Research Proposal

Team 7 Research Proposal Presentation

Alphild Dick, Melendra Sanders, Shelly Speicher, & Julie Temple

TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION:

What Terms should Public Libraries Use to Promote and Teach Information Literacy?

• An information literate population is a key element in the 21st century

• The ability of public libraries to contribute to information literacy campaigns is often overlooked

• Advocacy efforts: do patrons of public libraries have a negative view of IL and ILI?

Role of Public Libraries in ILI

“Information literacy is actually beautifully relevant within the mission of public libraries” Rachel Hall, pg. 163

Research Aims & Questions

• To determine how the term “information literacy” is perceived by public library patrons and how these perceptions impact the success of information literacy instruction (ILI) programs.

• What are the dominant terminologies used in conjunction with IL programs (i.e. information literacy, information competency, life-long learning, etc.)?

• What connotations do each of these terms have, and are they positive or negative?

• How do public library patrons react to each of these terms?

• What terms best represent the concept of IL while maintaining the best reaction from patrons?

Research Aims & Questions

• Most IL research and programs reside in academic and school libraries

• IL terminology and definitions are unclear to both librarians and patrons

Common Themes

“Perhaps there is too much confusion surrounding the concept itself, leading public librarians to believe that information literacy is only relevant to academic and research institutions”

Rachel Hall, pg. 163.“many librarians, especially public librarians, may be the least able spokespersons. . .[because of] a lack of understanding and knowledge of information literacy concepts” Jane Harding, pg. 84

• Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190.

• Lin, P. (2010). Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568.

• Hall, R. (2010).Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.

• Harding, J. (2010).Information literacy and the public library: we've talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294.

• Hart, G. (2006). Public librarians and information literacy education: Views from Mpumalanga Province. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 72(3), 172-184.

• Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Background of Research

Philosophical AssumptionsConstructionist: Alan Bryman (2008) “implies that social

phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision” (pg. 19). Language as a social tool is also in constant flux, especially in the context of lesser known terminology.

Sociolinguist: Anja Kellerman (2001) notes “qualitative research forumulae provides flexible and malleable instruments to evaluate the complexities of modern society” (pg. 65) A new, new English: Language, politics, and identity in Gibralter

Linguist: Marc Pruyn (1999) qualitative elements help us “see how participants construct understanding” (pg. 196) The power of classroom hegemony

Sampling

• Content AnalysisPublic library websites selected using the American Library Association's "The Nation's Largest Libraries: A Listing By Volumes Held"

• Self-Completion QuestionnairesFour large public library systems in Kansas

• Unstructured InterviewsConvenience sample based on responses from self-completion questionnaires

Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures

Content Analysis • Quantitative methodology• Coding instrument adapted from on-going research

conducted by ESU SLIM professorDeveloped instrument via team collaboration for consistency

• Analyzed two public libraries for terminology regarding IL programs

Also drew from literature review terminology• Instrument usable for analyzing other public library

IL programs

Content Analysis Coding Schedule

Self-completion Questionnaire• Quantitative methodology• Based questionnaire on terminology and programming

drawn from content analysis • Delivered via Survey Monkey at the Topeka-Shawnee

County, Manhattan, Johnson County, and Wichita public library systems

Advantages• No interviewer effect• Convenience to participants• Provides sample for unstructured interviews

Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures

Self-Completion Questionnaire

Unstructured interviews• Qualitative methodology• Voluntary• Questions designed to gauge attitudes towards real-life IL

programs at public libraries

Advantages• Deeper and more nuanced responses• Contextualize quantitative data• Provides usable raw data for public libraries (i.e., what

classes would a patron find appealing?)

Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures

Unstructured Interview

Permissions• Compliant with ESU Ethic Review Board• Permission gained by all involved: libraries, library

professionals, and participants

Ethical Concerns• Voluntary participation• Protection of privacy • Protection of personal data• Exclusion of minors

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Considerations

• Selection of websites for unstructured interviews• Use of non-Kansan libraries• Brevity of unstructured interviews• Measurability of data from unstructured interviews• Objectivity

Limitations of Research

• Little empirical research addressing IL terminology and consequently the success of IL programs

• Lack of research on IL programs in public libraries

Scope of the Research Reiterated

• Address gaps in IL research• Propose alternative terms for marketing IL

programs • Develop a better understanding of patron needs• Contribute to discussion of what information

literacy, in fact, is within a public library setting

Significance

Concluding Remarks

ReferencesBrey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hall, R. (2010). Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.

Harding, J. (2008). Information literacy and the public library: we've talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294.

Lin, P. (2010), Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568.

Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Questions?