (Goetsch, 2008,
Johnson, 2018).
Librarians Role as Faculty
In 1972, several committees, including the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) and ACRL, defined the faculty role of librarians. The document drafted by
AAUP and ACRL stated “faculty status entails for librarians the same rights and responsibilities
as for other members of the faculty. They should have corresponding entitlement to rank,
promotion, tenure, compensation, leaves and research funds” (as cited by Zai, 2015, p. 7).
Despite the resolution of these committees, the status of faculty has not been equally applied to
all institutions across the United States.
According to the literature, the view as to whether librarians should serve as faculty is
emphatically for or against (Galbraith, Garrison & Hales, 2016; Silva, Galbraith, & Groesbeck,
2017; Wyss, 2010). The proponents for giving librarians professorial status argued that it
37
facilitates collaboration with teaching faculty (Galbraith et al., 2016). Galbraith et al. (2016)
noted that librarians who had faculty status believed they had a stronger voice on campus and
were capable of making meaningful contributions to policies. Galbraith et al. (2016) further
asserted that administrators were more attentive to librarians ranked with faculty status. Hill
(2005) claimed colleges that offered librarian’s faculty rank attracted and kept the best
applicants.
Opponents of librarians serving as faculty argued that providing professorial status to
librarians hampered the services and functions of librarianship (Cronin 2001; Galbraith et al.,
2016). Silva et al. (2017) further asserted that librarians with faculty status was “counterintuitive
to the library profession given [how] the daily realities and responsibilities of librarians differ so
much from those of faculty outside the library” (p. 430). Other arguments as to why faculty
should not be given faculty status include low research productivity and lack of Ph.Ds (Galbraith
et al., 2016; Silva et al., 2017; Wyss, 2010).
Regardless of an academic librarian’s employment status, the emergence of information
literacy instruction has made them integral educators of today’s college students (Zai, 2015;
Wheeler & McKinney, 2015). Academic librarians serve a role as educators that extend beyond
teaching several information literacy sessions a semester (Burke & Tumbleson, 2016). Although
instruction is the primary function for academic librarians, they are also responsible for
“facilitating students’ learning process so that they become independent information searchers,
managers, and producers (Wheeler & McKinney, 2015, p. 112). A key way librarians are
helping students become independent is by supporting online students with resources, increasing
the availability of free, open educational resources, and addressing the digital literacy needs of
the students (Burke & Tumbleson, 2016).
38
Conclusion. The concept of academic libraries arose from the need to keep published
books and manuscripts for faculty. Academic libraries eventually transitioned into a funded
department with librarians who provide instruction to students, help faculty with publications,
create digital repositories and manage scholarly publications (Goetsch, 2008; Johnson, 2018).
As the role of academic libraries shifted, colleges and universities began to offer librarians
faculty status and the benefits thereof, such as promotion, tenure, research leave and research
funding. The literature suggests that today’s librarians are responsible for facilitating the
students learning process by enabling them to become independent, critical thinkers. Clarifying
the role a librarian plays in higher education seems as if it is part of the solution to increasing the
number of librarian-led information literacy sessions.
Faculty Perception of Information Literacy
Although faculty across disciplines believe that information literacy is essential to
success, many of them resist embedding information literacy instruction into their courses
(Johnson-Grau et al., 2016; Meulemans & Carr, 2012; Singh, 2005). The primary reason faculty
fail to collaborate with librarians in such a way is that they are unfamiliar with the complex roles
libraries and librarians play in higher education (Leckie & Fullerton, 1999). In addition,
Saunders (2012) argued that faculty refuse to integrate information literacy into their curriculum
because many of them were confused by the term. This lack of clarity has encouraged “faculty
to focus on discipline content and assume that information literacy will be addressed in other
ways” (Saunders, 2012, p. 227).
Some other notable reasons faculty are not inclined to embed information literacy
instruction into their courses are the prevalent misconceptions about information literacy such as
what it entails, how students develop those skills, who should teach it, etc. (Weiner, 2014;
39
Vander Meer, Perez-Stable, & Sachs, 2012; Raven, 2012). It is also worth noting that the
problem of embedding information literacy instruction into the classroom is compounded by the
fact that faculty perceptions or misconceptions of information literacy vary depending on the
discipline (Pinto, 2016; Leckie & Fullerton 1999).
Several themes that emerge from the literature review related to how faculty understand
the nuances of information literacy instruction. A major theme that is consistent in most of the
recent literature is that faculty believe they are responsible for teaching information literacy as
opposed to librarians. Weiner (2014) pointed out “since information literacy is relevant in all
disciplines, those responsible for integrating it into courses and curricula” are not always
apparent to faculty. Of those surveyed in Weiner’s (2014) study, a majority of the faculty felt
they themselves were responsible for providing instructions on how to find articles, identify
topics, synthesize material, and avoid plagiarism (p. 9).
Similar to Weiner (2014), Vander Meer et al. (2012) found that faculty believed they
were responsible for teaching information literacy instruction in their classes. Vander Meer et al.
(2012) also noted that faculty felt students should already have appropriate information literacy
competencies by the time they enroll in a particular course. Faculty believed any gaps in
information literacy skills should be gained through the instruction given in the course. Dubicki
(2013) noted that faculty thought their course assignments had more of an impact on information
literacy skills than librarian-led instruction. Dubicki (2013) also uncovered from her data that
faculty felt it was the responsibility of all faculty to teach information literacy and not just
librarians.
Another theme that emerges from the literature is that faculty and librarians disagree on
how information literacy skills are developed. McGuinness (2006) argued that faculty thought
40
students only become information literate when they were self-motivated. McGuinness (2006)
emphasized that whether a student becomes information literate or not “depends almost entirely
on personal interest, individual motivation and innate ability, rather than on the quality and
format of the available instructional opportunities” provided by a librarian (p. 577). McGuinness
(2006) also asserted that students become information literate through independent and proactive
efforts.
The literature suggests that many faculty members surmise that information literacy skills
are not learned by attending several instructional sessions but are developed over time (Dubicki,
2013; McGuinness, 2006). They think students become information literate by engaging with
peers, faculty, and course materials. Faculty also perceived that students learn information
literacy skills “through a process of trial and error as they apply various strategies to problems
before arriving at the optimal solution” (McGuinness, 2006, p. 578). Cope and Sanabria (2014)
found that information literacy skills are not acquired in a linear fashion. The faculty in their
study “viewed the development of information literacy skills as a continuous and unfolding
process that only becomes crystallized [by completing] specific educational products such as
research papers or presentations” (Cope & Sanabria, 2014, p. 492).
Conclusion. The main reason faculty do not embed information literacy curriculum into
their courses is because they are unfamiliar with the roles librarians serve in higher education.
Since faculty are unclear as to what information literacy means, what it entails, how students
develop those skills, and who is responsible for teaching it, they fail to include it in their course
curriculum. The literature offers three misconceptions about information literacy that might
contribute to the decline in librarian-led information literacy sessions in postsecondary
institutions across the country. First, faculty believe they are ultimately responsible for teaching
41
information literacy. Secondly, faculty think students should take the initiative to improve their
information literacy skills if they feel it is deficient. Lastly, faculty presume that information
literacy skills are developed over time without the help of formal instruction. McGuinness
(2006) added to the argument that faculty suspected students learn information literacy skills
through trial and error. Addressing these misconceptions could be a start in the right direction
for librarians if their goal is to embed information literacy into a particular curriculum.
Faculty’s Experiences Collaborating With Others
In many institutions of higher learning, there is a need to fortify the relationship between
librarians and faculty (Kotter, 1999; Cowan, 2016). In order to address this issue some have
called on ACRL to “reaffirm the academic librarian’s key role as a proactive analyst, subject
expert, counselor, consultant, linker, and intermediary in the cycle of scholarly endeavor and
scholarly communications” (Veaner, 1985, p. 307). This call to action is meant to redress the
maligned attitudes some discipline faculty have with librarians.
The literature indicates that there is a barrier between faculty and academic librarians in
relation to collaboration. McGuiness (2006) articulated that this tension between librarians and
faculty was partly due to how territorial and possessive faculty were about their course
curriculum. Adding to McGuiness’ (2006) argument, Snavely & Cooper (1997) asserted that the
rift between faculty and librarians stem from two factors. First, faculty do not believe librarians
are experts in their discipline. Secondly, faculty think librarians try to take too much control
over the direction of their course. Julien and Given (2002) advanced the argument further by
pointing out that faculty do not respect the expertise of librarians. Feldman and Sciammarella
(2000) stated that a majority of faculty felt as if they were just as capable of teaching students
information literacy skills, as it relates to their course, as librarians.
42
The literature also shows that faculty and librarians are at odds over one another’s role
when collaborating with each other. Julien and Given (2002) referenced an article by Larson,
entitled “What I want in a faculty member: A reference librarian’s perspective”, that librarians
expect faculty to recognize the libraries importance in serving students, communicate what is
happening in all courses, and involve the library on the “design of course assignments, so that
they match available library resources” (p. 70). Julien and Given (2002) also mentioned an
article written by Stahl, entitled “What I want in a librarian: One new faculty member’s
perspective”, that stated faculty expected librarians to recognize boundaries, provide input about
collection development, and communicate limitations to the library’s resources. These narratives
on each other’s expectations illustrate that more work needs to be done to improve relations
between faculty and librarians.
Faculty Experiences Collaborating With Other Faculty
Although faculty have been trained to value solitary work as it pertains to research and
teaching, they are likely to work with other faculty if a collaborative effort proves necessary
(Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004). A scan of the literature suggests that there are two
emerging types of professional development programs that faculty are actively participating in.
Moore and Carter-Hicks (2014) noted that currently there was a paradigmatic shift occurring that
moves away from traditional faculty development programs at the college-wide level “towards
more informal and collaborative learning to support continual improvement in university
pedagogy” (p. 1). These two emerging types of professional development programs are “Faculty
Learning Communities” (FLC) and “Critical Friends Groups” (CFGs).
FLCs are groups of faculty members from various disciplines that engage in a
collaborative project that focuses on enhancing teaching and learning (Moore & Carter-Hicks,
43
2014). Moore and Carter-Hicks (2014) surmised that FLCs increased “faculty interest in
teaching and learning and provide safety and support for faculty to explore, attempt, test, and
adopt authentic [teaching] methods” (p. 2). In a study conducted at Iowa State University, Elliot
et al. (2016) found that the faculty, who participated in a FLC to redesign the biology
curriculum, believed the collaborative project was very effective. The faculty in the study
indicated that they valued the pedagogical tips and the sharing of resources with one another
(Elliot et al., 2016).
CFGs, which originated in the PreK-12 community, are the newest iteration of a
professional development group to influence higher education. A CFG is a group of professional
educators that meet consistently to “discuss professional practice, to listen carefully to one
another, to ask thoughtful questions about teacher and/or student work, to collaborate on
teaching dilemmas, and to surface, name and excavate beliefs, practices or assumptions which
inhibit effective teaching” (Adams & Mix, 2014, p. 39). The central premise to CFGs is learning
from the work of both peers and friends in the profession. Moore and Carter-Hicks (2014) cited
that CFGs were effective because they “foster a culture of community and collaboration, enhance
teacher professionalism, change teachers’ thinking and practice and impact student learning” (p.
2).
Faculty Experiences With Librarians and Information Literacy Instruction
Although there are efforts being made by librarians to facilitate professional development
groups (Mi, 2015), the way most librarians collaborate with faculty is through embedded
information literacy sessions. Collaboration between librarians and faculty have tremendous
benefits (Kotter, 1999; Sanborn 2005; Mounce, 2010; Delaney & Bates, 2015; Zanin-Yost &
Dillen, 2019). A major benefit to the collaborative efforts of librarians and faculty is the
44
increased usage of the library by faculty and the students they teach (Sanborn, 2005). Sanborn
(2005) asserted that an increase in usage generally justifies requests for additional funding and
programming. The most significant benefit to collaboration between librarians and faculty is that
the instructors who do have a pleasurable experience with librarians will be more likely to use
the library’s services again.
The research indicates that faculty generally have positive experiences collaborating with
librarians (Bury, 2011; Hall, 2008; Major, 1993; Mounce, 2010; Oberg, Schleiter & Van Houten,
1989). Bury (2011) uncovered in her research that faculty believed librarian-led information
literacy sessions have a substantial impact on student learning. She found that the faculty
surveyed thought the information literacy sessions helped the students improve on their research
skills and their course assignments. Yousef (2010) found in his study that the faculty’s gender
and classroom discipline had no significant impact on their experience with collaborative
information literacy programming. Yousef (2010) also noted that a faculty’s academic rank and
degree level affected their attitude on information literacy. Essentially, Yousef (2010) concluded
that faculty with a Master’s degree and a rank of instructor were more inclined to have a positive
attitude towards the collaboration experience with the librarian.
Although faculty generally purport to have good experiences collaborating with librarians
and feel as if information literacy sessions are helpful, a few studies have cautioned that these
results may be deceptive. Leckie and Fullerton (1999) noted that even though faculty in her
study were pleased with librarian-led instructional sessions and did see improvements in
students’ work, “some faculty are not sure what library instructional sessions are and also are
unsure how to judge whether students’ library research skills have actually improved as a result”
(p. 23). In another notable study, Julien et al. (2018) concluded from their national survey of
45
U.S. academic librarians that the return on investment for instructional work was uncertain. It is
worth pointing out that neither of these two outlier studies used interview data to draw their
conclusions. The literature calls for a deeper exploration of faculty perceptions of librarian-led
instructional work through interviews in order to enrich the existing survey data (Julien et al.,
2018).
Conclusion. The literature supports the notion that there is a need to strengthen the
relationship between faculty and librarians. The tension that exists between the two groups
seems to originate from how territorial and possessive faculty are about their course curriculum.
A case may be made that the rift between the two groups also engenders from a lack of respect
by faculty for the expertise of librarians (Julien & Given, 2002). From the faculty’s perspective,
the relationship with librarians would be more amicable if librarians refrained from being
officious, provided input about collection development, and communicated the limitations of the
library’s resources (Julien & Given, 2002).
Although it appears as if faculty are not compelled to collaborate with librarians on their
curriculum, the literature suggests that faculty are inclined to work with whom they consider
peer faculty (Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004). Research shows that faculty are
improving college and course curriculum through professional development groups such as
faculty learning communities and critical friends groups. The literature reviewed suggests that
faculty find FLCs and CFGs as productive and rewarding collaborative experiences.
With respect to collaborative experiences, librarians should be encouraged that when
faculty embed information literacy instruction into their curriculum the experience has been
positive. The literature suggests that faculty notice substantial improvements in the quality of
work submitted by students because of information literacy instruction (Bury, 2011; Yousef,
46
2010). This perception is the same for faculty of different genders and in varying classroom
disciplines. Although there are a few studies that suggest librarian-led instructional work is not
effective, more in-depth experiments using interview data are needed to supplement the existing
research literature (Julien et al., 2018).
Summation
The literature suggests more effort is required by librarians to integrate information
literacy instruction more thoroughly into the college curricula. Exploring what are the
understandings and experiences faculty have in regards to information literacy is one way to
address this issue. The reviewed literature seems to suggest the reason information literacy
instruction is not embedded into the college curriculum is because faculty “harbor a number of
beliefs that are at odds with librarians’ visions for an information literate curriculum, and which
may to some degree account for the lack of collaboration” (McGuinness, 2006, p. 576). Based
on this faculty perception, librarians may need to consider alternative approaches to integrating
their instructional expertise into the classroom.
The research indicates that there is hope for academic librarians to embed themselves into
the college curriculum. Librarians will need to make a concerted effort to explain what
information literacy means and what role librarians’ play in the process of helping students
acquire these skills. The promising data that emerges from the literature is that once a
relationship is formed between a librarian and a faculty member the experience is positive and
effective. This type of data is encouraging because it shows that librarians must continue to be
persistent in reaching out and forging new relationships with faculty.
The implications of exploring the understandings and experiences faculty have with
47
information literacy are plentiful. The main benefit to this research is that it could open up a
dialog between faculty and librarians as to how they can both serve the interest of students. It is
important that faculty and librarians work together to educate these future leaders of our world.
Addressing this problem of practice is a great step towards that goal.
48
Chapter Three: Research Design
The purpose of this study was to gain insight on the lived experiences of Woodlawn
College undergraduate faculty who participate in librarian-led information literacy instruction
sessions. The question this research project sought to answer was “How do Woodlawn College
undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction?” The
importance of addressing this research question is that it could facilitate a dialog between faculty
and librarians as to how they can work together to ensure that students receive a quality
education.
The contents of this chapter are divided into four major sections. The first section of this
chapter discusses the nuances of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), why it is an
appropriate methodological approach for this study, and how it serves as the foundation for my
interview protocol and data collection. The second and third segments of this chapter identifies
the study subjects, discusses the sampling strategy, rationalizes the study sample size, and
outlines the studies data collection protocol. The last portion of this paper focuses on how this
study incorporates the key components of high quality qualitative research, such as ethics,
credibility, transferability, an internal audit, self-reflexivity, and transparency. This chapter
culminates with a statement on the limitations of the study and the conclusion.
Qualitative Research Approach
This research study applied a qualitative research approach to address the identified
problem of practice. A qualitative research method was utilized because according to Ponterotto
(2005) this approach is “designed to describe and interpret the experiences research participants
have in a context-specific setting” (p. 128). Another reason for applying this methodology was
49
that qualitative research presents interview data in the subjects’ own words in order to detail a
psychological event, experience, or phenomenon (Ponterotto, 2005).
This study also adhered to the constructivist-interpretivist research paradigm. In contrast
to the positivist paradigm’s single, objective reality, the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm
assumes that there are multiple and equally valid realities (Merriam, 1991; Ponterotto, 2005).
Interpretivists argue that reality is constructed in the mind and cannot be measured (Merriam,
1991). They also notably maintain that “meaning is hidden and must be brought to the surface
through deep reflection” (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 129). The primary reason for using the
constructivist-interpretivist research paradigm was that it allowed the investigator to draw from
the subjects, (a) how they made sense of their lives, (b) what experiences they had, and (c) how
they interpreted those experiences (Merriam, 1991). Furthermore, it allowed the investigator to
explore “how certain things happen” (Merriam, 1991, p. 49). Since the primary objective of this
study was to understand how Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty made sense of their
experiences during librarian-led instruction, the interpretivist-constructivist paradigm is the most
appropriate research approach.
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
The methodological approach used for this study was Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA). IPA is a qualitative methodology that facilitates the exploration of how people
make sense of their life experiences (Alase, 2017). IPA researchers attempt to uncover
experiential accounts from participants by asking them to describe events, relationships, or
emotions that they may feel (Shaw, 2010). From an individualized or idiographic perspective,
IPA research seeks to understand the lived experiences of a person and the sense the person
makes of what is happening to them (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009, p. 3). IPA is influenced
50
by two theoretical traditions: phenomenology and hermeneutics (Shaw, 2010).
Phenomenology. The philosophy of phenomenology was formally developed in the
early twentieth century under the influence of a German philosopher named Edmund Husserl
(Shosha, 2012). Husserl formalized the philosophy of phenomenology in order to “establish a
rigorous and unbiased approach that appears to arrive at an essential understanding of human
consciousness and experience” (Shosha, 2012, p. 31). Consequently, phenomenology aims to
gain a deeper understanding of a person’s lived experience as well as the phenomenon
experienced by the person (Shosha, 2012). According to Shosha (2012), phenomenologists seek
answers to questions such as “What is the experience like? What is the essence of the
phenomenon experienced? What is the meaning of the phenomenon to the people who are
experiencing it?”
The two prominent approaches to phenomenology are descriptive and interpretive
(Connelly, 2010; Shosha, 2012; Lopez & Willis, 2004). Husserl’s philosophy about scientific
inquiry influenced the development of descriptive phenomenology (Lopez & Willis, 2004).
Husserl made three major assumptions about studying human consciousness. Husserl’s first
assumption was that people do not critically reflect on their everyday experiences (Lopez &
Willis 2004). As a result, researchers who study human consciousness need to use a scientific
approach to bring out the essential components of a person’s lived experiences (Lopez & Willis,
2004). Husserl’s second assumption was that in order to study human consciousness a
researcher must bracket or “put aside” one’s personal biases, assumptions, and presuppositions
by declaring what they are prior to undertaking a study (Shosha, 2012). The practice of
bracketing ensures the validity of data collection/analysis and preserves the objectivity of the
phenomenon (Shosha, 2012). Husserl’s third assumption was that some aspects of a lived
51
experience is common to everyone who has had the same experience (Lopez & Willis, 2004).
These universal essences or eidetic structures “represent the true nature of the phenomenon” and
are assumed the one correct interpretation of the experience (Lopez & Willis, 2004, p. 728).
