Teaching information literacy through learning styles: The application of Gardner's multiple intelligences

http://lis.sagepub.com

Science Journal of Librarianship and Information

DOI: 10.1177/0961000608089345 2008; 40; 93 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

Intan Azura Mokhtar, Shaheen Majid and Schubert Foo intelligences

Teaching information literacy through learning styles: The application of Gardner's multiple

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/2/93 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Librarianship and Information Science Additional services and information for

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/40/2/93 Citations

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 93

Address: Nanyang TechnologicalUniversityDivision of Information StudiesWee Kim Wee School of Communicationand Information31 Nanyang LinkSingapore 637718Tel: +65 6870 8021Fax: +65 6791 5214E-mail: [email protected]

Teaching informationliteracy throughlearning styles:

The application of Gardner’smultiple intelligences

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR*, SHAHEEN MAJID andSCHUBERT FOO

The key for students of today to become independent learners and knowl-edge workers of tomorrow lies in being information literate. However, exist-ing information literacy (IL) teaching approaches have not always beensuccessful in equipping students with these crucial skills to ensure deep eru-dition and long-lasting retention. Hence, sound pedagogical approachesbecome critical in IL education. This research hypothesizes that studentsgrasp IL skills more effectively when their innate interests, such as thatdetermined by their respective dominant intelligences, are stimulated andapplied to their work. Consequently, they would produce work of betterquality. To verify these postulations, an IL course was designed for studentsundertaking project work to equip them with the necessary IL skills, byusing an established pedagogical approach – Gardner’s theory of multipleintelligences. Subsequently the quality of students’ project work betweenthe experimental and control groups were compared. It was found that theperformance of students who had undergone IL training through the appli-cation of learning styles was superior in their project work.

KEYWORDS: information literacy; learning styles; multiple intelligences;pedagogy; project work

Intan Azura Mokhtar recently completed herdoctorate in Information Studies in the Wee KimWee School of Communication and Information(WKWSCI) at Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity (NTU), Singapore. Her researchinterests include information literacy, schoollibraries, ICT in education, pedagogy and cogni-tive psychology. She is currently a part-time lec-turer teaching Information Literacy andInterpretation at WKWSCI, NTU.

Shaheen Majid is Associate Professor in theDivision of Information Studies, Wee Kim WeeSchool of Communication and Information(WKWSCI) at Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity (NTU), Singapore. He is widelypublished and has over 70 research articles, bookchapters and monographs. He has also pre-sented papers in more than 20 internationalconferences.

Schubert Foo is Professor in the Wee Kim WeeSchool of Communication and Information(WKWSCI) and Associate-Dean of the Collegeof Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences atNanyang Technological University (NTU),Singapore. He is a Board Member of theNational Archives of Singapore and theNational Library Board, Singapore and has over150 publications in the research areas of multi-media technology, Internet technology, multilin-gual information retrieval and digital libraries.

Copyright © 2008 Sage Publications(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)Vol 40 (2): 93–109[DOI: 10.1177/0961000608089345]

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

INTRODUCTIONInformation literacy has the potential to enhance independent learning andcontribute to the development of future knowledge workers. There is evidenceto suggest that learning is enhanced by adopting pedagogical approaches thataddress students’ various learning styles, as corroborated in educationalresearch. However, limited attention is paid to the relevance of these pedagog-ical approaches to information literacy education, although some research hassuggested that a proper integrated curriculum, which synergizes informationliteracy competencies with appropriate pedagogical approaches, would posi-tively impact information literacy teaching and learning (Webber and Johnston,2000). Consequently, the research discussed in this article explores the benefitof integrating information literacy with a suitable pedagogical approach based

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, within thecontext of students’ project-based learning.

This article presents an overview of a study that wascarried out in two Singapore secondary (high) schools.The following section introduces the background andtheoretical foundations of the study. Subsequent sectionsoutline the methodological approach adopted and theresulting research findings. The article concludes with asummary of recommendations for enhancing informa-tion literacy education through its incorporation into project work.