According to Lopez and Willis (2004), the notion that eidetic structures can be parsed from lived
experiences without a consideration of context “is reflective of the values of traditional science
and represent Husserl’s attempt to make phenomenology a rigorous science” (p. 728).
A student of Husserl named Martin Heidegger, challenged the assumptions of descriptive
phenomenology through the application of interpretation or hermeneutics (Lopez & Willis,
2004). Heidegger made four prominent philosophical assumptions about the interpretive
phenomenological approach. The central assumptions of Heidegger’s philosophy on interpretive
phenomenology were that a person’s reality was inextricably influenced by the world in which
they live and that they cannot separate themselves from it (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Another
assumption of Heidegger was that a person’s experiences were “inextricably linked with social,
cultural, and political contexts” and that this constraint influences their freedom to make certain
choices (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Heidegger’s final assumption was that “presuppositions or
expert knowledge on the part of the researcher are valuable guides to inquiry and, in fact, make
the inquiry a meaningful undertaking” (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Essentially, Heidegger
challenged the practice of Husserl’s bracketing by arguing that preconceptions were helpful to
the research process (Lopez & Willis, 2004).
There are several differences in the descriptive and interpretive phenomenological
approaches. Descriptive phenomenology strives to understand the general characteristics of a
phenomenon rather than describe an individual’s experiences (Tuohy et al., 2013). Interpretive
phenomenology, which is used in this study, aims to “describe, understand and interpret
52
participants’ experiences” (Tuohy et al., 2013, p. 18). In descriptive phenomenology, bracketing
is used to prevent researcher bias (Wojnar & Swanson, 2007). The interpretive
phenomenological approach relies on “understanding and co-creation by the researcher and the
participants” to ensure that the investigator’s interpretations are meaningful and valid (Wojnar &
Swanson, 2007, p. 176). Lastly, interpretive phenomenology differs from the descriptive
approach in that a theoretical framework is not used in a formal way to generate hypotheses to be
tested (Lopez & Willis, 2004). In the interpretive approach, a theoretical framework is used to
“focus the inquiry where research is needed and is used to make decisions about sample,
subjects, and research questions to be addressed” (Lopez & Willis, 2004, p. 730).
Hermeneutics. The second theoretical principle of IPA is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics
is the process or method of bringing out hidden meaning from the human experience. IPA
researchers employ a double hermeneutic whereby he or she is “trying to make sense of the
participant trying to make sense of what is happening to them” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 3). Since
IPA research is highly detailed, in-depth, and “committed to understanding how particular
experiential phenomena have been understood from the perspective of particular people, in a
particular context”, IPA uses a “small, purposively-selected and carefully-situated” sample to
collect data (Smith et al., 2009, p. 29).
Rationale for IPA
IPA researchers focus on research questions that explore participant experiences or
understandings of a particular phenomenon (Smith et al., 2009). The IPA methodology was
chosen for this study because it has assisted with framing the research question and organizing
the collection of data. The orientation of IPA researchers is to focus on views, perceptions, and
lived experiences of their subjects (Smith et al., 2009). This perspective aligned with my
53
research question that explored how Woodlawn College faculty made meaning of librarian-led
information literacy instruction.
In terms of data collection, the IPA methodology allows a researcher to solicit from their
subjects, “rich, detailed, first-person accounts of their experiences” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 56).
Smith et al. (2009) contended that IPA data allows participants “to tell their stories, to speak
freely and reflectively, and to develop their ideas and express their concerns at some length” (p.
56). The way in which data is collected for IPA studies is through in-depth, one-on-one
interviews, diaries, postal questionnaires, electronic e-mail dialogue, focus groups, and
observational methods (Smith et al., 2009). Since the literature calls for a more in-depth
exploration of faculty perceptions on information literacy instruction (Bury, 2011; Julien et al.,
2018), the IPA methodological approach would be ideal for these aforementioned reasons.
According to Wojnar and Swanson (2007), IPA data is typically analyzed in several
steps: (a) reading of interview data, (b) coding for themes, (c) clarifying with participants the
interpretation of the themes, (d) comparing and contrasting different data sets in order to describe
common meanings, and (e) eliciting suggestions from another person to finalize the drafting of
findings (p. 177). The process of confirming identified themes with participants and the rigor of
the data analysis justified the necessity for using IPA for investigating this particular problem of
practice.
Participants
The six participants for this study were selected using a purposive sampling strategy,
which is consistent with how IPA studies recruit subjects (Smith et al., 2009). A purposive
sampling strategy was also used because, in order for the data to be meaningful, the subjects
54
must have experienced the phenomenon and were able to describe their experiences about it
(Ahmed & Islam, 2012). Purposeful sampling is a “strategic selection of information-rich cases”
that can assist in answering a research question (Bungay, Oliffe, & Atchison, 2016, p. 967).
Setting
Woodlawn College is a private, nonprofit institution that has four campuses located in the
New York Tri-State area. Woodlawn College offers more than 90 undergraduate and graduate
degree and certificate programs within various disciplines such as business, education, liberal
arts, and the health professions. As of the fall of 2017, Woodlawn College had a total
enrollment, including undergraduates and graduates, of nearly 10,000 students. The college has
a diverse student body with a population of 35% Hispanic, 30% White, and 21% Black. The
U.S. Department of Education recognizes Woodlawn College as a Hispanic Serving Institution
(HSI) since it enrolls more than 25% or more undergraduate Latina/o students. The majority of
the student population at Woodlawn College are first-generation college students and come from
low-income families.
Sample
A diverse demographic in terms of age (21-55+), gender, and ethnicity were recruited to
participate in the study. Recruitment in these areas, however, was limited by the pool of faculty
eligible to participate in the study. The study consisted of six participants who had experienced a
librarian-led instruction session. This sample size was commensurate with current library
science studies that have used IPA (Ahmed & Islam, 2012; VanScoy, 2013; VanScoy, 2012;
VanScoy & Bright, 2017). Furthermore, for professional doctorates, “four to ten” interviews are
typical because the quality of interviews is more important than quantity (Smith et al., 2009, p.
55
52). According to Smith et al. (2009), “It is important not to see the higher numbers as being
indicative of ‘better’ work… successful analysis requires time, reflection and dialogue, and
larger datasets tend to inhibit all of these things” (p. 52).
The participants who were eligible for the study were full-time, undergraduate faculty
that teach at least two sections of a general education course. There were three reasons why this
specific population was chosen. The decision to work with only full-time faculty was consistent
with the data analysis of another heavily cited study (Vander Meer, Perez-Stable, & Sachs,
2012). The rationale for the course load criteria was that faculty who taught at least two sections
of a general education course were likely to have worked with a librarian multiple times. Lastly,
the reason for only targeting undergraduate faculty, as opposed to mixing the sample with
graduate faculty, was so that the homogeneity of the testing population was preserved.
According to Smith et al. (2009), IPA researchers tend to use a homogeneous sample that is
meaningful to the research question of their study.
Data Collection
The types of data that were collected from the participants were a questionnaire that
collected demographic data (Appendix A), a member checking form (Appendix E) and audio-
recordings from two face-to-face interviews. There are advantages and disadvantages to
collecting demographic data, member checking forms and audio-taped interviews. Varcoe,
Browne, Wong and Smye (2009) argued that demographic data, in particular information on
ethnicity, is beneficial because it helps a researcher make connections between what they are
examining with the participants. Ahmed and Islam (2012) also stated that demographic
information could help the researcher describe the study sample. A potential problem that can
arise from demographic data is if the participants have difficulty classifying themselves on the
56
pre-defined form when self-reporting. Varcoe et al. (2009) noted that the question on race and
ethnicity was a common culprit for confusion because of how questionnaires often conflate race
and ethnicity.
Member checking is a process that allows a researcher to validate their data analysis by
returning to the study subjects for a second interview (Birt et al., 2016). The primary benefit of
member checking is that it mitigates a researcher’s bias (Birt et al., 2016). Member checking
also enhances rigor to qualitative research by ensuring that “credibility is inherent in the accurate
descriptions or interpretations of the phenomena” (Birt et al., 2016, p. 1803). Furthermore,
member checking provides a space for participants to engage with the researcher (Birt et al.,
2016). The main drawback to member checking is that researchers may have difficulty
reconciling differences of interpretation between themselves and their subjects (Bryman, 2004).
There are several strengths and weaknesses to face-to-face interview data. The benefit of
face-to-face interviews is that an interviewer can observe social cues, such as voice, body
language, etc., which offers more information than verbal data (Opdenakker, 2006). Another
strength of face-to-face interviews is that there is no time delay between the interviewer’s
questions and the interviewee’s answers; this allows the interviewer to react to whatever is said
by the interviewee in real time, which could enhance and enrich the data collected (Opdenakker,
2006). The benefit of audio-recording interviews is that it is more accurate than writing notes
(Opdenakker, 2006).
The major drawback of face-to-face interviews is that the interviewer can easily become
distracted by social cues or unexpected reactions by participants (Opdenakker, 2006). Another
disadvantage of interviews is that the interviewer must multi-task by listening, taking notes and
asking pertinent questions to maintain focus (Opdenakker, 2006). Although tape-recording
57
interviews is more accurate than writing notes, the danger of this practice is that the researcher
may neglect to take notes. Opdenakker (2006) claimed that note taking was important because it
ensures that all questions are answered from the interview protocol and it safeguards the loss of
crucial data if the tape recorder malfunctions.
Procedures
After securing approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the procedures for
this research study were completed in four phases.
Phase one. The subjects for the study were chosen through a purposeful sampling
strategy. After reviewing the 2018 fall course grid and the roster of full-time faculty, recruitment
emails (Appendix B) were sent out to qualifying faculty asking for their participation. Faculty
were considered eligible to participate in this study if they were ranked above instructor and
taught more than two sections of a general education course. In addition, in order to participate
in the study, the faculty member must have had some experience collaborating with a librarian
that resulted in the librarian conducting an information literacy session in their course.
Phase two. Faculty members, who accepted the invitation for a face-to-face interview,
were scheduled to meet with the researcher for an audio-recorded interview, in a location of their
choosing. At the time of the interview, the subjects were given a consent form (Appendix D)
and a questionnaire (Appendix A) to fill out. The aim of the interview was to ascertain how the
faculty member made sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction sessions. The
participant was assigned a pseudonym and asked several open-ended questions, within a 60 to 90
minute timeframe, using a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix C). After the questions
in the interview protocol were addressed, a tentative date for a 30 to 45 minute follow-up
58
interview was scheduled.
Phase three. The audio-tape of the interviews were transcribed and all audio files were
labeled under the assigned pseudonym and stored both on the researcher’s password protected
personal computer and to an external hard drive. The outside transcription company used was
not allowed to contact the subjects nor were they provided access to any identifying information.
All artifacts, such as the audio-recordings, interview notes, and questionnaires, were locked in a
cabinet at the researcher’s residence; the secured cabinet was only accessible to the researcher
involved in this project.
Phase four. The subjects met with the researcher for the second interview. The purpose
of the second interview was to ask any necessary follow up questions and to confirm the validity
of the researcher’s interpretations using the member checking form (Appendix E). In
appreciation for participating in the study, the faculty were provided with a $25 gift card at the
conclusion of the second interview. The gift card was a modest amount to minimize the
influence it had on the subject’s responses or willingness to participate in the study. The
participants were informed prior to enrolling in the study that they would receive a gift card for
participating.
Data Analysis
There were five steps to the data analysis process for this study. Each of the steps are
consistent with those highlighted in the works of Smith et al. (2009) and Shaw (2010).
Step one. The transcripts were reviewed in tandem with listening to the corresponding
audio-recordings. According to Smith et al. (2009), this process “assists with a more complete
analysis” because it ensures that the participant is the focus and not part of the researcher’s own
59
inclination for making reductions and summarizes (p. 82). As part of the audit trail, a reflective
diary was maintained in order to record the initial and most striking observations about the
transcript (Smith et al., 2009; Shaw, 2010). This bracketing process demonstrates how the
researcher transitioned from the raw data to the interpretation presented in the results (Shaw,
2010).
Step two. After transcribing the interviews, initial noting process was conducted which
involved examining semantic content and language use (Smith et al., 2009). This step involved
“identifying specific ways by which the participant talks about, understands and thinks about an
issue” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 83). The central goal of this step was to describe key objects of
concern for the participant such as relationships, places, values and principles (Smith et al.,
2009). Alongside these descriptive notes, interpretative notes were taken to understand how and
why these objects were a cause for concern.
In addition to descriptive and interpretative noting, other exploratory commenting
strategies were used, such as linguistic and conceptual commenting. Linguistic noting examines
how the participant uses language to express him or herself. Linguistic notes highlight aspects of
language such as pauses, repetition, tone, hesitancy, and laughter (Smith et al., 2009).
Conceptual noting focuses on the subject’s overarching understanding of the phenomena being
explored in the study. Conceptual notations “inevitably draw on [the researcher’s] experiential
and/or professional knowledge” and connects these pre-understandings with the “newly
emerging understandings of the participant’s world” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 89).
Step three. In order to identify the emergent themes, the initial notes and the exploratory
comments were re-examined and organized thematically. Once the emergent themes were
identified, the next step was to produce a statement that articulated what was important about
60
each theme (Smith et al., 2009). The emergent themes did not only reflect “the participant’s
original words and thoughts but also the analyst’s interpretation” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 92).
Step four. At this stage of data analysis, the emergent themes were established that
highlighted the most compelling aspects of the participant’s account (Smith et al., 2009). The
connections and patterns between emergent themes were identified using NVivo software and
several IPA manual analytic processes, such as abstraction and subsumption. The process of
abstraction occurs when a super-ordinate theme is created through the merger of several similar
emergent themes (Smith et al., 2009). Subsumption is the analytic process whereby an emergent
theme obtains a super-ordinate status to help bring together a series of related themes (Smith et
al., 2009). The themes were organized in a table to help with analysis.
Step five. The final step involved bracketing the ideas emerging from the analysis of the
previous subject’s collected data. According to Smith et al. (2009), each case changes the
researcher’s fore-structure and inevitably influences the next case. The key to avoiding this from
discrediting the study is to rigorously follow each step outlined for each participant. Once all of
the participants’ responses had been reviewed individually, the researcher then looked for
patterns across the cases.
Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research
There are several key components to high quality qualitative research (Tracy, 2010).
These components include ethics, credibility, transferability, self-reflexivity, transparency, and
the researcher’s internal audit (Tracy, 2010). This segment of the study explores these
aforementioned qualitative research markers.
61
Ethical Considerations
Two ethical considerations are required of a qualitative research study must make to
ensure it is of the highest caliber. The first ethical consideration is procedural. Procedural ethics
refers to “ethical actions dictated as universally necessary by larger organizations, institutions or
governing bodies” (Tracy, 2010, p. 847). The way in which the researcher adhered to the
procedural ethic marker was through securing IRB clearance from both Northeastern University
and Woodlawn College. The researcher also observed procedural ethics by securing personal
information in locked compartments, de-identifying data to avoid identification of participants,
and using passwords to protect information.
The second ethical consideration the researcher observed was relational. Relational
ethics “recognizes and values mutual respect, dignity, and connectedness between research and
researched” (Ellis, 2007, p. 4). Relational ethics also “requires researchers to act from [their]
hearts and minds, to acknowledge [their] interpersonal bond to others, and initiate and maintain
conversations” (Ellis, 2007, p. 4). The researcher adhered to relational ethics by allowing
participants to voice their concerns when they felt uncomfortable or to ask questions when they
had concerns about where the interview was leading.
Trustworthiness
In order to show credibility, the researcher used practices such as thick description,
triangulation, and member checking. The researcher used thick description by providing enough
details in the report to allow the reader to understand how a conclusion was reached; this was
opposed to telling the reader what to think (Tracy, 2010). Although triangulation does not
perfectly align with the interpretative paradigm’s viewpoint that there are multiple realities, it is
62
still considered a valuable practice by the research community (Tracy, 2010). The researcher
employed triangulation in this study through the audits by the dissertation chair, the proposed
theoretical framework, and the research findings from other studies. The goal of doing this was
not to arrive at a single truth but to grasp a more complex, in-depth understanding of the
phenomena in question (Tracy, 2010). Member checking was used to confirm with the subjects
that the reported findings were accurate and reflective of their experiences.
Transferability
According to Tracy (2010), a reader feels a study was transferable if the research was
applicable to their situation. Researchers can make their study transferable by “gathering direct
testimony, providing rich description, and writing accessibly and invitationally” (Tracy, 2010, p.
845). Since my study explored the direct testimony of faculty, readers of this study could learn
how faculty perceive the instructional roles of librarians. The application of thick description
allows the reader to draw their own conclusions because the report has abundant and concrete
details. The knowledge learned from this study could improve outreach efforts, inform
instructional practices, and facilitate collaboration initiatives.
Internal Audit
To ensure that this study is viewed as valid, an audit trail of all the research data was
organized in a way that an auditor could follow the evidence that leads from initial
documentation to the final report. The data in the audit trail was presented in a “logical step-by-
step path” whereby someone could check the rigor of the researcher’s claims (Smith et al., 2009,
p. 183). The audit trail consists of audio-tapes, demographic questionnaires, the research
proposal, an interview schedule, table of themes, draft reports, and the final report.
63
Self-reflexivity and Transparency
Transparency and self-reflexivity practices in qualitative research are important because
it highlights the researcher’s bias and the motives behind conducting the study. In the form of a
positionality statement, I first share how my identity or social locality, in relation to power and
privilege, affects my research. Secondly, I discuss what personal experiences influence my
beliefs about information literacy instruction. The third portion of my positionality statement
examines how my prior knowledge about information literacy may influence this research. The
fourth segment of this statement explores the biases that could have conceivably weakened my
research efforts and how I controlled for them.
Social locality. My identity or social locality is shaped by my gender, religious
background, sexual orientation, educational background, and ethnicity. Some of these social
localities grant me greater access to power (e.g., my gender, religion, sexual orientation, and
education) while others place me on the outside of the societal margin and power structure (e.g.
my ethnicity). Understanding how my identity positions me in relation to power and privilege
kept me honest as to how I drew my research conclusions. I also realized it was important to
explore my positionality because it affects how I make sense of the world around me.
My identity as a heterosexual man puts me in a greater position of power and privilege
relative to women in academe and librarianship. Statistically, within the United States, men are
unjustifiably paid higher wages than women (Blau & Kahn, 2007). Furthermore, heterosexual
men are given more latitude socially in the workplace than both women and homosexuals
(Anderson, 2013, p. 167). Being aware of my privileged identity as a heterosexual male
prevented me from “othering” or distancing myself away from the two female participants.
Othering is marginalizing or subordinating another group because of their characteristics such as
64
gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (Briscoe, 2005). “Hausendorf and Kesselheim wrote
that the more we background someone the greater distance we place between them and
ourselves, thus backgrounding is a form of marginalization” (as cited by Briscoe, 2005, p. 30).
There are other aspects of my identity, however, that denies me access to power and
privilege. Since Euro-American men dominate the power structure in the United States, there are
systemic policies in place that ensure that positions of privilege are neither relinquished nor
shared. Consequently, my identity as an African American makes certain privileges
inaccessible. When working with the three White male participants, parts of my identity fell
within the oppressed class. According to Briscoe (2005), when we place certain aspects of our
identity in the foreground we essentially background or “other” our remaining identities (p. 30).
As I conducted my research, it was important that I was aware of which part of my identity I was
bringing to the foreground and which I was leaving in the background. Briscoe (2005) surmised
that foregrounding our identities can happen at any point depending on the situation (p. 30). By
staying cognizant of what identity I brought to the foreground, I was able to balance how much
distance I placed between myself and the White male participants.
Personal experiences. My personal experience with information literacy instruction
shaped how I approached my problem of practice. My introduction to the concept of information
literacy began when I was an undergraduate. In retrospect, I attribute much of my success in
college to the librarians that provided information literacy instruction. I am a type of learner that
learns through interaction. Since every information literacy session I experienced as an
undergraduate included hands on exercises, many of the techniques I learned through interaction
have been helpful throughout my personal and professional life. The information literacy
instruction I received in college has left a lasting imprint on how critical it is for students to be
65
exposed to this type of curricula today. Since my personal experiences with information literacy
instruction were positive, I realized that I should not let this perspective interfere with my
research analysis.
Professional experiences. Since part of my work responsibilities involve library
reference and instruction, I brought prior knowledge to my problem of practice that I had to take
into consideration. A major part of my job responsibilities is to provide information literacy
instruction to general education undergraduate courses. As a member of my library’s
instructional assessment team, I have tailored our library instruction to meet the standards
established by the American Library Association (ALA) and the Association of College and
Research Libraries (ACRL). By aligning our instruction to ALA and ACRL standards, we are
not only ensuring that students are successful but we are also facilitating life-long learning
(Association of College and Research Libraries, 2015). Although my professional experience
provided context for my problem of practice, I had to separate my opinions about information
literacy instruction from those of my participants or risk compromising my data. One of the
ways I controlled my bias in this regard was by being open-minded about my research data
(Machi & McEvoy, 2012).
Potential bias. Machi and McEvoy (2012) pointed out that researchers oftentimes have
personal attachments or biases about their topic that could potentially weaken their research
efforts (p. 18). Machi and McEvoy (2012) added that in order to control for bias, a researcher
must identify what those personal views were and bring them forward. While exploring my
problem of practice, I realized my profession creates a bias that could result in drawing
premature conclusions in my research. I am invested in this problem of practice because
information literacy programming is vital to the survival and role academic librarians play as
66
college instructors. Declines in information literacy instruction could relegate academic
librarians to assume support service roles (e.g. tutoring, proctoring, advising, etc.) for which they
may not be qualified or did not earn a degree in. Furthermore, as an academic librarian, I am
ethically obligated to heighten the information literacy level of all college students. The only
way I can fulfill this obligation is to collaborate with faculty and integrate information literacy
instruction into credit-bearing courses. Although it is essential to figure out ways to collaborate
with faculty, I must be cautious of trying to make meaning out of something the data does not
support.
In summary, it was important for me to be aware of what parts of my identity I was
foregrounding when I worked with participants because that ensured I did not marginalize them.
As I worked on my problem of practice, I learned to parse my opinions about information
literacy instruction from those of my participants so that I did not compromise my research
results. The way I accomplished that was by being open-minded about my research findings
(Machi & McEvoy, 2012). I realized that if I did not mitigate the effects of my bias, then any
results I found during my research efforts would have marginalized those who stood to
ultimately benefit most, which are college students.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this research study. The principle limitation is that even
though the theoretical framework can reasonably explain some of the behaviors exhibited by
faculty, it cannot be used to explicate every belief, experience, or attitude held by faculty
(Galletta & Heckman, 1990). The research study is also limited by the small sample size of full-
time faculty interviewed. Since the inclusion criteria for the study requires the participants to
have taught a specific type of course, the interviewed subjects does not reflect the attitudes held
67
by most faculty. Furthermore, this study is unable to avoid sampling bias because a purposive
sampling strategy was used to recruit all of the subjects.
Conclusion
This study explored how Woodlawn College faculty made sense of information literacy
instruction using an IPA methodology. IPA was chosen because it is a constructivist-
interpretivist paradigm that explores participant experiences or understandings of a particular
phenomenon (Smith et al., 2009). This methodology helped answer this study’s research
question which examined the perceptions of faculty. IPA was conducive to soliciting responses
from participants that answered how they made sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction and what were their experiences in those sessions. IPA was also chosen because it
allowed the researcher to collect detailed, first-person experiential accounts from participants. In
order to capture the rich, detailed accounts of the subjects, a small sample size of six faculty
members were recruited. Data collection and analysis were consistent with IPA norms and the
research of Smith et al. (2009) and Shaw (2010). During the study, the researcher controlled for
bias, protected participant information, maintained an audit trail, and adhered to the codes of
ethical research conduct. The major drawback to this research was that similar to most IPA
studies, this investigation is limited by the sampling strategy and the small sample size.
68
Chapter Four: Findings and Analysis
The purpose of this Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis study was to understand
how Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty made sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction. In order to explore the perceptions of faculty, six Woodlawn College professors
were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule. The six subjects interviewed in
this study taught at least two general education courses in the fall 2018 semester. All six of the
participants had also requested a librarian to teach an information literacy session to their class in
the past.
The data analysis of the participants’ responses revealed four superordinate themes and
twelve subthemes (Table 4.1). The superordinate and subthemes were:
1. Faculty understand the concept of information literacy in similar ways to
library professionals. (1.1 Access information, 1.2 Evaluate information,
and 1.3 Utilize information).
2. Faculty believe there are distinctive roles librarians and faculty play in
teaching students information literacy. (2.1 Faculty have a role in
incorporating information literacy in assignments, 2.2 Faculty have a role
in teaching information literacy, 2.3 Librarians have a role in teaching
information literacy inside the classroom, 2.4 Librarians have a role in
teaching information literacy outside the classroom, and 2.5 Librarians
have a role in supplementing instruction).
3. Faculty have a positive perception of librarian-led information literacy
instruction. (3.1 Receptive to librarian-led information literacy sessions,
69
and 3.2 Expectations were met while working with librarians).
4. Faculty encountered challenges with librarian-led information literacy
instruction. (4.1 Concerns about teaching techniques, and 4.2 Concerns
about instructional content).
Table 4.1
Superordinate and Subthemes
Participant Matthew Mark Luke Mary John Ruth
1. Faculty understand the concept of
information literacy in similar ways to library
professionals
1.1 Access information X X X X X
1.2 Evaluate information X X X X X
1.3 Utilize information X X X X X
2. Faculty believe there are distinctive roles
librarians and faculty play in teaching
information literacy
2.1 Faculty have a role in incorporating
information literacy in assignments X X X X
2.2 Faculty have a role in teaching information
literacy X X X X
2.3 Librarians have a role in teaching
information literacy inside the classroom X X X X X X
2.4 Librarians have a role in teaching
information literacy outside the classroom X X X X X X
2.5 Librarians have a role in supplementing
instruction X X X X X
3. Faculty have a positive perception of
librarian-led information literacy instruction
70
3.1 Receptive to librarian-led information
literacy sessions X X X X X
3.2 Expectations were met while working with
librarians X X X X X
4. Faculty encountered challenges with
librarian-led information literacy instruction
4.1 Concerns about teaching techniques X X X
4.2 Concerns about instructional content X X X X X
The Research Site
This study was conducted at a private, nonprofit institution that has four campuses in the
New York Tri-State Area. Woodlawn College offers more than 90 undergraduate and graduate
degree programs within various disciplines such as business, education, liberal arts, and the
health professions. The college has a diverse student body population of nearly 10,000 students.
The U.S. Department of Education recognizes Woodlawn College as a Hispanic Serving
Institution because more than 25% of its undergraduate students are Latina/o. The majority of
the student population are first-generation college students from low-income families.
The Participants
The six participants in this study were faculty who had experienced a librarian-led
information literacy session. The faculty who were eligible to participate were full-time faculty
who taught at least two sections of a general education course. According to the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (2014), general education courses are classes that are designed
for students to acquire and demonstrate essential skills in areas such as quantitative reasoning,
critical thinking, and information literacy. The following sections introduce the participants and
71
provide a brief description of their background.
Participant Background
Matthew (a pseudonym). He holds a faculty rank of Professor and has worked at
Woodlawn College for over twenty-five years. Matthew teaches two general education classes
and three course sections in the Humanities. In addition to teaching general education courses,
Matthew also teaches some upper level or “major level” courses in the Humanities.
Mark (a pseudonym). He is an Assistant Professor and has “a total of seven years
[experience] as a full-time faculty member” working in “a gen ed (general education) type
program”. Mark has been employed at Woodlawn College for three years. He teaches two
general education classes and five course sections in the Humanities. In addition to teaching
general education classes, Mark also teaches some honors capstone courses.
Luke (a pseudonym). He is an Assistant Professor and has been a full-time instructor in
higher education for over five years. Luke has been a faculty member at Woodlawn for three of
those years. He teaches two general education classes and four course sections in the
Humanities.
Mary (a pseudonym). She is an Assistant Professor in the Social Sciences. Mary has
been teaching at Woodlawn for less than a year. She has taught 15 classes, in various modalities,
as an adjunct at another institution in the New York City area prior to working at Woodlawn
College. Mary teaches two general education classes and two course sections in the Social
Sciences.
John (a pseudonym). He holds a faculty rank of Associate Professor and has been
employed at Woodlawn for 19 years. Prior to joining the faculty at Woodlawn, John had
72
experience working with at-risk community college students. John teaches three general
education classes and two course sections in the Liberal Arts.
Ruth (a pseudonym). She is an Assistant Professor in the Humanities discipline. Ruth
has been a faculty member at Woodlawn for 5 years. Ruth has experience teaching in honors
programs at other colleges. She teaches four general education classes and four course sections
in the Humanities.
This chapter discusses the results of interviews with six faculty members who
participated in the study. After each superordinate and subtheme are defined, the chapter
concludes with a summation of the study’s research findings.
Theme 1: Faculty Understand the Concept of Information Literacy in Ways Similar to
Library Professionals
The first superordinate theme, which emerged from the participant responses, was that
faculty conceptualized the term information literacy similar to how it is defined by the
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Librarians define information literacy
as being able to effectively and efficiently access, evaluate, and use information in a variety of
situations (Julien, 2016). All of the participants were cognizant of at least two fundamental
aspects of information literacy. Some of these concepts included: accessing information,
evaluating information, and utilizing information. Only three participants referred to three facets
of information literacy in their understanding of the term.
Access Information
Five of the participants discussed the concept of accessing “appropriate information”
when they described their understanding of the term information literacy. Matthew characterized
73
information literacy as “being able to access appropriate information”. He added, that
information literacy also means incorporating that “appropriate information” into one’s “research
work”. Matthew noted that “critical thinking” was the process by which a student “determine the
appropriateness of the information that they have accessed in the library”. Luke also emphasized
in his articulation of information literacy the concept of accessing “appropriate information”.
Luke expounded on Matthew’s definition of information literacy by stating it was the “skill of…
selecting the appropriate tools, techniques, and terms with which to access that information…”
Mary’s understanding of information literacy focused not only on being able to access
information but also on where an individual finds information. She defined information literacy
as knowing “…how to find information, how to find different sources in the library, and also
online”. She added that information literacy was also about understanding how to access
information “independently” and to “know where that source came from”. Mary conceptualized
information literacy as comprehending how to access information from both physical and virtual
spaces. Consistent with Mary and Luke’s conceptualization of information literacy, Mark’s
description of the term centered on being able to access information using a particular “tool” or
resource. He stated that a “basic skill” of information literacy was “being able to use a database”
to access information.
Similar to the other four participants, John also recognized information literacy as being
able to access information. He stated, information literacy means “knowing how to find out,
through research, information”. John uniquely refers to information literacy as “information
fluency”, because he believes an information literate person was able to do more than “reiterate
quickly what they think they need to do”. He argued that information literacy was “finding the
means and evidence to support your answer”. The participants also understood the process of
74
evaluating information as integral to defining information literacy.
Evaluate Information
Five of the participants defined information literacy as being able to evaluate
information. Matthew stated that in order to be information literate, “you have to be able to
understand what you hope to find” and be able “to evaluate the sources”. Ruth added that
information literacy was also being able to “interpret” and “analyze” information. Mary asserted
information literacy was being able to look at a source and determine where it came from. She
stated it involves recognizing “the difference between a book or a journal article, peer reviewed
article versus a newspaper article”. Mary conceptualized information literacy as understanding
the source from where information has been extracted and knowing how to evaluate it based on
the source type. She described the evaluative process as asking, “where is this article coming
from and what does that mean in terms of it being peer reviewed… how is it relevant for policy
or whatever specific questions they’re asking”.
Two of the participants understood the principle of evaluating information as being able
to determine if the information was trustworthy. Mark said,
We’re constantly getting and processing this information and some of it is high quality.
Some of it is low quality, and you have to be able to make an evaluation of the quality of
the information. And students need to be able to figure out how to do that. They need to
come up with some kind of mental rubric that allows them to say, ‘I should trust this
person. I should trust this source,’ or ‘I should not trust that person or that source’.
Luke defined information literacy as “recognizing the need for information, framing
research questions… evaluating trustworthiness of sources, and using information ethically and
75
legally”. It is worth noting that Luke believed “evaluating trustworthiness” was a “subskill” that
was not unique to information literacy. Luke asserted that “evaluating the trustworthiness of
information sources” overlaps with areas, such as critical thinking. According to Luke,
information literacy was similar to critical thinking in that “one has to ask critical questions and
make judgments about the quality of the reasoning that one encounters”. The participants also
described information literacy as being able to utilize information.
Utilize Information
A common response among five of the participants was the notion that information
literacy was the ability to utilize information once it is retrieved. Matthew described information
literacy as “being able to utilize and incorporate… information into your research work”. Luke
took Matthew’s definition a step further by asserting information literacy is “… using that
information in a way that is ethical and legal”. When Ruth described her understanding of
information literacy, she stated “well, it’s being able to read, there’s the literacy part, the
information that is provided for you. And being not just [able] to read it, but to interpret it,
analyze it and put it to use”. The participants understood information literacy as not only being
capable of using information but also having the ability to incorporate and “interact” with the
information accessed. John said,
Well, information literacy means knowing how to find out, through research,
information. I prefer to think of it as information fluency because I don’t only want the
students to know how [to use information], because they can reiterate quickly what they
think they need… Fluency means that they’re capable of actually enacting and
interacting with the information.
76
Two of the participants’ conceptualization of information literacy extended beyond the
understanding of using and incorporating information; they discussed areas of information
literacy such as citing sources, mining references, and validating arguments. Mary stated an
information literate person was “comfortable with accessing knowledge, reading it, citing it,
being able to look at the sources at the end of an article and figure[ing] out what might be helpful
for them to give a second look at in their own project”. She also stated that information literacy
entailed being able to “summarize” a source and comprehending the source’s “limitations” for
answering one’s research question. Adding to Mary’s point, John mentioned,
Information literacy also shows them that there are multiple answers to things that there
isn’t one right or wrong, and that there are ways of arguing. So, it’s more than just
finding the answer, it’s also finding the means and evidence to support your answer.
Conclusions. The participants defined information literacy as being able to access,
evaluate, and utilize information. All six of the participants interviewed mentioned at least two
principles of information literacy, while half of them referenced three. Five of the participants
believed information literacy means a person was able to access information germane to the topic
they are searching. They believed the capability to “access” information allows an individual to
substantiate their argument with evidence. Five subjects also described information literacy as
being able to evaluate information. As explained by the participants, evaluating information was
recognizing whether a resource was credible or as stated by Mark, being able to “critically judge,
is this content trustworthy? Does it come from an expert? [and] Is it reliably sourced”?
A common theme among five of the participant responses was the notion that information
literacy was being able to utilize retrieved information. The participants’ understanding of the
principle of utilization ranged from being able to “engage” with, to “incorporate”, and to
77
“enacting and interacting with” information. Two of the participants definitions of information
literacy involved sophisticated examples of how a source could be used, such as being able to
probe a resource for references and comprehending its limitations for addressing a research
problem. The participants’ descriptions of information literacy confirmed they were aware of
what the term meant. The faculties’ understanding of information literacy was similar to how it
is defined in the library science literature. The participants’ grasp of the concept allowed them to
discuss what role librarians and faculty play in teaching information literacy to students.
Theme 2: Faculty Believe There are Distinctive Roles Librarians and Faculty Play in
Teaching Students Information Literacy
The second superordinate theme that emerged from the participant explanations was the
belief that faculty and librarians have distinctive roles to play in teaching students information
literacy. The participants’ believed their task in teaching information literacy to students was
through direct pedagogy or via the creation of assignments that address information literacy
learning outcomes. They also thought librarians play a part in teaching information literacy to
students, albeit through supplemental instruction.
Faculty Have a Role in Incorporating Information Literacy in Assignments
Four of the participants thought their responsibility for teaching students information
literacy was to incorporate assignments in the course focusing on those competencies. Mary
stated, “My role in helping them become information literate is to give multiple assignments
throughout the semester that, in some way, push them to access information, interpret
information, [and] evaluate information…” She believes students should be taught information
literacy skills through a scaffolding approach. Mary stated that information literacy “needs to
78
sort of be scaffolded into students’ experiences, like as they’re progressing in college, and maybe
going more in-depth as they specialize in a major”. Mary stressed the importance of integrating
information literacy in assignments and using a scaffold approach because she believed “it’s just
something that they [students] need to practice”. She admonished that if students do not build on
their information literacy competencies “like anything else, they lose those skills over time”.
John reiterated Mary’s point by underscoring the importance of incorporating information
literacy in an assignment. John stated,
…if you develop the right questions and the right assignments for them, then that should
lead them to the library, where they then [can] ask the right questions… So, we [faculty]
have a huge responsibility to develop our assignments in such a way that it leads to
curiosity, that it leads them to the library to try to find answers.
In agreement with the other participants, Matthew felt information literacy should be
integrated into course assignments. Matthew explained that he embeds information literacy
assignments, such as identifying secondary sources, into his courses because students were
unaware of some of the fundamental knowledge “necessary to understand their field”. Matthew
believed students lacked the necessary information literacy skills to conduct research in the
discipline they intended to pursue in college. Mark surmised that all courses should have an
information literacy component embedded in the course because if faculty were “going to have
students even engage in basic research, that’s a kind of information literacy”. The participants
also believed as faculty they also have a responsibility for teaching information literacy.
Faculty Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy
The general sentiment among five of the six participants was that they have a
79
responsibility for teaching information literacy to students. Ruth emphasized how serious she
took her responsibility for teaching information literacy by stating,
This also sounds strange, but if they don’t want to learn from themselves, they will learn
from me because they know that I’m so incredibly invested in that they do well. And so,
once that foundation is laid down, you can go anywhere from there.
Although librarians were normally assigned to teach information literacy in general
education courses, Mary indicated she felt it was still her duty to ensure her students achieved
those learning outcomes. Mary explained that despite the usefulness and expertise of librarians,
she had a responsibility to teach students information literacy skills such as finding information
in databases. She said,
I wouldn’t say that it’s… not part of my responsibility to show them that… I have done it
in the past, but it’s nice to be able to have someone else doing that, and someone who
specializes in it. I don’t think there’s anything that I don’t feel like, as an instructor, is
my responsibility with information literacy.
Similar to Ruth and Mary, Mark and Luke believed instructors have a critical role in
teaching information literacy to students. They asserted that instructors should teach information
literacy by modeling and practicing those skills in the presence of students. Mark felt all faculty
should at least model best practices for information literacy “no matter what course they were
teaching”. He explained faculty should be “engaging” in or modeling information literacy skills
because students need these competencies reinforced to be useful. Mark argued information
literacy “…can’t be something that’s just taught in seminars. It can’t be something that’s just
taught at the libraries. It has to be integrated across the curriculum for it to be effective”.
80
In agreement with Mark, Luke also felt faculty must teach information literacy through
modeling and engaging in best practices. Luke stated that instructors “have to provide direct
instruction, which has to include some attempt to persuade students of the value of this skill to
themselves in their personal lives, their professional lives, and their civic lives”. He further
explained,
Faculty should also model information literacy by practicing it in their own work, in their
own relationships with students. Faculty need to show that they are evidence-guided, and
they are open-minded, and they need to incentivize and reward criticism of themselves in
their own information practices.
The data also showed the faculty believed librarians have a role in teaching information
literacy inside the classroom.
Librarians Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy Inside the Classroom
A subtheme that emerged from the data was that librarians have some responsibility in
teaching information literacy in the classroom. All of the participants held this viewpoint
because they recognized the expertise librarians have with technology and as researchers. John
said librarians have a role in the classroom because faculty, “don’t have the same ability that
librarians have to stay on the cutting edge for how information is available, especially in this day
and age”. When commenting on how he feels about librarian-led information literacy sessions,
John stated that he valued the expertise librarians bring to the classroom. He commented
I know my subject, I know my discipline… [and] I know how to go about the research for
my particular field. I don’t necessarily know how to do it for all of the disciplines, and I
wouldn’t want to even attempt that. So, I rely on them [librarians] to know the latest and
81
the newest and what is out there…
Echoing a similar sentiment as John, Matthew said librarians should be in the classroom
because “librarians have the skill of knowing how to access information. They also are now very
tech savvy, so they’re very adept at manipulating websites in order to gain what they’re after”.
Sharing the same position as both John and Matthew, Ruth said,
I’m so happy whenever they [librarians] come… I think librarians, they know a little bit
of everything across the disciplines… And librarians are the smartest, coolest people I
know because they just know so much, and they’re constantly surrounded by information
and research and they’re computer literate and they’re research literate… It’s a teacher’s
dream come true to have that stuff taught.
One participant suggested that librarians should have a minor role in teaching information
literacy in the classroom. Luke stated that he recognized a “division of labor between faculty
and librarians” with regard to teaching information literacy. He noted the “division of labor”
occurred when faculty of upper level courses teach “specialized databases and search tools…”
which “librarians might consider their purview”. Luke also stated that if an institution mandated
librarians with the task of teaching information literacy to students “then that’s great” and they
“can share that burden” with faculty. Luke believed, however, a librarian’s instructional role in
the classroom was not a substitute for the information literacy skills taught by faculty. He stated
that information literacy “skills require repeated practice in the presence of a more confident
facilitator. And faculty, instructors of record will be those people, on campus, who are most able
to provide that repeated practice and that environment of practice… whereas the contact hours,
simply put, with librarians are gonna be limited”. Luke later stated he was conflicted by the idea
of librarians having an obligation for teaching information literacy for that reason. In addition to
82
having a responsibility for teaching information literacy inside the classroom, the participants
felt librarians have a role in teaching information literacy outside the classroom.