BACKGROUNDThe initial use of the term ‘information literacy’ can beattributed to Paul Zurkowski, the then president of theInformation Industry Association, who used it in his pro-posal to the National Commission on Library andInformation Science in 1974. In the proposal, Zurkowski(1974) described information literate individuals as thosewho are ‘trained in the application of informationresources to their work’ and campaigned for a nationalprogramme to teach the necessary skills, which wouldeventually yield an information literate population adecade later.

Various other descriptions of information literacy(IL) are available in almost every scholarly or researcharticle that has been written on the issue. These descrip-tions have generally been derived from the one presentedby the American Library Association (ALA) (1989), whichis essentially the ability to search, locate, evaluate and useinformation or facts, and ultimately create useful knowl-edge from it. The importance and widespread popularityof IL, particularly in the education sector, was broughtabout by the publication of the report A Nation at Risk inApril 1983 (United States Department of Education, 1983)that presented findings on the then state of education inthe United States. Major reforms in education policies andcontent were proposed in the report, which eventuallypaved the way for various educational initiatives, strate-gies and programme that were implemented in both theUS and the rest of the world, in order to meet thedemands and challenges of the digital age.

IL is a necessary skill that is useful in every aspect ofa person’s life, and its importance cannot be adequatelyemphasized. For students, IL skills would lead to inde-pendent and student-centric learning, rather thanreliance on the teacher to provide answers to questions orproblems that they encounter. This in turn creates agreater responsibility towards their own learning, whichwould help them become dynamic learners and thinkerswho are creative, analytical and efficient, instead of mereregurgitators of facts.

For workers, IL skills would equip them with abili-ties to source for the most current and reliable pieces ofinformation that would assist them in doing their work

more effectively. They are then able to constantly adapt tochanges due to this capacity to keep up with increasinglyvoluminous amounts of information that they comeacross. Ultimately, information literate workers are self-motivated and are able to give added value to the orga-nization that they work in.

As for ordinary citizens, IL skills would help them tocritically analyse information that they obtain everydayand utilize it to their benefit. For instance, an informationliterate consumer would be able to make informed deci-sions about which products to purchase, after having con-sidered all the necessary information available regardingthe various competitor brands. In addition, informationliterate individuals are also aware of their personal rights,and of how local or global events affect them.

IL is not simply a library competency (Rockman,2003) nor is it relevant only in schools or research insti-tutions (O’Sullivan, 2002); it is also widely practiced inbusinesses and in fact forms an integral component inknowledge management, which is currently a key aspectin every organization. It is also important to make thedistinction between IL and information technology liter-acy. The former entails the ability to search, locate, eval-uate and use information or facts and thereafter createuseful knowledge from it (ALA, 1989) whereas the latterencompasses competencies in utilizing technology-based tools effectively. It is reasonable to consider infor-mation technology literacy as one facet of IL.

Information literacy in SingaporeThe School Libraries Unit of Singapore’s Ministry ofEducation (MOE) Curriculum Planning andDevelopment Division (CPDD) prepared and publishedthe Information Literacy Guidelines and InformationLiteracy Supplementary Materials for use in Singaporeschools (Ministry of Education [MOE], 1997a,b), fromprimary (elementary) schools right through to pre-uni-versity. The Information Literacy Guidelines provided aframework for teaching students how to learn and thinkclearly; two important skills that were highlighted inthe document. These skills were expected to providestudents with the ability to manage their learning,search and evaluate large amounts of available informa-tion, and make creative use of the information obtained(MOE, 1997a). This in turn should empower students tobe lifelong learners. The document also included a listof the various skills and knowledge that students at theprimary, secondary and pre-university (K-12) levelsshould attain, including the attitudes that they ought toportray; recommendations on how the information lit-eracy programme could be implemented within theschool curriculum; and rubrics for standards on perfor-mance in information literacy. In addition, brief samplelesson plans for specific subjects at certain levels, samplepupil performance standards for specialized subjects,and a sample school media resource library programme

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

94 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

to support the information literacy programme, were allappended to the document.