Librarians Have a Role in Teaching Information Literacy Outside the Classroom
Another subtheme that surfaced from the second superordinate theme was the notion that
librarians have the task of teaching information literacy skills outside of the classroom. Matthew
and John thought librarians have a role in empowering students to help themselves. Matthew
stated, “I think the librarian can assist a student in becoming more independent as opposed to so
many students who are either dependent or indifferent”. John added that librarians have the
obligation of helping students become lifelong learners. John explained, “librarians are the home
to all of the information and research, and so it’s really your responsibility to make them lifelong
learners”. Luke asserted a librarian’s duty for teaching and promoting information literacy
expands beyond the college community. He said, “I think that librarians have a broader civic
responsibility to the intellectual community of which they’re a part to defend freedom of inquiry,
freedom of thought, and freedom of information. Which could extend beyond the campus
boundaries even”.
Mary and Mark emphasized how crucial it was for librarians to be a resource for research
help outside of the classroom. Mary stated,
It’s really great to be able to know who the librarians are and kind of have like, as an
instructor, like know that that’s a resource that I have and that my students have. So, if
they are having trouble finding a source or if they… like if they’ve emailed me and said,
‘I can’t find any journal articles or whatever’, and I’ll talk them through it, but I could
also tell them, ‘you could go to the library and speak with a librarian and they could walk
83
you through that as well’.
Mark thought librarians played “a pretty big role” teaching information literacy outside of
the classroom by “helping students engage in research” and “being a resource for students”. He
added, “outside the classroom librarians are going to be resources for students who are in need
and because of the nature of that relationship you’re answering the questions that they have”.
Ruth stated that librarians “help in the learning process” by being available outside of the
classroom. She noted that students can “just call them [librarian]” or “chat with them [librarian]”
if they needed help with citations or research. Besides having a role of teaching information
literacy outside of the classroom, the participants also believed librarians have a duty to
supplement instruction.
Librarians Have a Role in Supplementing Instruction
All but one of the six participants interviewed felt the librarians’ responsibility in
teaching information literacy was to provide supplemental instruction. John and Ruth explained
they have used a librarian’s expertise to teach competencies of information literacy they felt
uncomfortable with teaching. When John was asked about how he might teach an information
literacy session, he replied,
I don’t even want to go there, because it’s just not something I would feel comfortable
doing. I know how to do research within my own field, but… They’re not doing research
in my field… They’re looking at real world problems, and that’s not my expertise.
That’s why it’s essential to do the type of information literacy work group with the
librarian.
John elaborated,
84
I know that one of the things that I keep hearing from other disciplines… Well, I am not
a writing professor, I am a professor of philosophy. Well, how is our student going to
learn how to write unless you, as a professor, are going to find some way to get them
instruction in writing from your course? It’s the same thing for me for information
literacy. It’s one of our competencies. I know my course needs to focus on that. Why
not invite the expert in to be able to do that instruction? Then I know the instruction’s
being done correctly and done [to the] fullest, rather than if I had attempted to do it.
With regards to librarians supplementing faculty instruction, Ruth also utilized librarians
to support her in areas of information literacy she felt uncomfortable teaching. Ruth declared
librarians “supplement my teaching and where my weaknesses are, they strengthen it. They
come in with strength where I can’t do it. I can do it, but don’t want to do it, and I don’t do it
very well”. In addition to allowing librarians to support her by teaching information literacy
competencies, Ruth uniquely permits librarians to help her teach course content. Ruth
responded, “I even have had librarians come in and talk to students about The Bluest Eye. I
think that’s fabulous. I just think they wear many hats, and I have no problem with whatever hat
they put on”.
Although five of the six participants understood a librarian’s role in teaching information
literacy was to supplement instruction, three of those participants asserted it was not the
librarian’s role to teach course content. Unlike Ruth, three of the faculty seemed to draw a line
between teaching information literacy skills and teaching course content. Mark pointed out the
line of demarcation when he opined,
I don’t think librarians have to, I mean, in terms of instruction they can certainly offer
supplemental instruction. I don’t think they’re not teaching faculty… Generally
85
speaking, I don’t see the librarians as being primarily responsible for classroom content
or classroom instruction, things like that. It’s like I said, it’s supplemental rather than
primary. I mean that would be I suppose one place where I might draw a boundary where
it’s reasonable to expect… That’s where I would say I would draw the line.
Although Mary knows some librarians are subject specialists, she reasoned it was not
necessary for librarians to teach course content because that was the role of the instructor. Mary
responded,
I think that it’s the responsibility of the instructor to give a really thorough account of
what is the assignment that I’m looking for, why am I having you do this, giving context
and background and talking about how literature and studies and knowledge are all
created and used in the field because the librarians shouldn’t have to do that for you know
all the different majors we have here.
Matthew commented a librarian does not have an obligation to teach course content even
if they have credentials in a related discipline. He delineated a line between the responsibilities
of faculty and librarians as it pertained to teaching course content in credit bearing courses.
When asked about what lay outside of a librarian’s purview, Matthew articulated, “I don’t think
the librarian has a role in teaching the content of the course”. He continued by stating, “That’s
not their specialty, although they have those specialties, but the students need to know the
demarcation line where you go for the information on content and where you go for information
[on] how to research information on that content”. Although Matthew believed librarians should
not teach course content, he did not perceive their supplemental role in a negative light.
Matthew remarked he recognized librarians as “partners” in pedagogy and not as a
“subordinate”. He understood the work librarians do as “one group of faculty helping another
86
group of faculty on equal footing”. The faculty thought librarians should supplement instruction
by teaching the research process as opposed to teaching course content.
Conclusions. The second superordinate theme that emerged was that participants
believed faculty and librarians have distinct duties to play in teaching information literacy skills.
All but one of the participants believed they have a responsibility for addressing information
literacy directly through instruction. The participant’s interpretation of direct instruction ranged
from showing students how to find information to modeling and engaging in best practices of
information literacy. The participants also considered it critical for faculty to enhance students’
information literacy skills through course assignments. Faculty articulated they were responsible
for designing assignments that helped students “understand their field” and “leads them to the
library to try to find answers”. The participants did not believe it was the sole responsibility of
librarians to teach information literacy; they felt a faculty member’s role was just as significant.
The participants also felt librarians have a role in teaching information literacy both
inside and outside the classroom. All of the participants thought librarians have an obligation to
teach information literacy in the classroom because of their expertise in research and technology.
They appreciated the contributions the librarians made in the classroom and beyond the
classroom. The faculty valued librarians’ role in helping students become independent and life-
long learners. They held librarians accountable for promoting information literacy, helping
students engage in research, being a resource for students, and enabling students to become
lifelong learners.
Lastly, the interviewees thought the librarians’ role was to provide supplemental
instruction. The participants believed supplemental instruction means teaching information
literacy skills or the research process and not course content. Two of the participants used
87
librarians to supplement their instruction in areas they felt uncomfortable teaching because they
valued their expertise. The other participants, however, had set boundaries between what was
and what was not appropriate for librarian-led instruction. The participants not only shed light
on what roles they believed librarians and faculty have in teaching information literacy, they also
discussed how they perceived librarian-led information literacy instruction.
Theme 3: Faculty Have A Positive Perception of Librarian-led Information Literacy
Instruction
A third superordinate theme that emerged from the participant responses was that faculty
have a positive perception of librarian-led information literacy instruction. The two sub-themes
that emanated from this superordinate theme were that faculty were amenable to librarian-led
information literacy sessions and their expectations were met within those sessions.
Receptive to Librarian-led Information Literacy Sessions
Five of the participants were receptive to librarian-led information literacy sessions.
They either expressed an interest or need for a librarian to come to their classes specifically to
teach information literacy skills. Although all of the participants saw value in librarians teaching
information literacy in the classroom, Luke questioned if it was necessary for a librarian to teach
“introductory” lessons about, “the benefits and many hazards of search engines” because it could
be addressed by “humanities professors or general education professors”. The other participants,
however, seemed accepting of the librarians’ presence in the classroom even at the introductory
level. John stated he invites librarians into his class because he believed “the librarians can teach
them [students] to critically think about the reliability of the source that they’re looking at,
because you [librarians] have more contact with these sources and so you [librarians] know
88
what’s out there”. Ruth stated, “I’m so happy with whenever they [librarians] come… I love
them. I love you librarians when you come in”. Unlike Luke, Ruth’s enthusiasm was over her
experience working with librarians teaching introductory material. Ruth extolled,
The librarians come in and they’re my knights and shining armor. They come in and take
over… What journals to look in to research, where to find different disciplines, where to
go for different disciplines, how to do that work[s] cited, how to quote, what to cite, what
not to cite.
Three of the participants discussed what they valued when librarians came to their class
to teach. Matthew stated that he thought “it’s great” when librarians come to his class to prepare
students for their research papers. He generally has a librarian teach one or two lessons focused
on information literacy, “that shows [students] how can sources help me in my class now before
I even start the research paper”. Mark explained,
I would say, generally I have no problem with library instructors coming in for one
session, let’s say. Doing what they do best, focusing on doing the resources. Like
navigating the library website. I mean, I think generally I’m happy to cede some class
time for what’s an important goal for the class… at an institutional level I think it
probably is very much a net positive that librarians are coming in.
Mary and Mark also expressed the belief that having another voice in the classroom was
a good instructional practice. She also perceived it as a way for students to recognize other
resources that could help. Mary responded,
I really like having the librarians teach [information literacy] for the reasons I said before,
and just that like the students are learning it from someone else, someone who’s an expert
89
in this. And if they are learning it from the librarian, then they know that the librarian is
a resource that they can go use again… I think that they are way more likely to go to the
library and to access librarians as a resource if they’ve had some kind of interaction with
librarians. So, having a librarian come into class and teaching the information literacy
session or us going to the library and having the session there is great.
Similarly, Mark repeated he does not mind having librarians come to the classroom
because, “sometimes it’s useful to have a different voice in the class. Sometimes it’s useful to
bring the students to the library. I think there are some positives about the sessions”. Although
Mary and Mark voiced the value of bringing students to the library, Luke pointed out that it
sometimes has “danger to it”. Luke stated there is a “difference between sources and places” and
this could confuse students if it is not addressed properly. Luke explained,
You take students out of the classroom, put them in a room in the library, put them with a
different person, and you’re showing them this special place. To me that was sometimes
counterproductive, because it produced this feeling that if you get it from the library it’s
okay. So that you have students who will go into a library database and then go to the
Washington Times newspaper, to an opinion piece, and use that answer for an empirical
scientific research question. They’ll think, ‘it’s reliable, because I got it from the library’.
There needs to be some way to… if we’re going to use that special place [library], and
that special environmental design, teaching about library resources, it has that danger to
it.
In addition to being receptive to librarian-led information literacy instruction, the
participants also explained that their expectations were met while working with librarians.
90
Expectations Were Met While Working With Librarians
All of the participants shared their experiences collaborating with librarians while either
preparing for or partaking in a librarian-led information literacy session. Two of the participants
described how the librarians, before coming to their class, conducted some preparatory work
before teaching. Matthew stated that before a librarian came to teach his class, they requested
information on what topics he had assigned for the course research paper. Subsequently, when
librarians taught his class they went “through the various journals that are appropriate for the
discipline and point out the steps they have on the homepage on how to begin your research…”
Mary also noted how the librarians reached out to her before the scheduled information literacy
session. She added how the prepared librarians “had some knowledge of sociology or social
research”. In her description of a librarian-led session, Mary remarked that a librarian told her
class,
Let’s look up something about W.E.B. DuBois, and that’s not like the first person that
people usually think of when they think of sociology, so I was like excited that they
mentioned this theorist that like my students just… I had mentioned him before, but they
hadn’t read him yet. So that was cool.
All but one participant mentioned that after working with the librarian that the
information literacy session did not usually meet their expectation. When the participants were
asked if librarians covered instructional content related to information literacy as expected, four
participants shared Matthew’s sentiment that, “they covered what I pretty much requested that
they do”. Mark attributed the librarians meeting his expectations to the collaborative work he
had done with them to design an information literacy module. Mark stated,
91
I mean, in terms of expectations, I think that it’s maybe because I helped them
[librarians] design the module, I was like, I knew what was going to happen and I think…
my expectations were generally met of what I expected the content to be delivered.
Ruth and John elaborated on how librarians met their expectation through instruction.
Ruth explained that librarians meet her expectations “every single time” because they go “above
and beyond”. Ruth valued how the librarians are “really engaging, and just cover everything…
from plagiarism to paraphrasing to work cited to block quotes to parenthetical citations and to
where to go for the research, [and] the databases”. John explained a library session has met his
expectations when, “the librarian has given them [students] not just one database, not one form
of information, but a full spectrum, including, entries from encyclopedias all the way through to
articles to books if need be”. He added a library session has met his expectations when the
librarian gives “the full spectrum of how to approach the [research] question, from the front,
from the back, from the side, around the back and the whole concept of rewording their
searches”. John commented that “students have the problem of rewording” search terms and
“they don’t realize that there’s denotative and connotative meaning” to what they were
searching. John appreciated when librarians “can help them rephrase those words” because
“then it’s a successful session”.
Although most of the experiences articulated by the participants were positive, there were
some instances where the librarian-led information literacy sessions experienced by the
participants were a little less than ideal. John described an undesirable library session whereby,
“the librarian repeats what they have done for other sections of the same course” with the intent
of targeting specific information literacy skills “which may not be [his] assignment”. He stated a
librarian-led information literacy session should have an “inter-disciplinary approach” and
92
should not be “pigeon-holed” as to where students are led to the answers. Students should not be
given “one choice, but a multitude of choices, because in many of the cases you don’t know what
the student’s disciplinary interest is going to direct them to and the way they’re going to
approach the information”.
Mary’s less than ideal librarian-led information literacy session occurred outside of the
library. Mary explained she was a supporter of holding information literacy sessions in the
library. She observed a difference in her students’ engagement level when the librarian-led
information literacy session was held inside the library versus outside the library. Mary stated,
Physically going to the library instead of me just showing them on the computer, which
I’ve done in other classes, also makes it more like an event, and so it’s something that I
think sticks out a little bit more in their [students] brains.
Mary explained when she held a library session in her classroom as opposed to inside the
library, she did not think it was as “fruitful for the students” because “they weren’t paying as
much attention because it seemed like something, I think, a little bit abstract to them”. Mary felt
even though some students had their own computers and could follow along, they were “a little
distracted while the presentation was going on”.
Unlike the other participants, Luke stated he was compelled to intervene in a library
session. He explained in one librarian-led library session he was uncomfortable with the content
covered by the librarian and that he had to “stand up” to address what he saw as the problem.
Luke said he felt obligated to intercede in that session. Luke chided, “I’m an educator…” and it
was his responsibility to make sure students were given accurate information.
Conclusions. The third superordinate theme that surfaced was that faculty have a
93
generally positive perception of librarian-led information literacy instruction. The first subtheme
that emerged was that faculty are receptive to librarian-led information literacy sessions. Five of
the participants expressed either an interest or a need for librarians to teach in their classroom.
Faculty appreciated having another voice in the classroom to teach their class on information
literacy skills. The participants’ believed having a librarian-led information literacy session was
also a good instructional practice and a great way for students to become familiar with the
resources they have available to them. Although the participants were amenable to having a
session in the library, one participant pointed out there was danger in that practice. He felt
placing students in this environment for the purpose of information literacy instruction could
mislead them into thinking any resource was acceptable for their course assignments if they
retrieve it while in the library.
The second subtheme that arose was librarians generally met the participants’
expectations. The participants felt the librarians met their expectations because they undertook
the appropriate preparatory work before teaching. The faculty were also pleased with how the
librarians addressed the information literacy competencies they were asked to cover. Although
five members of the faculty discussed how their expectations were met in terms of instruction,
three faculty members recalled a less than ideal experience with a librarian-led information
literacy session. In these instances, the participants’ expectations were not met. In one of the
negative experiences shared, the participant observed that the students were “distracted” during
the session. In a separate incident, another participant shared they felt uncomfortable with the
instructional content covered in class. Overall, the positive experiences with librarian-led
instruction outweighed the negative interactions recounted by the participants. Although the
participants were receptive to librarian-led information literacy instruction, the faculty did
94
acknowledge there were some challenges with the library’s curriculum.
Theme 4: Faculty Encountered Challenges With Librarian-led Information Literacy
Instruction
The fourth superordinate theme that emerged from the data collected during the
interviews was that faculty have some concerns regarding librarian-led information literacy
instruction. All of the participants shared a comment on either how a librarian conducted a
library session or over what competencies they neglected to cover in the classroom.
Concerns About Teaching Techniques
Three of the participants commented on the experiences they had in some of the librarian-
led information literacy sessions. The comments the participants shared were that they would
like to see more engaging and interactive lessons from the librarians. Luke stated that in some
librarian-led information literacy sessions the students were not engaged. When describing an
experience of a librarian-led information literacy session he noticed “students were seated at
computer terminals, but by and large the sessions were not interactive, but rather they consisted
in students, for most of the time, watching the instructor navigate, or just lecture”. Luke
explained he would have preferred a session in which students could “try and do things”. An
ideal library session for Luke was one in which students could “try and do things themselves”
and “get feedback from the facilitator”.
Mary and Ruth had a similar assessment on how some of the librarian-led sessions were
conducted. Ruth articulated that library sessions can be a “bit tedious and boring” and so more
interactive activities need to be incorporated in the librarians’ lesson. She suggested librarians
use group activities and pedagogical techniques such as “teach back” to get students more
95
engaged in the library session. When explaining how she thought librarians could get a class
more involved in the library session, Ruth said,
I just think that more, maybe a little bit more teach back and more like what did you get
for this and maybe working in groups, you know, [and asking] how would you answer
this, how would you look for this, what research would you do to go through this, what
did I just say about how to find a database. A little bit more of that, so that there is more
sort of a give and take between the two.
Although Mary agreed that a library session should be “a little bit more interactive for the
students”, she was uncertain how that could be accomplished. She admitted that information
literacy as a topic was boring and could be difficult to capture students’ interest. Mary remarked,
Maybe if there’s some way to make it like a little bit more interactive for the students, but
I don’t… nothing like pops into my head about how to do that. But yeah, if there was
some way to get them kind of like excited or engaged about it while they’re there. But
it’s searching databases, it’s not like you know the most exciting thing.
When Mary assessed how librarians covered topics in information literacy, she recalled
an incident where she provided instructional advice to a librarian. Mary stated that in her view it
was difficult to have an interactive library session, in real time, where students gave a librarian
keywords to search on a research topic. From what Mary had observed “it would be kind of like
a little bit of awkwardness with the students giving like one or two words eventually” and then
“the librarian typing those one or two words” into the search box. Mary further added that since
no one knows what results certain “keywords are going to yield”, it would have been a great
teaching moment “to kind of figure out what are going to be the better search terms”. She stated
96
students get frustrated with databases because “there’s a million Google hits for like whatever
random word you put in”. She added students get even more frustrated when “they see the
librarian putting keywords in and nothing comes up”. Mary explained that the “teachable
moment” occurs when the librarian “contextualizes” the lack of search results by telling the class
“we’re doing this together and we’re learning these search words”. Mary mentioned in the
interview that she advised the librarian after a library session that it would be good to show the
students reference mining techniques. She told the librarian “when you find a good article, it
shows you what the keywords are that the author of the article picked” and it could “also be
helpful when students are looking for additional articles”. In addition to commenting on the
librarians teaching techniques, the faculty also expressed concern about the library curriculum.
Concerns About Instructional Content
Five of the participants expressed a concern about the library curriculum. Of those five
participants, three of them commented on the redundancy of the curriculum provided by the
librarians. The participants claimed what the librarians were teaching was repetitive and their
students were overly familiar with the content of those sessions. Luke mentioned his students
have asked, “Is the librarian going to come and talk to us about Google… We’ve done this four
times already”. The faculty felt the students were fatigued by the instruction sessions and
according to Mary expressed their disinterest by saying “we’ve already done this”. The over
familiarity with librarian-led information literacy sessions stem from the fact that librarians
usually teach at least one information literacy session to each course section of the General
Education curriculum. Luke complained that “by semester two, but even in the first semester,
my students have had the same instruction session multiple times…”
Although Matthew reported that his students tell him “they’ve heard the librarian lecture
97
two or three times”, he does not believe the students “really followed up and ever used the
library website”. Matthew stated that “so much responsibility falls on the librarians” but an
“appropriate curriculum” should have a library credit-bearing course. He asserted that the library
should have more than one credit-bearing course. Matthew said, “I think it should be at least
two. One for their courses, introduction overall, and then an introduction for majors”. It is
worth pointing out that Matthew did not blame the librarians for not having a credit-bearing
course. He noted that “credit hour restrictions” and “administration” impede the process.
Luke shared the sentiment that students continue “making the same mistakes”. Although
two of the participants articulated students need “refreshers” and reinforcement through
“scaffolded learning”, Luke argued that the librarians must make the content they teach more
“compelling” and attractive. Luke explained that instead of a librarian telling students “they’re
gonna tell us about databases”, they should instead highlight why “we need to learn how not to
be taken in by fake news” or how “we know what to trust online”. He thought framing the
lessons in this way would be more engaging or “compelling” to students than how it was
currently presented.
Two of the participants discussed how the librarians refrained from teaching a particular
educational application. Mark was critical about the fact that the librarians he works with do not
teach students about Google Scholar but “almost always” tell students to “check out what
databases we have, and check out what journals we have” because “we have paid subscriptions
to all of these journals and you are paying for this in your tuition and fees”. He contended,
however, that Google Scholar was “a tremendously powerful tool for research” which could be
used to obtain some great resources. Mark believed Google Scholar was such an “extremely
valuable resource” because as far as he was aware it had a larger coverage range of any journals
98
Woodlawn College library had access to and therefore “cast this really, really wide net” for
retrieving scholarly material. He mentioned when students were writing a 25 to 30 page research
paper and needed scholarly articles, it made sense for them to start with Google Scholar because
“it’s gonna pick up on sources that they probably aren’t gonna find, in those other databases”
such as “JSTOR” and “EBSCOhost”.
Although Mark shared the opinion that librarians should cover Google Scholar, he
admitted that teaching it at every grade level may not be appropriate, particularly “the freshman
level”. He recognized sometimes in order to get the full-text of some articles on Google Scholar
additional steps were required. In some cases, when the full-text link was not available, Mark
stated that students have either to search for the article on the Woodlawn College website or
request the paper through inter-library loan. He noted in some courses, students were “crunched
for time” and may not be able to wait for an article to come through inter-library loan. Despite
his admission of Google Scholar’s shortcomings, he asserted that librarians should still mention
it when teaching. He responded “it’s probably at least worth mentioning [Google Scholar] if
you’re having trouble finding sources in JSTOR and EBSCOhost and some of the other, you
know, databases that [Woodlawn] has a subscription to”.
Besides Mark’s comments on librarians refraining to cover google scholar, Mark assessed
how librarians approached the topic of Wikipedia in the classroom. Mark stated that librarians
have “this reflexive… distrust of Wikipedia” and that “Wikipedia should not be trusted”. In
essence, when he asks his students “What do you think about Wikipedia” their response is that
“Wikipedia’s awful. It’s full of lies. You can’t trust it” and “you should never use Wikipedia
under any circumstances”. He attributes “this cultural perception” to teachers and librarians
“dislike of Wikipedia”.
99
In Mark’s opinion, its “insane” to believe Wikipedia was a source that cannot be trusted.
He stated that, “Wikipedia is usually a very good place to start your research process and it can
provide great background information”. He added that Wikipedia has “very detailed
bibliographies and links to other kinds of resources, and so it’s a great spot, a great resource”.
The crux of Mark’s concern revolved around Woodlawn College librarians’ instruction on
encyclopedia entries found in Britannica or Credo Reference. Mark argued that Wikipedia
should also be mentioned in the instruction because its entries were “just as accurate in most
cases as Encyclopedia Britannica or these other [encyclopedias]”. He asserted that Wikipedia
“should be properly contextualized” and that students should be taught “what you can and can’t
get from” the crowdsourced encyclopedias.
Mary lamented that a librarian was unable to incorporate a demonstration of Zotero
citation manager in an information literacy session she requested for her class. The reason Mary
believed the librarian could not assist her was because the librarian “did not know how to use
Zotero” and Woodlawn College did not have special access to the citation manager. Mary
wanted a demo of Zotero because she believed it was “a really great resource” and was
“something worth learning”. Although the librarian was unable to assist her, she “was able to
show the students that [Zotero] afterwards”.
Two of the participants made a critical assessment on the information literacy content
covered by the librarians in some sessions. The main issue was what topics should or should not
be covered during a library session. John was concerned that in some library sessions librarians
were not showing students all of the resources available to them but were “directing them
specifically to one aspect”. Generally, librarians come to the classroom to teach students how to
find resources on the research paper that had been assigned to the class. John, however, thought
100
librarians should not “narrow” the students’ choices or “topic for research”. John asserted that
his courses were “intentionally open enough” so whatever the student was interested in they
could explore through the scholarly literature. The example he gave to elucidate his point was
when he teaches literary works related to science, students were allowed to explore scientific
literature and not just the literary criticism of the author.
Luke commented on the librarians’ practice of giving handouts and teaching the CRAAP
test checklist. The CRAAP test is an exercise students undertake to evaluate websites. Although
Luke conceded that teaching the CRAAP test was an activity “worth doing if you only have 20
minutes”, he questioned its educational value to students. Luke contended that a librarian could
“give them [students] an example, and supervise it, and have them go through and check the
boxes” but it was “doubtful that it actually produces much student learning”. He argued the
reason students do not learn from this type of instruction was that it does not develop “a new
habit of mind” or “a new habit of their [students] fingers”. Essentially, the students were not
learning “what do they type in, where do they go?” and “how many results do they look at on
google”.
Conclusions. The fourth superordinate theme that emerged was that the participants
experienced some challenges with librarian-led information literacy instruction. The participants
expressed concerns about the library curriculum and the librarians’ teaching techniques during
information literacy instruction sessions. When the participants shared their remarks on how
librarians taught, they reiterated that the library sessions needed to be more interactive and
engaging. They suggested librarians find ways to allow students to “try and do things” instead of
lecture. The participants also felt librarians could provide feedback to students or use
pedagogical techniques such as “teach back” to ensure students have comprehended what was
101
shown in a session.
In terms of the participants’ assessment on what the librarians’ taught, they agreed the
library sessions were repetitive and students were immensely familiar with the content in those
sessions. They noted that students continue to need “refreshers” even though they have had
multiple information literacy sessions. The participants commented on the content covered in
the library curriculum. Two of the participants felt some free educational applications and
interfaces pertinent to information literacy were disregarded in librarian-led information literacy
sessions, such as Wikipedia, Google Scholar, and Zotero. Another two participants made a
critical assessment about what exactly was covered in some of the classes they engaged in. One
participant suggested that the librarian-led information literacy sessions should be broaden so
that students were shown a variety of databases and not just those targeted for a research paper.
The other participant questioned the merits of teaching or covering the CRAAP test in the library
curriculum. It is worth point out the participants did not blame the librarians for struggling to
demonstrate information literacy skills. However, it can be concluded from the participants
concerns that the librarians should consider adjusting its curriculum.
Summation
The purpose of this study was to investigate how Woodlawn College undergraduate
faculty made sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction. The research question this
study sought to answer was “How do Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty make sense of
librarian-led information literacy instruction?” The data shows that faculty made sense of
librarian-led information literacy instruction in a variety of ways. Woodlawn College faculties’
understanding of information literacy aligned with academic librarians. They believed an
information literate person has the capacity to access, evaluate, and/or utilize information.
102
The faculty made sense of librarian-led instruction when they articulated that librarians
were not the only ones responsible for teaching information literacy. In their perception, faculty
were responsible for integrating information literacy competencies into course assignments and
providing instruction that target those competencies. Faculty valued librarian-led information
literacy instruction because they recognized that librarians have a certain degree of expertise in
technology and research. However, the faculty did not believe librarian-led instruction was the
only way for librarians to teach students information literacy nor was it their only responsibility.
The participants believed librarians had a role in teaching information literacy both inside and
outside of the classroom.
The faculty at Woodlawn College made sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction by sharing what they experienced and observed in previously requested library
sessions. All of the participants had a positive experience when the librarians covered the
subject matter or databases they were expected to review with students. Librarians met the
participants’ expectations when they were prepared for class, were engaged with students in the
classroom, taught search strategies and focused on information literacy instruction instead of
course content. Five of the participants, however, expressed concern over the design of the
library instruction curriculum. They felt there were educational tools librarians should have
considered integrating into their instruction sessions, such as Google Scholar, Zotero, and
Wikipedia. The faculty also acknowledged there were challenges in how librarians taught
students to become information literate. Overall, the faculties’ positive perception of librarian-
led information literacy instruction outweighed the negative.
The findings of this study are valid and trustworthy for several reasons. First, the data
collected and analyzed were relevant for examining how Woodlawn College faculty make sense
103
of librarian-led information literacy instruction. Second, each participant through the process of
member checking verified the interview data. Finally, all of the themes identified were
supported by the collected data. The next chapter discusses the findings with respect to the
current literature as well as provides recommendations for practice and future research.
104
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications for Practice
The purpose of this research study was to gain insight into the lived experiences of
Woodlawn College undergraduate faculty who participated in librarian-led information literacy
instruction sessions. The theoretical framework used to illuminate how faculty perceived
librarian-led information literacy instruction was role theory. Role theory is a framework that
asserts people behave in ways that are predictable depending on the situation or based on
perception (Biddle, 1986). Furthermore, role theory states that beliefs, attitudes, and
expectations are what guide behavior at the individual and organizational level (Turner, 2001).
According to the concepts of role theory, the four predominant principles of the
organizational and cognitive perspectives are role conflict, role ambiguity, role-taking, and role
accommodation. Role conflict is the consequence of an individual’s role being incompatible
with other people’s expectations (Vora et al., 2007; Schuler et al., 1977). It can be seen when an
individual holds a differing expectation for performance than is often possible (Richards,
Levesque-Bristol, & Templin, 2014). Role ambiguity is defined as a lack of clarity on a person’s
role in a situation (Vora et al., 2007; Schuler et al., 1977). Role ambiguity also extends to an
individual being unclear about the role of others in an organization (Fischer, 2010). Role-taking
is evident when an individual anticipates the behavior of a person they interact with and
consequently take on that person’s role (Lynch, 2007). Role accommodation is the process
whereby individuals align their behaviors to act appropriately in certain situations (Lynch, 2007).
The concepts of role theory that served as the basis for this research were the
organizational and cognitive perspectives. The basic principle of the organizational perspective
is that people interact with one another with assumptions about how others should behave in a
particular setting or organization (Galletta & Heckman, 1990). Under the organizational
105
perspective, behaviors that align with a groups’ expectations are reinforced while behaviors that
are misaligned are punished or ignored. The cognitive perspective focuses on how a person
perceives and reacts to and within roles (Zai, 2015). The rationale for using role theory as a
theoretical framework for this study was that it could help provide insight into the experiences of
faculty participating in librarian-led instruction. The concepts of role theory, such as role
conflict, role-taking, and role accommodation, helps to describe the experiences the participants
had working with librarians. Applying role theory illuminated what expectations the participants
have for themselves and librarians concerning information literacy instruction. Role theory also
uncovered the underlying beliefs of the participants concerning information literacy. Since role
theory explores the beliefs and expectations set by individuals, this theory offered a lens to
understand why faculty may or may not allow librarians access to their classroom.
The question this research project sought to answer was: How do Woodlawn College
undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction? The
qualitative methodological approach used to answer this research question was Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). IPA research seeks to understand what the experience was
like for a person and what sense was the person making as the event was occurring to them
(Smith et al., 2009). IPA was the methodological approach chosen for this study because it
facilitated the exploration of how faculty made sense of librarian-led information literacy
instruction through their lived experiences. The detailed, first-person experiential accounts of
the participants allowed the researcher to make sense of the participants trying to make sense and
account for what was happening to them (Smith et al., 2009). The research unveiled the
experiential accounts of the participants by having them discuss the events, relationships, and
emotions they felt while engaging in a librarian-led information literacy session. The IPA
106
methodological approach led to the identification of four superordinate themes and twelve
subthemes (Table 5.1). The superordinate and subthemes that emerged were:
Table 5.1
Superordinate and Subthemes
Superordinate
Themes
Subthemes
1. Faculty
understand
the concept
of
information
literacy in
ways similar
to library
professionals
Access
information
Evaluate
information
Utilize
information
2. Faculty
believe there
are
distinctive
roles
librarians and
faculty play
in teaching
students
information
literacy
Faculty have
a role in
incorporating
information
literacy in
assignments
Faculty have
a role in
teaching
information
literacy
Librarians
have a role in
teaching
information
literacy in
the
classroom
Librarians
have a role in
teaching
information
literacy
outside the
classroom
Librarians
have a role in
supplementing
instruction
3. Faculty
have a
positive
perception of
librarian-led
information
literacy
Receptive to
librarian-led
information
literacy
sessions
Expectations
were met
while
working with
librarians
107
instruction
4. Faculty
encountered
challenges
with
librarian-led
information
literacy
instruction
Concerns
about
teaching
techniques
Concerns
about
instructional
content
The following chapter discusses the findings of this study as they are positioned within
the literature. The chapter also explores the implications and applicability of the findings for the
practice setting. At the conclusion of this chapter, the researcher offers recommendations for
practice and suggestions for areas of future research.
Findings
Faculty Understand the Concept of Information Literacy in ways similar to library
professionals.
The first finding showed the participants have a common understanding of the term
information literacy. They defined information literacy as having the ability to access, evaluate,
and utilize information. The participants’ definition of information literacy was similar to how it
is understood by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). ACRL defines
information literacy as recognizing when information is needed and having the ability to access,
evaluate, and use effectively the information needed (Gross & Latham, 2009). Three
competencies of information literacy, as defined by ACRL, are being able to access, evaluate,
and use information. The results of the study showed that all of the participants were able to
108
identify at least two competencies of information literacy, while three participants were able to
account for three of the skills.
Though there are a limited number of studies that have explored how faculty define
information literacy (Bury, 2016), studies have shown that faculty are typically able to identify
the key competencies of information literacy as defined by ACRL. In a study investigating how
faculty of different disciplinary departments conceived and defined information literacy, Cope
and Sanabria (2014) found that faculties’ description of the term did not differ from those of
library practitioners. In another study, Saunders (2012) also determined that faculty described
information literacy in the same way as librarians. Saunders (2012) concluded from her study on
faculty perspectives of information literacy that faculty understood information literacy as the
“location, access, evaluation, and application of information” (p. 230). Similar to the findings of
Saunders (2012) and Cope and Sanabria (2014), this study also showed that the participants’
conception of information literacy was comparable to the practicing standards of librarians.
Parallel to the findings in Saunders’ (2012) study, the participants identified accessing and
evaluating information in their definition of the term information literacy. Saunders (2012)
noted that faculty were receptive to information literacy based on how their conception of
information literacy aligned with librarians.
In a study on faculties’ understanding of the term information literacy, Dubicki (2013)
discovered faculty not only conceptualized information literacy in a way resembling library
professionals but they also used alternative terminology when describing the term. The faculty
in Dubicki’s (2013) study used language they were familiar with or terms relevant to their
discipline when articulating their understanding of information literacy. This terminology
included language, such as research skills, critical thinking, library research, etc. (Dubicki,
109
2013). The findings in this study appears to support Dubicki’s (2013) findings. The participants
in this study used terminology outside of ACRL’s definition of information literacy such as
information fluency and critical thinking when they made sense of what the concept meant.
In a phenomenographic study by Boon et al. (2007) involving faculty from four different
disciplines at twenty universities, they examined how faculty conceived information literacy.
They discovered that faculty conceptualized information literacy as an individual being capable
of (a) accessing and retrieving information, (b) using technology to access and retrieve
information, (c) possessing research skills and knowing how to use them, and (d) becoming an
autonomous critical thinker (Boon et al., 2007). Webber et al. (2005) reached a similar
conclusion to Boon et al. (2007) when they conducted a phenomenographic investigation on
faculty from just two disciplines. Although the participants in this study did not define
information literacy exactly as described in Boon et al. (2007) and Webber et al. (2005) studies,
they did include accessing information in their definition. Unlike the findings of Boon et al.
(2007) and Webber et al. (2005), which emphasized the competencies of using information
technology and autonomous learning, the participants in this study defined information literacy
from the perspective of accessing appropriate information, being aware of where information
came from, and assessing how trustworthy is the information retrieved.
According to Dubicki (2013) faculty were unlikely to collaborate with librarians or
participate in librarian-led information literacy instruction sessions if they did not understand or
were unable to define information literacy. Although this study did not test to determine whether
the participants would or would not collaborate with librarians based on their understanding of
information literacy, it is worth noting that the participants were receptive to allowing librarians
to come to their classroom to teach. The participants’ understanding of the different nuances of
110
information literacy also enabled them to set expectations for instructional sessions.
Role theorists contend consensus occurs when any normative agreement has been
reached (Zai, 2015). Andrew et al. (2012) stated consensus does not apply to every situation
because individuals in organizations do not always adhere to shared definitions. Andrew et al.
(2012), however, adds that consensus is likely to be initiated when individuals socialize and
interact with others. Consensus was applicable to the first finding in two ways. First, the
concept of consensus applied in this study because the participants defined information literacy
in a way that aligns with ACRL. Some of the basic competencies of information literacy,
according to ACRL, is for an individual to have the capability to access, evaluate, and utilize
information. The participants’ appeared to have made sense of information literacy and its value
to learning in these aforementioned terms. Secondly, according to role theory consensus is
evident when individuals recognize the role of another. In this study, faculty recognized that an
academic librarian had a role in instruction and was responsible for teaching certain basic
competencies of information literacy, which includes teaching students the process of how to
access and evaluate information (Zai, 2015). The participants identified these competencies as
part of making sense of what information literacy meant to them. The study also found that the
participants believed librarians have a role in teaching information literacy.
From the perspective of role theory, the first finding of this study indicated a consensus
existed among the participants because they agreed on the definition of information literacy. The
findings showed all of the participants were able to recall at least two competencies of
information literacy. All of the participants interviewed reported they had interacted with
librarians and understood information literacy in a context, which was similar to what research
indicated library professionals understood. In the next section, the findings on how the
111
participants believed there were distinctive roles librarians and faculty played in teaching
students information literacy is discussed.
Faculty Believe There are Distinctive Roles Librarians and Faculty Play in Teaching
Students Information Literacy
As the participants discussed their experiences with librarian-led information literacy
instruction, it became apparent they believed that they as faculty and librarians had distinct
duties in the way information literacy was taught. They believed it was the responsibility of both
the faculty and librarians to teach information literacy. The participants thought they were
responsible for heightening students’ information literacy skills through direct instruction and
course work. They discussed teaching students information literacy competencies by using a
scaffolded approach or by building on prior learning. The participants also discussed that they
were responsible for teaching information literacy to students by modeling and practicing those
competencies in the presence of students.
The participants felt librarians were responsible for teaching information literacy inside
and outside of the classroom. According to the participants, the librarians’ research and
technological expertise were reasons for engaging in librarian-led information literacy
instruction. The participants believed the librarians’ instructional role outside the classroom was
to teach students information literacy skills that empowered them, helped them become
independent, and enabled them to become lifelong learners. The findings suggested that
although the participants believed librarians should teach information literacy to students, they
were more interested in librarians supplementing instruction by teaching the research process
rather than course content. Although the participants recognized the librarians had a subject
specialty, they felt librarians should teach information literacy skills as opposed to how
112
knowledge was created and implemented in the disciplines.
Studies exist that both support and refute the finding that participants believe they and
librarians serve a role in teaching information literacy. While investigating the barriers between
faculty and librarians related to information literacy instruction, McGuinness (2006) noted that
faculty did not believe anyone was responsible for teaching information literacy skills because
students learned those skills through the college experience. McGuiness (2006) stated that
faculty believed students learned information literacy skills by obtaining feedback, through
personal motivation, and by learning from mistakes. In a study on faculty perceptions of
information literacy, Sandercook (2016) pointed out that faculty believed students learned and
improved their information literacy skills slowly over time, through scaffolded instruction and
practice more so than through direct librarian-led instruction. Weiner (2014) concluded in her
research on faculties’ beliefs about information literacy that some faculty believed no one was
obligated to teach information literacy because students were expected to have already acquired
the skills when they enter college. Weiner (2014) found faculty thought students should already
know about plagiarism, locating academic resources, and how to develop research questions
before taking college level courses. While studying the perceptions of teaching information
literacy by faculty, Dawes (2019) noted that faculty viewed librarians as being responsible for
providing services and managing collections more so than for teaching classes. The theme that
emerged from the data in this study, however, contradicted the arguments of McGuiness (2006),
Lloyd (2011), Sandercook (2016), and Dawes (2019). The participants thought librarians served
an instructional role in helping students learn information literacy skills. They believed the
librarians’ role included instruction inside and outside of the classroom.