The Information Literacy Supplementary Materialscontained six sample lesson plans for different subjectareas specifically at the secondary (high) school level,coupled with suggested activities for how informationliteracy skills can be integrated into the various subjectareas (MOE, 1997b). The proposed lesson activities pro-moted resource-based and cooperative learning. Thedocument sought to augment the guidelines, as laid out in the previous publication. Another publication, TheExtensive Reading and Information Literacy (ERIL) Pro-gramme was also published in 1997. However, the focusof the ERIL document was on the incorporation of infor-mation literacy skills in the English Language secondaryschool curriculum in particular, with emphasis on read-ing (MOE, 1997c). The ERIL document provided sugges-tions on setting up the programme, two ways ofmonitoring students’ progress in the programme (ie.post-reading activities and continuous assessmentassignments), and the criteria for evaluating the pro-gramme. A sample scheme of work was also included forteachers to adhere to.

The three documents were used briefly by teachersin schools, immediately upon their publication and circu-lation. However, all three documents had a short lease offunction and have ceased to be used in schools.

INFORMATION LITERACY ANDPEDAGOGY

Teaching IL to students does not merely involve libraryinstruction or the ability to use various informationsources effectively. It also includes teaching criticaland analytical thinking skills regarding the use ofinformation (Kasowitz-Scheer and Pasqualoni, 2002).Numerous and diverse initiatives and strategies forteaching IL have been implemented in schools in theUS, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK andthroughout Europe (Moore, 2002; Rader, 2002; Virkus,2003).

Information literacy in the school curriculum

Numerous schools around the world have been outfittedwith current information and communication technolo-gies and infrastructures that would enable their studentsto develop learning opportunities by exploiting thesemodern tools (Bruce, 2002). However, equipping schoolswith modern and advanced technological infrastructuredoes not necessarily equate to the students and teachersbeing competent enough to effectively utilize those toolsas information literate individuals. Both students andteachers would only be able to fully benefit from theirlearning when IL instruction is seamlessly intertwinedwith the use of educational technology.

PedagogyPedagogy refers to the approach that a teacher assumesin imparting information and knowledge to his students.Cognard observes that a teacher sieves out what isrequired to be taught in the curriculum, injects it withtheir personal vision, experience, style, ideals, knowl-edge and wisdom (Cognard, 2004) and repackages it in aform that is easily digestible for their students’ mentalpalate. More often than not, what and the amount thatstudents learn is greatly shaped by the way that they aretaught. In other words, the manner in which students aretaught, in addition to the information and factual con-tent, will somehow influence the quantity and quality ofwhat is learnt and retained. The method in which teach-ers teach one class of students would most likely differfrom the way they teach another, depending greatly onthe learning styles of the students concerned. It is thuscrucial for teachers to be aware of how students learn inorder to better pitch their teaching approach.

Bruce (1997) described among others, three peda-gogical approaches to IL, namely (i) the behaviouristapproach, (ii) the constructivist approach and (iii) therelational approach. In brief, the behaviourist approachviews learning as a process whereby a stimulus in theexternal environment causes a change in the learner’sbehaviour in a desired direction; whilst the construc-tivist approach is grounded on the cognitive orienta-tion to learning, which focuses on informationprocessing and memory or recall of information. Bruce(1997) proposed the relational approach to IL, whichessentially responds to the varying ways in whichpeople experience and use information in different sit-uations of need. She claimed that information literacymay be experienced in seven different ways, namely (i)the information technology conception, (ii) the infor-mation sources conception, (iii) the information processconception, (iv) the information control conception, (v)the knowledge construction conception, (vi) the knowl-edge extension conception and (vii) the wisdom con-ception. She argues that each conception can beexperienced independently of or in relationship toanother, depending on the context.

Learning theoriesIn pedagogy, educational theorists have developed learningtheories that can be broadly categorized into four orienta-tions: behaviourist (as explained), cognitive, humanistic andsocial/situational (after Merriam and Caffarella, 1991 ascited in Smith, 1999). In general, the majority of these learn-ing theories have often viewed learning as a process ratherthan a product.