Leckie and Fullerton (1999) found that faculty thought librarians held the primary
113
responsibility for teaching information literacy. While examining faculty attitudes towards
pedagogical practices and information literacy, Leckie and Fullerton (1999) observed that a large
proportion of faculty believed their role in teaching information literacy was secondary to the
librarians. Contrary to the findings of Leckie and Fullerton (1999), this study showed the
participants believed they and librarians had a mutual responsibility for teaching information
literacy. This was in agreement with Grafstein’s (2002) assertion that teaching information
literacy was a shared responsibility among faculty and librarians. One participant remarked
faculty and librarians were partners in pedagogy that were on equal footing.
Supporting the findings of this study, Grafstein (2002) who reviewed discipline-based
approaches to information literacy, argued that faculty were responsible for teaching information
literacy skills germane to the research methods and procedures of their discipline. Although the
findings of this study do not suggest the participants believed information literacy should be
confined to their discipline, the participants felt they had a responsibility to teach those
competencies through direct instruction and by incorporating it into coursework. Perry (2017),
who studied the perception undergraduate faculty have on information literacy, found that
faculty used a variety of techniques to teach information literacy. Similar to Perry’s (2017)
findings, the participants taught information literacy through direct instruction, scaffolded
assignments and by engaging in librarian-led information literacy instruction.
Housewright, Schonfeld and Wulfson (2013) studied the perception of faculty regarding
information literacy instruction and concluded that faculty felt primarily responsible for teaching
information literacy. Housewright et al. (2013) finding reported that 40% of faculty thought
their primary responsibility was to teach information literacy skills such as accessing and
evaluating information. Only 20% of those same surveyed faculty members thought it was the
114
library’s responsibility to develop the information literacy skills of undergraduate students. In a
similar study, Stanger (2012) surveyed 25 full-time Psychology department faculty members to
assess whose responsibility it was to teach the 11 information literacy performance indicators.
Some of the indicators included being able to access needed information, being able to evaluate
information for uniqueness, and being able to utilize information to create a new idea. Stanger
(2012) found that faculty believed they were more responsible than the librarians were for
helping students meet 10 of the 11 information literacy performance indicators. The only
information literacy performance indicator the faculty believed the librarians were more
responsible for teaching than they was “student constructs and implements effectively designed
search strategies” (Stanger, 2012, p. 123). The conclusions of Housewright et al. (2013) and
Stanger’s (2012) contradict the findings in this study. The participants in this study did not
prioritize their instructional responsibilities of teaching information literacy competencies over
librarians.
The findings of this study also indicate the participants thought librarians were
responsible for supplementing instruction by teaching the research process as opposed to course
content. This finding was supported by Badke’s (2005) assertion that librarians and faculty have
different instructional priorities. Badke (2005) pointed out, in his research on the relationships
between faculty and librarians, that librarians’ instructional priorities were on general
information literacy skills that addressed the research process and go beyond the boundaries of a
particular discipline (Badke, 2005). Faculty prioritize teaching the content in a discipline instead
of the broader skills that can be acquired outside of the discipline (Badke, 2005). The findings in
this study were also supported by those of Ducas and Michaud-Oystryk (2003). While exploring
how faculty collaborate with librarians, Ducas and Michaud-Oystryk (2003) observed that
115
faculty believed they were responsible for teaching core content while librarians were
responsible for teaching material that was supplemental and peripheral.
Role theory was applicable to the second finding of this study because the organizational
perspective frame roles from the context of an organization’s structure (Zai, 2015). Although the
librarians are faculty at Woodlawn College, they have a different set of responsibilities
established by the organizational structure, such as term of contract, course load, etc. As a result,
organizational role theory provided insight into why the participants clearly differentiated their
roles from the roles of librarians. From the organizational perspective, the participants defined
their responsibilities as well as the librarians for teaching information literacy. The participants
thought they were responsible for teaching information literacy through direct instruction and by
incorporating it in course assignments. They also believed librarians were responsible for
teaching information literacy and supplementing instruction.
In role theory, the participants were considered role senders because they have developed
beliefs about themselves and librarians. According to Fischer (2010), role senders develop
beliefs about what individuals should or should not do based on the role they serve. The
participants were also considered role senders because they create role expectations. Role
expectations are the expectations an individual establishes for themselves and others (Murray,
1998). From the organizational perspective, the process in which the participants assign roles for
themselves and for the librarians is called role pressures (Fischer, 2010). If the role pressures
were met with resistance by librarians or by the participants themselves, it would manifest in the
form of role conflict or role ambiguity. An instance of role conflict was evident when one
participant stated he deferred to librarians to teach information literacy in his courses. In role
theory, this is considered intra-role conflict because even though the participant was responsible
116
for helping students meet their learning outcomes in information literacy, he believed the
librarians were more qualified to handle the task for the general education courses he taught.
The participant had an inner conflict with the role he played. The resulting behavior or reaction
by the participant was to engage in a librarian-led information literacy session. Although there
was evidence of role conflict, there was no indication of role ambiguity, or lack of clarity about
the roles the participants served in teaching information literacy. The findings showed that the
participants could define clearly their roles as well as the librarians with respect to information
literacy. In the following section, the finding on how faculty have a positive perception of
librarian-led information literacy is discussed.
Faculty Have a Positive Perception of Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction
The findings indicated that the participants generally had a positive perception of
librarian-led information literacy instruction. The participants expressed either an interest or a
need for a librarian to visit their classroom to teach information literacy. The four reasons the
participants were receptive to having a librarian visit their class were (a) they appreciated having
a different voice in the classroom teaching students information literacy skills, (b) they respected
the librarians expertise with research and technology, (c) they thought it facilitated in students
going to the library, and (d) they felt it was a good instructional practice. The participants held a
positive perception of librarian-led information literacy instruction because the librarians met
their expectations in pedagogy. The findings showed the librarians met the participants’
expectations for two reasons. First, the librarians conducted the appropriate preparatory work
needed to address information literacy learning outcomes. Secondly, the librarians addressed the
information literacy competencies the participants requested they cover.
The findings related to the participants’ positive perception of librarian-led information
117
literacy instruction are also positioned in the literature. The participants in this study generally
had positive experiences in librarian-led information literacy sessions. The reports of a positive
experience by faculty were congruent with the findings of Berg and Weiner (2018), who studied
faculties’ perception of librarian instruction on student work. Similar to the conclusions drawn
by Berg and Weiner (2018), the participants in this study had a positive attitude about librarian-
led information literacy instruction. The notion that faculty held a positive perception about their
overall experience with librarian-led instruction was also cited in several other notable studies
(Birkett & Hughes, 2013; Lecea & Perez-Stable, 2019; Ward & Kim, 2017).
The findings from this study indicated that faculty were receptive to having librarians
come to their class for instructional purposes. These findings were consistent with the
conclusions cited in the studies by Manuel, Beck and Molloy (2005), Yousef (2010), and Cowan
and Eva (2016). In a study administered by Manuel, Beck and Molloy (2005), on the attitudes
that compelled faculty to engage in library instruction, they reported three reasons why faculty
participate in librarian-led information literacy instruction. Manuel et al., (2005) cited that
faculty were receptive to librarian-led information literacy instruction because they (a) respect
librarians’ expertise, (b) it validates what faculty tell students, and (c) librarians help students
become life-long learners. Parallel to Manuel et al.’s (2005) study, the participants in this study
cited respect for librarians’ expertise as one of the reasons why they were receptive to librarian-
led information literacy instruction. The findings in this study were also consistent with the
results from Cowan and Eva (2016) who carried out a study on faculty perspectives of
information literacy. Cowan and Eva (2016) discovered that faculty were receptive to having
library instruction serve as a medium for improving their students’ information literacy skills.
Similar to Cowan and Eva (2016), Yousef’s (2010) study on faculty attitudes towards
118
collaborating with librarians found that faculty were receptive to librarian-led information
literacy. Yousef (2010) also concluded that faculty thought library instruction was crucial to
effective teaching and learning. Similar to Yousef (2010) and Cowan and Eva (2016), the
participants in this study were receptive to librarian-led information literacy instruction because
they thought it was an effective pedagogical approach.
The findings in this study contradict several studies that concluded librarians fall short of
expectations. While examining how faculty perceived the role of librarians in instruction,
Feldman and Sciammarella (2000), found that some faculty thought librarians did not meet
expectations from a pedagogical standpoint because they were dissatisfied with their experiences
in librarian-led information literacy sessions. Although there were three accounts of a negative
experience with library instruction, the participants overall stated their experiences in librarian-
led information literacy sessions were positive. In a study on how faculty felt students were
meeting information literacy learning outcomes, Saunders (2012) concluded that librarians feel
short of meeting expectations because they were sometimes unaware of which types of resources
the different disciplines prefer. In a similar study, Perry (2017) noted in her research on faculty
perceptions of students’ information literacy skills, that librarians may not meet faculty
expectations because they do not prioritize the topics most important to faculty. The results from
this study indicated the librarians met the participants’ expectations for instruction. The
participants’ stated their expectations were met when the librarians requested information on
what topics were assigned for the course’s research paper and addressed the information literacy
needs of the students identified by the faculty.
By applying the cognitive approach of role theory, which focuses on how a person
perceives and reacts to and within roles, it helps provide a lens to explain why the participants
119
had a positive perception of library instruction and why they were receptive to engaging in those
sessions. According to role theory, the participants’ beliefs were shaped by their experience with
librarians being prepared to teach and amenable to targeting specific information literacy
learning outcomes. These favorable experiences led to the participants having a positive attitude
about information literacy instruction. As a result, the participants respond by being receptive to
librarian-led information literacy instruction. This evidence of role theory was valid because the
cognitive approach examines the relationship between expectations and behavior (Guirguis &
Chewning, 2005). In role theory, expectations are an individual’s attitude, preference or belief
(Biddle, 1986). The following section discusses the last finding on how faculty believed there
were challenges with librarian-led information literacy instruction.
Faculty Encountered Challenges With Librarian-led Information Literacy Instruction
The fourth finding in this study indicated that the participants experienced some
challenges with librarian-led information literacy instruction. The participants expressed some
concerns about how librarians conducted library sessions that included that it was not interactive
enough and that librarians should try a pedagogical approach that facilitated learning through
hands on activities and feedback. The participants also shared three concerns about the
instructional material covered in the library curriculum. First, the participants noted that library
sessions were repetitive and students were familiar with the material covered by the librarians.
Secondly, the participants noted the librarians did not cover some free educational tools such as
Wikipedia, Google Scholar, and Zotero, in the library sessions. Lastly, the participants had some
concerns about what topics should be covered during a session. The participants felt students
should be given a broad overview of the different electronic resources instead of a session that
targeted a specific database.
120
Few studies in the literature report the challenges of librarian-led instruction from the
perspective of faculty. While conducting a study on the attitudes influencing faculty
collaborating with librarians in library instruction, Manuel et al., (2005) found faculty were
challenged by (a) miscommunication in planning sessions, (b) differences in instructional style
between the librarian and faculty, and (c) librarians’ providing information that contradicted their
instruction. In their research on faculty and librarian engagement in information literacy,
Gardner and White-Farnham (2013) cited that a lack of support for collaboration with librarians
was also a hurdle encountered by faculty. The participants in this study did not identify these as
challenges to librarian-led information literacy instruction. From their perspective, the obstacles
were that library instruction sessions needed to be more interactive and that there needed to be a
change in the topics covered in the sessions. The results of this study were, however, consistent
with Nilsen’s (2012) findings, who studied faculty perceptions of librarian-led information
literacy instruction. Nilsen (2012) reported in her study the challenge faculty observed with
librarian-led instruction was the duplication of information literacy material taught to students.
Similar to Nilsen’s (2012) study, the participants in this study found some of the library
curriculum material to be repetitive.
Applying the concept of role theory, specifically role-taking, illustrates how participants
were able to assess the challenges of library instruction by taking on the role of librarians.
According to Turner (1956), role-taking is evident even when individuals do not outwardly
demonstrate they are taking on the role of another person. The only requirement necessary for
role-taking to occur is for an individual to be knowledgeable about a situation. In essence, the
participant does not have to teach information literacy to be a role taker. Whether the
participants felt they were responsible for teaching information literacy or not, they are
121
considered role takers because they understand the nuances of information literacy and were able
to point out the issues with how it was taught by the librarians. For example, one participant
stated that he did not teach information literacy in his courses but instead deferred to librarians
because of their expertise. Although the participant, does not teach information literacy he was
still considered a role-taker because he understood the nuances of information literacy and had a
perspective on how it should be taught.
Role-taking was also applicable to this finding in that it prevented some complications in
the relationship between the participants and the librarians. Turner (1956) asserted that
confusion between taking another person’s role and adopting their position is the cause of
“altruistic or sympathetic behavior” (p. 319). Furthermore, role-taking resolves potential
conflicts that could ensue from differing beliefs (Turner, 1956). Role-taking was apparent
because even though the participants have identified a few challenges with librarian-led
instruction, they still have a positive perception of library instruction and were receptive to
having librarians come to their class. Role-taking can also be applied to how one participant
deliberated on whether to teach google scholar in an information literacy session. Although the
participant thought the fact that librarians refrain from teaching Google Scholar was a challenge
of librarian-led instruction, he recognized the drawbacks of teaching students how to search it.
Conclusion
The research question this study sought to answer was “How do Woodlawn College
undergraduate faculty make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction?” The results
of this study concluded that the participants made sense of librarian-led information literacy in
several ways. First, the participants made sense of the term information literacy in the same way
as the library professional organization, ACRL, has defined the concept and key competencies in
122
information literacy instruction. The participants in this study were able to discern the
differences in the roles they and librarians have in teaching information literacy to students.
Secondly, this study found the participants believed that librarians and faculty have a mutual role
in teaching information literacy. The participants communicated their role in teaching
information literacy by consistently articulating they were responsible for integrating information
literacy competencies in course assignments and by modeling best practices. The participants
made sense of librarian-led instruction by asserting the value of inviting librarians in the
classroom, who were experts in research and technology. They also made sense of librarian-led
instruction in their stated belief that librarians were responsible for teaching the research process.
They also agreed that librarian-led instruction should focus on teaching information literacy
skills and not the specific course content.
The third finding in this study was that participants had a positive perception of librarian-
led information literacy instruction. The participants shared that the librarians met their
expectations for instruction in the classrooms and that they were receptive to supporting
librarian-led instruction as part of their pedagogical approach. The fourth finding of this study
was that the participants had challenges with librarian-led information literacy instruction. The
participants were concerned that librarian-led instruction needed to be more interactive, focused
on free educational tools, and broadened to cover a variety of databases. The participants
believed these issues could be addressed by having more interactive librarian-led information
library sessions that covered a full range of academic resources available to students. Overall,
the participants communicated having positive experiences engaging in librarian-led instruction.
This positive disposition towards librarian-led information literacy instruction has resulted in
faculty being receptive to including librarians in their classrooms.
123
Although the existing literature on faculty perceptions of librarian-led information
literacy was somewhat limited, it supported the general findings of this study by illustrating that
faculty in previous studies conceptualized information literacy similar to librarians and expected
them to focus on teaching the research process instead of course content. Although there were
some areas where there was a contradiction to the findings in this study, the literature supported
the finding that faculty generally have a positive perception of librarian-led information literacy
instruction but recognize it has some challenges (Berg & Weiner 2018; Birkett & Hughes, 2013;
Lecea & Perez-Stable, 2019; Ward & Kim, 2017). The findings in this study were in
contradiction to Feldman and Sciammerella (2000), who observed that faculty were dissatisfied
with their experiences in librarian-led information literacy sessions. The application of role
theory as a theoretical framework was useful in identifying how faculty established roles for
librarians, perceived library instruction, and assessed the challenges of librarian-led pedagogy.
What can be concluded from these findings were the librarians should consider revising the
library curriculum taught to general education courses by making sessions more interactive and
by demonstrating free educational tools. The next section in this chapter discusses the
recommendations for practice and future research.
Recommendation for Practice
Based on the findings of this research study, the following are recommendations for the
practice of improving librarian-led information literacy instruction at the undergraduate level.
The three recommendations focus on increasing/improving the levels of collaboration between
faculty and librarians by embedding librarian led information literacy sessions in the curriculum.
The first recommendation for practice is to establish more professional development
opportunities for faculty to remain current with the latest changes in information literacy, such as
124
the information literacy framework or “critical information literacy”. Keeping faculty informed
of the concepts of information literacy and its importance could strengthen the partnership
between faculty and librarians (Johnson-Grau et al., 2016). Furthermore, it also promotes
collaboration between faculty and librarians. From the perspective of role theory, establishing a
shared understanding of the fundamentals of information literacy could further facilitate
consensus among faculty and librarians, which promotes collaboration (Zai, 2015) and averts
conflict (Andrew et al., 2014). Opportunities for informing faculty of updates in information
literacy and for promoting collaboration can be accomplished in several ways. Gilman et al.
(2017) suggests creating work groups, workshops, and teaching and learning institutes that
facilitate the integration of new concepts in information literacy into the general education
curriculum. Some other professional development opportunities that could be created are
conferences and training sessions on information literacy. Encouraging flexibility in the way
faculty collaborate with librarians would also help keep them informed and bolster the
relationship between the two academic stakeholders (Junisbai, Lowe & Tagge, 2016). This can
be done by providing the faculty member with options on how information literacy should be
incorporated into their course (Junisbai et al., 2016; Belzowski & Robison, 2019). These options
could even be delineated in the library’s policies and procedures for information literacy
instruction (Belzowski & Robison, 2019). Lastly, writing out a teaching philosophy could result
in a meaningful partnership with faculty and serve as a conduit for dialog about information
literacy (Meulemans & Carr, 2012).
The second recommendation is to create a library credit-bearing course or a course
embedded with a librarian. Research on information literacy instruction has shown that credit-
bearing and embedded librarian courses are rated by librarians as one of the most effective
125
methods of teaching information literacy (Yearwood, Foasberg, & Rosenberg, 2015; Jones et al.,
2019). The reasons these models of instruction are important are that they enable scaffolded
instruction and minimize redundancy in pedagogy (Wissinger et al., 2018). Credit-bearing
courses are an effective way of teaching students information literacy because it offers them a
chance to delve into the information literacy competencies more in depth than a “one-shot”
session (Leavitt, 2016). Furthermore, students are inclined to be more engaged because they are
graded on their assignments (Leavitt, 2016). Librarians embedded in courses have been found
helpful to both students and faculty with finding resources pertaining to a course (Edwards,
Kumar, & Ochoa, 2010). Credit-bearing courses can be created by incorporating ACRL’s
“Guidelines for Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries” (2011) which include defining
learning outcomes, aligning the course to the Information Literacy Competency Standards for
Higher Education, and by planning to assess students. Embedded librarianship can be properly
implemented by including librarians from different areas of the library in the preparation process
and establishing the instructional roles between the instructor and librarian before the course
commences (Hoffman & Ramin, 2010). Viewed through the lens of role theory, consensus
between faculty and librarians on what information literacy means would facilitate collaboration
if a course was embedded with a librarian (Zai, 2015). When consensus is established social
systems within an organization run efficiently and individuals within that system avoid conflict
(Andrew et al., 2014).
The last recommendation for practice is to solicit comments from faculty about librarian-
led instruction. The responses from faculty about their experiences with library instruction could
help librarians meet the instructional needs of faculty as well as strengthen the collaborative
relationship between them (Belzowski & Robison, 2019). Soliciting feedback from faculty about
126
librarian-led instruction could also help librarians identify any misconceptions as well as remedy
any concerns (Berg & Weiner, 2018). Furthermore, a collaborative approach to assessment on
library instruction between librarians and faculty ensures that both academic stakeholders are
committed to improving the process of teaching and learning (Belanger, Bliquez, & Mondal,
2012). Assessment on library instruction from the perspective of faculty can be accomplished by
surveying faculty or by requesting feedback after the completion of a librarian-led information
literacy session. Belzowski and Robison (2019) noted that providing faculty with guidelines and
a rubric on ways to integrate information literacy into their class could be helpful in engaging
reluctant faculty in participating in librarian-led information literacy instruction. From the
perspective of role theory, faculty assessment of librarian-led information literacy sessions is an
example of role-taking because they are aware of what information literacy means and how it
should be taught. Librarians can learn how to improve their instructional techniques from the
faculties’ feedback or through role-taking. The next section of this chapter discusses how as a
practitioner I will implement the aforementioned recommendations.
Next Steps
As the Head Librarian of one of the branches at my college’s library, I have an
opportunity to implement my recommendations into practice. The first step I would take as the
Head librarian is to work with the library director, the library unit heads, and the coordinator of
library instruction to reinstitute the introductory course that was formerly in the college course
catalog. Librarians are faculty at my institution and can apply to have a course approved by its
curriculum committee. In addition to formally applying for the course to be reinstated, the
process involves a minimum of creating a syllabus, determining the course focus, aligning the
course competencies with the general education curriculum, and creating rubrics for assessing
127
learning outcomes.
The three-credit introductory library course would be designed for first year and second
year students. The purpose of the course would be to introduce students to the basic concepts of
information literacy as well as build a foundation for conducting research in the major disciplines
such as science, social science and the humanities. The course would be offered in both the fall
and spring semesters to ensure students have an opportunity to enroll in the class at some point in
their academic career. The librarians would continue to teach “one-shot” sessions in the upper-
level courses in order to reinforce the information literacy competencies learned in the
reinstituted credit-bearing library courses. The library would be able to determine if students are
transferring knowledge from the credit-bearing library course to upper-level courses, such as
Junior Seminar, by conducting an assessment study, which the library undertakes every five
years.
If the course is approved by the library director and the appropriate college curriculum
committees, I would then form a library curriculum team composed of the library instruction
coordinator, the reference and instruction librarians, and classroom faculty from the general
education courses. Classroom faculty members could be recommended or recruited to the
curriculum team using the library’s liaisons to the different disciplines. The focus of this
collaborative team would be to gain an outside perspective on how the information literacy
framework should be implemented. The committee would also serve to inform faculty of the
newest developments in information literacy. At the conclusion of the library course, the
reference and instruction librarians would assess whether students met learning outcomes and
determine what adjustments to the curriculum are required. The library curriculum team, which
would include classroom faculty, would reconvene in the summer to discuss the next steps for
128
implementing “one-shot” sessions meant to reinforce the skills students learned in the credit-
bearing course.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the conclusions from this study and the recommendations for practice, several
suggestions are offered for future research.
1. How undergraduate faculty, who do not teach general education courses,
incorporate information literacy competencies in their courses. The
undergraduate faculty in this study were responsible for teaching general
education courses. However, further research is needed to uncover
whether faculty who teach in discipline specific areas have a different
perspective on the importance of librarian-led information literacy.
Understanding the perspectives of these faculty members has implications
on library instructional goals and outreach.
2. The role undergraduate faculty believe librarians serve in promoting
information literacy in academia. This information would be helpful in
determining what direction academic stakeholders, such as administration,
students, and staff, think the library is heading towards in the future.
Understanding the role faculty think librarians serve in teaching
information literacy can help academic librarians prepare for changes to
their work responsibilities or to the college curriculum by allowing
librarians to strategically implement the adjustments needed to
accommodate those changes. Furthermore, it can help academic librarians
129
influence the perception of faculty by illuminating what information about
the library needs to be marketed and promoted.
3. How faculty would like information literacy concepts integrated into their
classroom. In some cases, librarians are not mandated to teach
information literacy but are invited by faculty into the classroom.
Therefore, it is important to study how the faculty would like concepts of
information literacy to be taught in their courses. This study showed the
faculties’ perspectives ranged from having more interactive sessions to
teaching free educational resources on the web.
4. How students and librarians perceive the effectiveness of information
literacy. Since librarian-led information literacy instruction is designed to
help students succeed, more research needs to be done on how students
perceive information literacy instruction. The research needs to focus on
the feedback from students about whether librarian-led information
literacy sessions are beneficial. This research could help librarians modify
their instructional techniques so that they could meet students’ needs more
effectively. Furthermore, research on the feedback from librarians as to
what they believe are the best instructional practices for teaching
information literacy could help with designing library curriculums.
5. A closer examination of faculty culture and how that influences their
reluctance to collaborate with librarians. Hardesty (1995) noted that
“faculty culture” inherently resists change and as a result it prevents
faculty from participating in librarian-led information literacy instruction.
130
Further research is needed to understand “faculty culture” in its present
state and what impact it has on librarian-led instruction. The implication
for this research is that it would help librarians with their outreach efforts
to faculty.
This research study focused on how faculty made sense of librarian-led information
literacy by exploring undergraduate faculties’ experiences. As with any study, the findings have
uncovered the need for additional research on faculty perceptions of information literacy
instruction.
131
References
Adams, S. R., & Mix, E. K. (2014). Taking the lead in faculty development: Teacher educators
changing the culture of university faculty development through collaboration. AILACTE
Journal, 11(1), 37–56.
Ahmed, S., & Islam, R. (2012). Students’ perception on library service quality: A qualitative
study of IIUM library, 6(2), 19-29.
Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good
qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,
5(2), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9
Anderson, J. (2013). Men and women communicating in the workplace: Why gender differences
matter and make organizations more effective. In J. Wrench (Ed.), Workplace
communication for the 21st Century: Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line
(Vol. 1, pp. 157-178). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Andrew, K., Richards, R., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Templin, T. J. (2014). Initial validation of the
teacher/coach role conflict scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 18(4), 259-272.
Andrew, K., Richards, R., & Templin, T. J. (2012). Toward a multidimensional perspective on
teacher-coach role conflict. Quest, 64(3), 164-176.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Academic library contributions to
student success: Documented practices from the field. Chicago: Association of College
and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.acrl.ala.org/value.
132
Badke, W. B. (2005). Can’t get no respect: Helping faculty to understand the educational power
of information literacy. The Reference Librarian, 43(89–90), 63–80.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v43n89_05
Badke, W. (2011). Why information literacy is invisible. Communications in Information
Literacy, 4(2), 129-141.
Badke, W. (2014). Infolit and GPA. Online Searcher, 38(1), 68–70
Bauder, J., & Rod, C. (2016). Crossing thresholds: Critical information literacy pedagogy and
the ACRL framework. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 23(3), 252–264.
Belanger, J., Bliquez, R., & Mondal, S. (2012). Developing a collaborative faculty-librarian
information literacy assessment project. Library Review, 61(2), 68-91.
Belzowski, N., & Robison, M. (2019). Kill the one-shot: Using a collaborative rubric to liberate
the librarian–instructor partnership. Journal of Library Administration, 59(3), 282-297.
Berg, C. E., & Weiner, N. J. (2018). How are we doing? Using faculty feedback to assess the
impact of library instruction on student work. Practical Academic Librarianship: The
International Journal of the SLA, 8(2), 13-27.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual review of sociology, 12(1), 67-
92.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to
enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research,
26(13), 1802-1811.
133
Birkett, M., & Hughes, A. (2013). A collaborative project to integrate information literacy skills
into an undergraduate psychology course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12(1), 96–
100. https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.96
Black, E. L., & Murphy, S. A. (2017). The out loud assignment: Articulating library
contributions to first-year student success. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5),
409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.008
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap have women gone as far as they can?
The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 7-23.
Bombaro, C. (2016). The framework is elitist. Reference Services Review, 44(4), 552–563.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-08-2016-0052
Boon, S., Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2007). A phenomenographic study of English faculty’s
conceptions of information literacy. Journal of Documentation, 63(2), 204–228.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710737187
Booth, C., Lowe, M. S., Tagge, N., & Stone, S. M. (2015). Degrees of impact: Analyzing the
effects of progressive librarian course collaborations on student performance. College &
Research Libraries, 76(5), 623–651. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.5.623
Bougatzeli, E., Togia, A., & Papadimitriou, E. (2015). Developing an information literacy course
for teacher education students in Greece. International Journal of Literacies, 21(2), 17–
26.
Bowles-Terry, M. (2012). Library instruction and academic success: A mixed-methods
assessment of a library instruction program. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 7(1), 82–95.
134
Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Role efficacy, role clarity, and role performance
effectiveness. Small Group Research, 33(2), 233-253.
Briscoe, F. M. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and
intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38(1), 23-41.
Bryman, A. (2004). Member validation and check. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F.
Liao (Eds.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 633-634).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412950589
Bungay, V., Oliffe, J., & Atchison, C. (2016). Addressing underrepresentation in sex work
research: Reflections on designing a purposeful sampling strategy. Qualitative Health
Research, 26(7), 966-978.
Burke, J. J., & Tumbleson, B. E. (2016). LMS embedded librarianship and the educational role
of librarians. Library Technology Reports, 52(2), 5-9.
Bury, S. (2011). Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: A study
across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of Information Literacy,
5(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.11645/5.1.1513
Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy: Opportunities and
challenges for undergraduate information literacy education. Reference Services
Review, 44(3), 237-252.
Catalano, A. J., & Phillips, S. R. (2016). Information literacy and retention: A case study of the
value of the library. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(4), 2-13.
Christiansen, L., Stombler, M., & Thaxton, L. (2004). A report on librarian-faculty relations
135
from a sociological perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 116–121.
Cohen, N., Holdsworth, L., Prechtel, J. M., Newby, J., Mery, Y., Pfander, J., & Eagleson, L.
(2016). A survey of information literacy credit courses in US academic libraries:
Prevalence and characteristics. Reference Services Review, 44(4), 564–582.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2016-0021
Connelly, L. M. (2010). What is phenomenology? Medsurg Nursing, 19(2), 127-129.
Conor, E. (2016). Engaging students in disciplinary practices: Music information literacy and the
ACRL framework for information literacy in higher education. Notes, 73(1), 9–21.
Cook, J. M. (2014). A library credit course and student success rates: A longitudinal study.
College & Research Libraries, 75(3), 272-283.
Cope, J., & Sanabria, J. E. (2014). Do we speak the same language? A study of faculty
perceptions of information literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 475–501.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2014.0032
Cowan, S., & Eva, N. (2016). Changing our aim: Infiltrating faculty with information literacy.
Communications in Information Literacy, 10(2), 163-177.
https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.31
Cronin, B. (2001). The mother of all myths. Library Journal, 126(3), 144-146
Daugherty, A. L., & Russo, M. F. (2011). An assessment of the lasting effects of a stand-alone
information literacy course: the students’ perspective. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 37(4), 319–326.
Davis, M. G., & Smith, C. E. (2009). Virtually embedded: Library instruction within second life.
136
Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 3(3–4), 120–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332900903375465
Dawes, L. (2019). Faculty perceptions of teaching information literacy to first-year students: A
phenomenographic study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(2), 545–
560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617726129
Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the academic library: A reflection on roles,
relevancy and relationships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 30–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2014.911194
Denison, D. R., & Montgomery, D. (2012). Annoyance or delight? College students' perspectives
on looking for information. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 380-390.
Detlor, B., Booker, L., Serenko, A., & Julien, H. (2012). Student perceptions of information
literacy instruction: The importance of active learning. Education for Information, 29(2),
147–161. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2012-0924
Drewes, K., & Hoffman, N. (2010). Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction. Public
Services Quarterly, 6(2–3), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.498773
Dubicki, E. (2013). Faculty perceptions of students’ information literacy skills competencies.
Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 97-125. https://doi.org/10.11645/7.2.1852
Dubicki, E. (2015). Writing a research paper: Students explain their process. Reference Services
Review, 43(4), 673–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2015-0036
137
Ducas, A. M., & Michaud-Oystryk, N. (2003). Toward a new enterprise: Capitalizing on the
faculty–librarian partnership. College & Research Libraries, 64(1), 55–74.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.1.55
Ducas, A. M., & Michaud-Oystryk, N. (2004). Toward a new venture: Building partnerships
with faculty. College & Research Libraries, 65(4), 334–348.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.334
Edwards, M., Kumar, S., & Ochoa, M. (2010). Assessing the value of embedded librarians in an
online graduate educational technology course. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2/3), 271–
291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.497447
Elliott, E. R., Reason, R. D., Coffman, C. R., Gangloff, E. J., Raker, J. R., Powell-Coffman, J.
A., & Ogilvie, C. A. (2016). Improved student learning through a faculty learning
community: How faculty collaboration transformed a large-enrollment course from
lecture to student centered. Cell Biology Education, 15(2), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-07-0112
Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate
others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3-29.
Eng, S., & Stadler, D. (2015). Linking library to student retention: A statistical analysis.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10(3), 50–63.
Feldman, D., & Sciammarella, S. (2000). Both sides of the looking glass: Librarian and teaching
faculty perceptions of librarianship at six community colleges. College & Research
Libraries, 61(6), 491–497.
138
Fischer, F. M. (2010). Introduction to role theory. In The application of the controllability
principle and managers’ responses (pp. 77-103). Retrieved from https://link-springer-
com.queens.ezproxy.cuny.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-3-8349-6030-6_3
Folk, A. L. (2016). Information literacy in postsecondary education in the United Kingdom, the
United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(1),
11–31.
Framework for information literacy in higher education. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Galbraith, Q., Garrison, M., & Hales, W. (2016). Perceptions of faculty status among academic
librarians. College & Research Libraries, 77(5), 582–594.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.5.582
Galletta, D. F., & Heckman, R. L. (1990). A role theory perspective on end-user
development. Information Systems Research, 1(2), 168-187.
Gardner, C. C., & White-Farnham, J. (2013). “She has a vocabulary I just don’t have”: Faculty
culture and information literacy collaboration. Collaborative Librarianship, 5(4), 235-
242.
Gilman, N. V., Sagàs, J., Camper, M., & Norton, A. P. (2017). A faculty–librarian collaboration
success story: Implementing a teach-the-teacher library and information literacy
instruction model in a first-year agricultural science course. Library Trends, 65(3), 339–
358. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2017.0005
139
Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00283-
5
Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2009). Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: Defining,
attaining, and self-assessing skills. College & Research Libraries, 70(4), 336-350.
Gross, M., Latham, D., & Julien, H. (2018). What the framework means to me: Attitudes of
academic librarians toward the ACRL framework for information literacy for higher
education. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3–4), 262–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.008
Goetsch, L. A. (2008). Reinventing our work: New and emerging roles for academic librarians.
Journal of Library Administration, 48(2), 157–172.
Guidelines for instruction programs in academic libraries. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesinstruction
Guirguis, L. M., & Chewning, B. A. (2005). Role theory: Literature review and implications for
patient-pharmacist interactions. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 1(4),
483–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2005.09.006
Hall, R. A. (2008). The “embedded” librarian in a freshman speech class: Information literacy
instruction in action. College & Research Libraries News, 69(1), 28–30.
Hardesty, L. (1995). Faculty culture and bibliographic instruction: An exploratory analysis.
Library Trends, 44(2), 339-368.
Hardesty, L., Lovrich Jr, N. P., & Mannon, J. (1982). Library-use instruction: Assessment of the
140
long-term effects. College & Research Libraries, 43(1), 38–46.
Hayes, J., McNeilly, S., & Johnson, P. (2018). Getting things to POP: How collaboration,
umbrellas and popcorn machines changed the relevancy of the Auburn University at
Montgomery library. In V. Gubnitskaia & C. Smallwood (Eds.), The relevant library:
Essays on adapting to changing needs (pp. 14-22). Jefferson, NC: McFarland &
Company, Inc.
Head, A. J. (2013). Project information literacy: What can be learned about the information-
seeking behavior of today’s college students? Retrieved from
www.projectinfolit.org/uploads/2/7/5/4/27541717/head_project.pdf
Hill, J. S. (2005). Constant vigilance, babelfish, and foot surgery: Perspectives on faculty status
and tenure for academic librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 7–22.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2005.0004
Hoffman, N., Beatty, S., Feng, P., & Lee, J. (2017). Teaching research skills through embedded
librarianship. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-
07-2016-0045
Hoffman, S., & Ramin, L. (2010). Best practices for librarians embedded in online courses.
Public services quarterly, 6(2-3), 292-305.
Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2012.
Retrieved from https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/us-faculty-survey-2012/
Jackson, J. (1998). Contemporary criticisms of role theory. Journal of Occupational Science,
5(2), 49-55.
141
Jacobson, T. E., & Germain, C. A. (2004). A campus-wide role for an information literacy
committee. Resource sharing & information networks, 17(1-2), 111-121
Johnson, A. M. (2018). Connections, conversations, and visibility: How the work of academic
reference and liaison librarians is evolving. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 58(2),
91-102. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.2.6929
Johnson-Grau, G., Archambault, S. G., Acosta, E. S., & McLean, L. (2016). Patience,
persistence, and process: Embedding a campus-wide information literacy program across
the curriculum. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(6), 750–756.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.10.013
Jones, K., Gilbert, K., Chesnut, M., & Marcum, B., (2019). Kentucky academic librarian
perceptions of information literacy instruction techniques. Kentucky Libraries, 83(1), 19–
25. Retrieved from
http://staclib.stac.edu:2052/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=136665763&site=eds-
live&scope=site
Julien, H., & Given, L. M. (2002). Faculty-librarian relationships in the information literacy
context: A content analysis of librarians’ expressed attitudes and experiences. Canadian
Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(3), 65-87.
Julien, H. (2016). Beyond the hyperbole: Information literacy reconsidered. Communications in
Information Literacy, 10(2) 124-131.
Julien, H., Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2018). Survey of information literacy instructional practices
in US academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 79(2), 179-199
Junisbai, B., Lowe, M. S., & Tagge, N. (2016). A pragmatic and flexible approach to information
142
literacy: findings from a three-year study of faculty-librarian collaboration. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 604-611.
Kim, S. U., & Shumaker, D. (2015). Student, librarian, and instructor perceptions of information
literacy instruction and skills in a first year experience program: A case study. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(4), 449–456.
Klentzin, J. (2010). The borderland of value: Examining student attitudes towards secondary
research. Reference Services Review, 38(4), 557-570.
Kline, E., Wallace, N., Sult, L., & Hagedon, M. (2017). Embedding the library in the LMS: Is it
a good investment for your organization’s information literacy program? In T. Maddison
& M. Kumaran (Eds.), Distributed Learning: Pedagogy and Technology in Online
Information Literacy Instruction. (pp. 255-269). Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/northeastern-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4717428
Kotter, W. R. (1999). Bridging the great divide: Improving relations between librarians and
classroom faculty. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(4), 294–303.
Kwon, N. (2008). A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking
and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process.
College & Research Libraries, 69(2), 117–131.
Leavitt, L. (2016). Taking the plunge! A case study in teaching a credit-bearing information
literacy course to business undergraduate students. Journal of Business & Finance
Librarianship, 21(3/4), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226617
Lebbin, V. K. (2006). Students perceptions on the long-range value of information literacy
143
instruction through a learning community. Research Strategies, 20(3), 204–218.
Lecea, M., & Perez-Stable, M. A. (2019). Success of reiterative instruction: Looking at faculty-
librarian collaboration to improve information literacy in political science
education. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 26(1), 35-51.
Leckie, G., & Fullerton, A. (1999). Information literacy in science and engineering
undergraduate education: Faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices. College &
Research Libraries, 60(1), 9–29.
Leeder, C., & Lonn, S. (2014). Faculty usage of library tools in a learning management system.
College & Research Libraries, 75(5), 641–663. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.5.641
Liberal arts. (2018). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.neu.edu/levels/collegiate/article/liberal-arts/48113
Lloyd, A. (2011). Trapped between a rock and a hard place: What counts as information literacy
in the workplace and how is it conceptualized?. Library Trends, 60(2), 277-296.
Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their
contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304263638
Lynch, K. D. (2007). Modeling role enactment: Linking role theory and social cognition. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(4), 379–399.
Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Major, J. A. (1993). Mature librarians and the university faculty: Factors contributing to
144
librarians’ acceptance as colleagues. College & Research Libraries, 54(6), 463–469.
Manuel, K., Beck, S. E., & Molloy, M. (2005). An ethnographic study of attitudes influencing
faculty collaboration in library instruction. The Reference Librarian, 43(89–90), 139–
161. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v43n89_10
Matthew, V., & Schroeder, A. (2006). The embedded librarian program. Educause Quarterly,
29(4), 61-65
Maybee, C. (2006). Undergraduate perceptions of information use: The basis for creating user-
centered student information literacy instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
32(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.10.010
McGeough, R., & Rudick, C. K. (2018). “It was at the library; therefore it must be credible”:
Mapping patterns of undergraduate heuristic decision-making. Communication
Education, 67(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1409899
McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think- Exploring the barriers to information literacy
development in undergraduate education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6),
573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.002
McKeever, C., Bates, J., & Reilly, J. (2017). School library staff perspectives on teacher
information literacy and collaboration. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2), 51-68.
https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187
Merriam, S. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In P. Peters & P. Jarvis (Eds.), Adult
Education: Evolution and Achievements in a Developing Field of Study (pp. 42-65). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
145
Meulemans, Y., & Carr, A. (2013). Not at your service: Building genuine faculty‐librarian
partnerships. Reference Services Review, 41(1), 80–90.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321311300893
Mi, M. (2015). Expanding librarian roles through a librarian initiated and facilitated faculty
learning community. Journal of Library Administration, 55(1), 24–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.978683
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2014). Standards for accreditation and
requirements of affiliation. Retrieved from
https://www.msche.org/documents/RevisedStandardsFINAL.pdf
Moore, J. A., & Carter-Hicks, J. (2014). Let’s talk! Facilitating a faculty learning community
using a critical friends group approach. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-17.