Proponents of behaviourism include Watson (1913),who proposed the stimulus-response model, and who isregarded as the pioneer of this orientation, and Skinner(1938) who extended Watson’s stimulus-response modeland proposed the notion of operant conditioning.

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 95 at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Briefly, the cognitive orientation focuses on thelearner’s internal mental processes of knowing. Renownedtheorists in cognitivism include Piaget (1929) and hisgenetic epistemology that concerns the impact of a learner’sdeveloped cognitive processes on the acquisition ofknowledge; Bruner (1977) and his theory of constructivismthat specifically refers to the formation of new ideas orknowledge based on prior or current ones; and Feuerstein(1980) on mediated learning experience, which suggests thatintelligence is dynamic and can be modified if given theright stimulation and environment (through the mediator).

The humanistic orientation is concerned with theaffective part or feelings of the learner, and also looks atthe development of the learner as a whole – the completeintrapersonal growth and not just the cognition. Themost famous humanistic theorist is Maslow (1943) whoproposed the theory of human motivation, which con-tends that humans possess four basic or physiologicalneeds that must be met before they can manage to satisfyhigher or psychological needs.

The social/situational orientation involves thedevelopment of the learner in the context of a society orthe learner’s interpersonal interactions and eventuallypersonal growth. Eminent advocates of this orientationinclude Vygotsky (1962) on the concept of the zone of prox-imal development, where intelligence is a process activitythat is shaped by interactions and experiences; andBandura (1977) on observational learning, or learningthrough observing what experienced people do.

Knowledge of the various learning theories isimportant in understanding how the teaching of IL skillscan be carried out. However, it is equally important andbeneficial to be aware of the various learning styles ofstudents, in order to know the different preferences thatstudents have when it comes to learning.

Learning stylesLearning styles can be broadly categorized into threegroups: information processing-based, personality-based,and multi-dimensional and instructional preferences-based (Yeap et al., 2005). The information processing-basedlearning style generally assesses individual cognitiveapproaches to understanding and integrating informa-tion. Learning styles under this category are more likelyto make distinctions among the ways that individualssense, perceive, solve problems, organize and rememberinformation.

On the other hand, the personality-based learningstyle examines the influence of individual personality onpreferred ways of acquiring and organizing information.Learning styles under this category tend to gauge the waysin which individuals react to different learning situations.

Finally, the multi-dimensional and instructional prefer-ences-based learning style looks at individuals’ preferredenvironment for learning. Appendix 1 provides an overviewand examples of the three categories of learning styles.

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligencesOne of the more influential modern thinkers in pedagogyand learning styles is Howard Earl Gardner (1943–current), whose publication Frames of Mind: Theory ofMultiple Intelligences in 1983 had a significant impact onteaching and learning in many schools across differentcultures and societies. Although it did not evoke muchinterest amongst the educational psychology researchcommunity, it stimulated a new view of eruditionamongst educators and practitioners (Gardner, 1993). Histheory propelled many educational researchers, educa-tors and practitioners to experiment with new ways ofimparting information to learners.

Gardner (1983) proposed that each individual possesses, to varying degrees, seven primary forms ofintelligences, namely (i) verbal-linguistic, (ii) logical-mathematical, (iii) bodily-kinesthetic, (iv) visual-spatial,(v) musical, (vi) intrapersonal and (vii) interpersonal. Hesubsequently added an eighth intelligence ‘naturalist’,which has to do with abilities concerning the naturalworld. The main idea behind Gardner’s theory is thatintelligence is not made up of a single universal entity, andinstead takes on a plural form. Every individual possessesevery single one of the intelligences proposed but to dif-ferent extents, and it is through education that each of theseintelligences can be nurtured and developed. An individ-ual may be expected to be more receptive to learning if hisdominant intelligence is exploited and used as a catalyst toencourage more erudition.

Project workSeveral initiatives to integrate IL within the school curriculum have been implemented. These include student-centred and collaborative learning methods (Kasowitz-Scheer and Pasqualoni, 2002), collaboration between thelibrary and teaching staff (Stoffle, 1998), online IL tutorialsand stand-alone IL courses (Spitzer et al., 1998). However, ILinstruction has been found to be most effective when it istaught in context of content-based courses, assignments orprojects (Jacobson and Mark, 2000).