Mounce, M. (2010). Working together: Academic librarians and faculty collaborating to improve
students’ information literacy skills: A literature review 2000–2009. The Reference
Librarian, 51(4), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2010.501420
Murray, T. A. (1998). Using role theory concepts to understand transitions from hospital-based
nursing practice to home care nursing. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing,
29(3), 105-111.
Nilsen, C. (2012, June). Faculty perceptions of librarian-led information literacy instruction in
postsecondary education. In World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA
General Conference and Assembly (pp. 1-25). http://conference.ifla.org/ifla78
Norelli, B. P. (2010). Embedded librarianship, inside out. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2–3), 69–
146
74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.502879
Oberg, L. R., Schleiter, M. K., & Van Houten, M. (1989). Faculty perceptions of librarians at
Albion College: Status, role, contribution, and contacts. College & Research Libraries,
50(2), 215–230.
O’Toole, E., Barham, R., & Monahan, J. (2016). The impact of physically embedded
librarianship on academic departments. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(3), 529–
556. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0032
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in
qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7(4)
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2001). The academic library in the enterprise of colleges and universities:
toward a new paradigm. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(4), 282–294.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2004). Information literacy and higher education: Placing the academic
library in the center of a comprehensive solution. The Journal of academic librarianship,
30(1), 3-16.
Paterson, S. F., & Gamtso, C. W. (2017). Information literacy instruction in an english capstone
course: A study of student confidence, perception, and practice. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 43(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.11.005
Perry, H. (2017). Information literacy in the sciences: Faculty perception of undergraduate
student skill. College & Research Libraries, 78(7). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.7.964
Pinto, M. (2016). Assessing disciplinary differences in faculty perceptions of information
literacy competencies. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(2), 227–247.
147
https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2015-0079
Ponterotto, J.G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126-136.
Powell, S., & Kong, N. N. (2017). Beyond the one-shot: Intensive workshops as a platform for
engaging the library in digital humanities. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 24(2–4),
516–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2017.1336955
Raven, M. (2012). Bridging the gap: Understanding the differing research expectations of first-
year students and professor. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(3), 4–
31.
Reed, K. L. (2015). Square peg in a round hole? The framework for information literacy in the
community college environment. Journal of Library Administration, 55(3), 235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1034052
Rice-Livey, M. L., & Racine, J. D. (1997). The role of academic librarians in the era of
information technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 31-41.
Richards, K. A. R., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Templin, T. J. (2014). Initial validation of the
teacher/coach role conflict scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 18(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.932283
Richards, K. A. R., & Templin, T. J. (2012). Toward a multidimensional perspective on teacher-
coach role conflict. Quest, 64(3), 164–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.693751
Riehle, C. F., & Weiner, S. (2013). High-impact educational practices: An exploration of the role
148
of information literacy. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 20(2), 127–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2013.789658
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
Sanborn, L. (2005). Improving library instruction: Faculty collaboration. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 31(5), 477–481.
Sandercook, P. (2016). Instructor perceptions of student information literacy: Comparing
international IL models to reality. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1), 3-29.
Sanderson, H. (2011). Using learning styles in information literacy: Critical considerations for
librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(5), 376–385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.06.002
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 226–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001
Saunders, L. (2013). Culture and collaboration: Fostering integration of information literacy by
speaking the language of faculty. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/201
3/papers/Saunders_Culture.pdf
Schroeter, C., & Higgins, L. M. (2015). The impact of guided vs. self-directed instruction on
students’ information literacy skills. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education,
23(1), 1–10.
149
Schuler, R. S., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(1), 111–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90047-2
Selegean, J. C., Thomas, M. L., & Richman, M. L. (1983). Long-range effectiveness of library
use instruction, College & Research Libraries, 44(6), 476–480.
Shaw, R. (2010). QM3: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In M. Forrester (Ed.), Doing
qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide (pp. 177-201). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications Inc.
Shosha, G. A. (2012). Employment of Colaizzi's strategy in descriptive phenomenology: A
reflection of a researcher. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 8(27) 31-43.
Silva, E., Galbraith, Q., & Groesbeck, M. (2017). Academic librarians’ changing perceptions of
faculty status and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 428-441.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.4.428
Singh, A. (2005). A report on faculty perceptions of students’ information literacy competencies
in journalism and mass communication programs: The ACEJMC survey. College &
Research Libraries, 66(4), 294–310.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Snavely, L., & Cooper, N. (1997). Competing agendas in higher education. Reference & User
Services Quarterly; Chicago, 37(1), 53–62.
Sobel, K., Ramsey, P., & Jones, G. (2018). The professor-librarian: Academic librarians teaching
150
credit-bearing courses. Public Services Quarterly, 14(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2017.1342584
Soria, K. M., Fransen, J., & Nackerud, S. (2017). The impact of academic library resources on
undergraduates’ degree completion. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), 812-823.
Squibb, S. D., & Mikkelsen, S. (2016). Assessing the value of course-embedded information
literacy on student learning and achievement. College & Research Libraries, 77(2), 164–
183. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.2.164
Stanger, K. (2012). Whose hands ply the strands? Survey of eastern Michigan University
psychology faculty regarding faculty and librarian roles in nurturing psychology
information literacy. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 31(2), 112–127.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2012.713845
Strayhorn, T. L. (2017). Factors that influence the persistence and success of Black men in urban
public universities. Urban Education, 52(9), 1106–1128.
Stryker, S. (1995). Role Theory. In A. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The blackwell
encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 485-487). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. (2017). Undergraduate student information self-efficacy and library
intervention. Library Review, 66(6-7), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-04-2017-
0040
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Tran, C. Y., Miller, C. A., & Aveni, D. (2018). Baseline assessment: Understanding WISE
151
freshman students’ information literacy skills in a one-shot library session. Science &
Technology Libraries, 37(3), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2018.1460651
Tuohy, D., Cooney, A., Dowling, M., Murphy, K., & Sixsmith, J. (2013). An overview of
interpretive phenomenology as a research methodology. Nurse researcher, 20(6), 17-20
Turner, R. H. (1956). Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior. American
Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 316–328.
Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 233–254). Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com.queens.ezproxy.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&A
N=18732482&site=ehost-live
Van Epps, A., & Nelson, M. S. (2013). One-shot or embedded? Assessing different delivery
timing for information resources relevant to assignments. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 8(1), 4–18.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration
of the literature and directions for future research. Human relations, 34(1), 43-71.
Vander Meer, P. F., Perez-Stable, M. A., & Sachs, D. E. (2012). Framing a strategy: Exploring
faculty attitudes toward library instruction and technology preferences to enhance
information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 52(2), 109-122.
VanScoy, A. (2012). Practitioner experiences in academic research libraries: An interpretative
phenomenological analysis of reference work (Doctoral dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
152
com.ezproxy.neu.edu/docview/1024564087?pq-origsite=primo
VanScoy, A. (2013). Fully engaged practice and emotional connection: Aspects of the
practitioner perspective of reference and information service. Library & Information
Science Research, 35(4), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.09.001
VanScoy, A., & Bright, K. (2017). Including the voices of librarians of color in reference and
information services research. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 57(2), 104.
https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.57.2.6527
Varcoe, C., Browne, A. J., Wong, S., & Smye, V. L. (2009). Harms and benefits: Collecting
ethnicity data in a clinical context. Social Science & Medicine, 68(9), 1659-1666.
Veaner, A. B. (1985). 1985 to 1995: The next decade in academia librarianship, part II. College
& Research Libraries, 46(4), 295–308.
Vora, D., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2007). Roles of subsidiary managers in multinational
corporations: The effect of dual organizational identification. Management international
review, 47(4), 595-620.
Vossler, J. J., & Watts, J. (2017). Educational story as a tool for addressing the framework for
information literacy for higher education. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(3), 529–
542. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0033
Walker, K. W., & Pearce, M. (2014). Student engagement in one-shot library instruction. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3–4), 281–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.004
Wang, R. (2006). The lasting impact of a library credit course. Portal: Libraries and the
153
Academy, 6(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0013
Ward, L., & Kim, M. (2017). Faculty perception of information literacy at Queensborough
Community College. Community & Junior College Libraries, 23(1-2), 13-27.
Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and
implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381-397.
Webber, S., Boon, S., & Johnston, B. (2005). A comparison of UK academics’ conceptions of
information literacy in two disciplines: English and marketing. Library and information
research, 29(93), 4-15.
Webber, S. A., & Johnston, B. (2017). Information literacy: Conceptions, context and the
formation of a discipline. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1), 156-183.
Weiner, S. A. (2014). Who reaches information literacy competencies? Report of a study of
faculty. College Teaching, 62(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.803949
Wheeler, E., & McKinney, P. (2015). Are librarians teachers? Investigating academic librarians’
perceptions of their own teaching skills. Journal of Information Literacy, 9(2), 111-128.
https://doi.org/10.11645/9.2.1985
White-Farnham, J., & Gardner, C. (2014). Crowdsourcing the curriculum: Information literacy
instruction in first-year writing. Reference Services Review, 42(2), 277–292.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-09-2013-0046
Wickham, M., & Parker, M. (2007). Reconceptualising organisational role theory for
contemporary organisational contexts. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 440-
464.
154
Wissinger, C. L., Raish, V., Miller, R. K., & Borrelli, S. (2018). Expert teams in the academic
library: Going beyond subject expertise to create scaffolded instruction. Journal of
Library Administration, 58(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1448648
Wojnar, D. M., & Swanson, K. M. (2007). Phenomenology: An exploration. Journal of Holistic
Nursing, 25(3), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010106295172
Wong, S. H. R., & Cmor, D. (2011). Measuring association between library instruction and
graduation GPA. College & Research Libraries, 72(5), 464-473.
Wong, S. H. R., & Webb, T. D. (2011). Uncovering meaningful correlation between student
academic performance and library material usage. College & Research Libraries, 72(4),
361–370. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-129
Wyss, P. A. (2010). Library school faculty member perceptions regarding faculty status for
academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 71(4), 375-388.
Yearwood, S. L., Foasberg, N. M., & Rosenberg, K. D. (2015). A survey of librarian perceptions
of information literacy techniques. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(2), 186-
197.
Yevelson-Shorsher, A., & Bronstein, J. (2018). Three perspectives on information literacy in
Academia: Talking to librarians, faculty, and students. College & Research Libraries,
79(4), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.4.535
Yousef, A. (2010). Faculty attitudes toward collaboration with librarians. Library Philosophy
and Practice, (2010), 1-14
Zai, R. (2015). Neither fish nor fowl: A role theory approach to librarians teaching. Journal of
Library Administration, 55(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.978680
155
Zanin-Yost, A. (2018). Academic collaborations: Linking the role of the liaison/embedded
librarian to teaching and learning. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25(2), 150–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1455548
Zanin-Yost, A., & Dillen, C. (2019). Connecting past to future needs: Nursing faculty and
librarian collaboration to support students’ academic success. Journal of Library
Administration, 59(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1549407
156
Appendix A
Questionnaire
Northeastern University College of Professional Studies
Doctor of Education Program
Date:_____________________________________________________
Name:____________________________________________________
Sex: □ Male □ Female □ Other
Race:
□ White □ Black or
African
American
□ Asian □ American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
□ Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
□ Unknown
Age:
□ 25-34 years old □ 35-44 years old □ 45-55 years old □ 55+ years old
School:
□ Liberal Arts □ Education □ Business □ Health &
Natural Sciences
□ Social &
Behavioral
Sciences
Program or Department:_________________________________________
Faculty Rank:
□ Instructor □ Visiting
Professor
□ Assistant
Professor
□ Associate
Professor
□ Professor
How many General Education courses are you teaching this semester?__________________
How many General Education course sections are you teaching this semester?___________
Have you ever experienced a Mercy College librarian-led information literacy session?____
How many years have you taught at Mercy College?_________________________________
157
Appendix B
Recruitment Email (Targeted Message)
Northeastern University College of Professional Studies
Doctor of Education Program
Subject line: Participation in a Research Study
Dear Professor (Name)
My name is Moddie Breland and the reason I am writing you is to solicit your participation in a
study I am conducting for my doctoral thesis at Northeastern University in Boston.
My research aim is to understand how Mercy College undergraduate faculty make sense of
librarian-led information literacy instruction. My research findings will be used to promote
information literacy in higher education and help facilitate collaboration between librarians and
classroom faculty.
If you volunteer to participate in this study, I will need to interview you regarding your
experiences working with a Mercy College librarian. The study necessitates at least two in
person interviews in a location of your choosing. In the first interview, you will be asked to sign
a consent form, complete a demographic questionnaire, and answer some questions related to
your understanding of information literacy and your experiences working with Mercy College
librarians. In the second interview you will be asked to clarify statements from the first
interview and verify that I have accurately captured your experience working with librarians.
The first interview will last between 60 to 90 minutes while the second interview will last for 30
to 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the second interview you will be offered a $25 Amazon gift
card. In the unlikely event there is a need for further clarification after the first two interviews,
you will be asked to schedule a third in person interview at a location of your choosing and it
will last no more than 30 minutes.
Your participation is entirely voluntary. To ensure confidentiality, you will choose the locations
of the interviews, which do not need to be on any Mercy campus.
If you are interested in participating in this study or learning more, please contact me via email
[email protected] or by telephone (347) 924-0849.
Thank you for your consideration,
Regards,
Moddie V. Breland Jr.
158
Appendix C
Interview Guide
Northeastern University College of Professional Studies
Doctor of Education Program
Part I:
You have been selected to speak with me today because according to the Fall 2018 course roster
you teach at least two general education courses and you have experience working with
librarians regarding information literacy instruction. My research project focuses on how faculty
make sense of librarian-led information literacy instruction. Through this study, I hope to gain
more insight into how faculty understand the term information literacy and how they perceive its
importance. Hopefully, this will allow me to identify ways in which librarians can improve how
students acquire information literacy skills.
Because your responses are important and I want to make sure to capture everything you say, I
would like to audio tape our conversation today. Do I have your permission to record this
interview? I will also be taking written notes. I can assure you that all responses will be
confidential and only a pseudonym will be used when quoting from the transcripts. To meet our
human subjects requirements at the university, you must sign the form I have with me.
Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be held confidential, (2) your
participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do
not intend to inflict any harm. Do you have any questions about the interview process or how
your data will be used?
This interview should last about 60 to 90 minutes. During this time, I have several questions that
I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you in order to
push ahead and complete this line of questioning. Do you have any questions at this time?
Part II: Interviewee Background
A. Interviewee Background
1) Could you provide me with a brief background about yourself? And how long have you been
teaching at Mercy College?
Part 2:
The problem of practice that I am targeting for my dissertation is why faculty members are
reluctant to allow librarians to come to their classes to teach information literacy. Research
literature seems to suggest that information literacy instruction sessions are on the decline. In
order to address this problem, I am interested in learning about how faculty understand
information literacy and what experiences they have with librarian led information literacy
instruction. I have asked you to participate in this interview because I would like to hear about
your understanding of information literacy instruction and what are your experiences working
159
with librarians in relation to information literacy. To do this, I am going to ask you some
questions about the key experiences you have encountered. If you mention other people during
the interview please use a pseudonym.
2.) What does the term information literacy mean to you?
Possible prompts: How does it differ from critical thinking?
3.) Can you describe how does a college student become information literate?
Possible prompts: What kinds of skills would they have?
4.) Can you tell me what role do you feel faculty have in helping students become information
literate?
Possible prompts: What role don’t they have? Whose role is it?
5.) What role do you feel librarians have in helping students become information literate?
Possible prompts: What role don’t they have? Whose role is it?
6.) What do you believe are the responsibilities and duties of librarians in higher education?
Possible prompts: What aren’t there responsibilities?
7.) Describe, in as much detail, how librarians have taught your classes?
Possible prompts: What did you expect them to cover? What did they cover? What didn’t they
cover?
8.) How do you feel about librarians teaching information literacy to your classes?
Possible prompts: Why do you think you feel that way?
9.) Describe how you might teach information literacy skills?
Possible prompts: Do you see any similarities or differences between yourself and how librarians
have taught the class?
10.) Is there anything else you would like to tell me?
160
Appendix D
Consent Form
Northeastern University College of Professional Studies
Doctor of Education Program
Title: Faculty perceptions of librarian-led instruction
Principal Investigator (PI): Dr. Ricardo Valdez, Northeastern University
Student Researcher: Moddie V. Breland Jr, Northeastern University
Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study
We are inviting you to participate in a research study. This form will tell you about the study,
but you may ask me any questions you may have. When you are ready to make a decision, you
can let me know if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you do not
want to. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this consent form and you will be
given a copy for your records.
Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? You have been selected to participate in this study because you teach two or more undergraduate
general education courses at Mercy College and you have experience collaborating with a Mercy
College librarian in an instructional capacity.
Why is this research study being done?
This research study seeks to understand how faculty make sense of librarian-led information
literacy instruction sessions. Through this study, we hope to gain insight into how faculty
understand information literacy and how they perceive the roles of librarians. Hopefully, this
will allow us to identify ways in which librarians and faculty can collaborate more effectively to
support the educational needs of today’s college students.
What will I be asked to do?
If you decide to take part in this study, you will be scheduled to meet, in person, with the co-
investigator for two audio recorded interviews at a location of your choosing. At the start of the
first interview you will be given a questionnaire to fill out that asks for some demographic
information. After completing the questionnaire, you will then be asked a series of questions
related to information literacy and your perceptions of librarian-led information literacy
instruction. Once the interview has finished, a second interview will be scheduled within six
months of the date of the first interview.
At the second in person interview, you will be given a member checking form that gives you an
opportunity to comment on my analysis of the first interview and to verify that the co-
investigator have accurately captured your experiences working with librarians. You may also
be asked questions to clarify statements shared in the first interview. Once the second interview
has ended, you will be asked to fill out and submit to the co-investigator the member checking
form. A third in person interview will only be scheduled within three months of the date of the
second interview if there is a need for clarification.
Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take?
161
All of the interviews will take place at a location of your choosing. The first interview, which
asks questions about your experiences working with librarians, will run between 60-90 minutes.
The second interview, which will be scheduled within six months of the first interview, will run
between 30-45 minutes. In the unlikely event there is a need for further clarification regarding
the first two interviews, a third in person interview will be scheduled lasting no more than 30
minutes.
Will there be any risk or discomfort to me?
There are no foreseeable risks, harms, discomforts or inconveniences that you will experience
during this study. In the event you feel uncomfortable and do not wish to answer a question,
then you may ask to skip to the next question or end the interview.
Will I benefit by being in this research?
There will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in the study. However, the information
learned from this study may help librarians improve their instructional techniques, inform their
outreach efforts, and facilitate their collaboration initiatives with faculty.
Who will see the information about me?
Your part in this study will be kept confidential. Only the researchers on this study will see
information about you. In order to protect your identity, a pseudonym will be used throughout
the study to protect your identity. No reports or publications will use information that can
identify you in any way. All audio files sent to a transcription service will be de-identified. The
audio recorded interviews will be coded in order to identify and compare themes across
participants. All of the information from this study will be secured in a locked file cabinet and
stored on a password protected computer. Only the researcher will have access to these files.
The data will be destroyed three years after the completion of the study.
Can I stop my participation in this study?
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You do not have to participate if you
do not want to and you can refuse to answer any questions asked during the study. Even if you
begin the study, you may quit at any time.
Will I be paid for my participation? You will be offered a $25 gift card at the end of the second interview
Will it cost me anything to participate?
The researcher will not provide reimbursement for parking or travel to the interview site. The
researcher, however, will schedule the interview at a time that you have already arranged to be
on campus.
Who can I contact if I have questions or problems?
Please contact Moddie V. Breland Jr. at (347) 924-0849 or via email at
[email protected] or Dr. Ricardo Valdez, The Principal Investigator who is overseeing
this study research, at [email protected] if you have any questions about this study.
If you have questions about your rights as a participant, you may contact Nan C. Regina,
162
Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 360 Huntington Ave., Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115. Telephone: 617-373-4588, email: [email protected]. You may call
anonymously if you wish.
I agree to take part in this research.
______________________________________________________________________________
Signature of the person agreeing to take part Date
______________________________________________________________________________
Printed name of person above Date
______________________________________________________________________________
Moddie V. Breland Jr., Student Researcher Date
163
Appendix E
Member Check Form
Date of interview:______________
Interviewee:___________________
The researcher has reviewed the findings from the interviewee and I attest to the following
statements (check boxes that apply and initial):
I agree that the themes are accurate_____________
I agree that the interpretations are fair and representative______________
I do not agree with the themes and/or interpretations and I would like to make the
following suggestions below________________
Interviewee Signature Date
Comments:
Related Documents