Project-based learning or project work often allowsstudents to show the range of capabilities that they pos-sess, more than what is usually the case in traditionallearning settings (Chard, 2001). Project work is describedas an in-depth investigation of a real-world topic thatrequires analytical thinking skills and resourcefulness inorder to produce a creative product or solution.

Impact of information literacy on project work

As Moore (2002) articulated, whilst the information richenvironment of the 21st century enriches education andlearning with the vast amounts of information available,it also places high demands on educators’ own knowl-edge and skills, especially in imparting them to students.She cited Markuson (1996) who pointed out that children

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

96 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 97

often accept information in print or found on the Internetto be authoritative and credible. In addition, studentsoften use the Internet as their first choice of information(Heil, 2005), and often want to find information quicklyand easily, usually at the expense of quality and author-ity (Bell, 2004). Thus, educators have the critical task ofensuring that students are information literate beforethey even attempt to partake in project-based assign-ments, especially at the rate that information is growingeach day. On the other hand, project work itself mightoffer valuable opportunities for students to develop ILcompetencies – as part of the whole project-based learn-ing experience.

Grant (2002) asserted that project-based learning iscentred on the students who are given the opportunity tobe more autonomous as they formulate personally mean-ingful artefacts that are reflective of their learning. Forinstance, Bowler et al. (2001) found that students demon-strated ‘copy-and-paste’ behaviour or simply regurgitat-ing the exact information that they found on the WorldWide Web without attempting to create new knowledgeand without giving proper references, when they didtheir project-based class assignment. Thus, it appearedthat these students did not possess the basic IL compe-tencies that would have helped them to carry out theirresearch in a more effective and efficient manner, andwhich could have produced reports and artefacts thatwere of a more superior quality.

Project work is one such student-centred, dynamicand interactive learning environment that emphasizesstudent participation and metacognitive awareness thatwould in turn create students who are active learners(Timpson et al., 2002). However, the implementation ofproject work alone in the curriculum is not adequate as atool for teaching IL compared to any other pedagogicalapproaches (Hart, 2000). Aproper integrated curriculum thatsynergizes IL competencies with appropriate instructionalpedagogy is important to ensure the seamless teachingand learning of IL for students (Webber and Johnston,2000). Thus, a student-centred IL pedagogical approach,such as using Gardner’s multiple intelligences, is expedi-ent as a platform to impart the necessary knowledge andskills that would ensure deep erudition and long-lastingretention in students.

PURPOSEThe broad-based and comprehensive learning opportuni-ties offered through project work make it an ideal educa-tional setting for teaching IL. The learning of IL skills canbe enhanced through an effective and innovative peda-gogical approach such as Gardner’s theory of multipleintelligences.

The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) has severaladvantages when applied in the classroom. Teachersadmitted that using MI in their classes allowed them to

take note of various abilities and interests that their students portray. In addition, teachers acknowledgedthat there is better learning connection and retention withthe use of MI (NSW Department of Education andTraining, 2002). Teachers have also noted that when MI isapplied in the classroom and when students discovertheir learning strengths, they show more pride andenthusiasm in their work (Hickey, 2004). The applicationof Gardner’s theory would enable the use of students’dominant intelligences, making learning of IL skills moreinteresting and meaningful.

Previous studies on IL have mainly focused on tra-ditional methods of teaching IL skills, namely throughlibrary workshops or courses, and through teaching unitswithin the curriculum (Brown et al., 2003; Grafstein, 2002;Julien and Boon, 2002; Orr et al., 2001; Whitehead andQuinlan, 2003). These studies have promulgated andshown the positive effect of IL skills on students’ acade-mic performance. However, none has reported on the useof learning styles to facilitate the teaching of IL skills tostudents so as to achieve entrenched understanding andretention of learning. It is thus the objective of this studyto assess the suitability of applying a learning stylesapproach, specifically Gardner’s MI, to teaching IL skills.

METHODOLOGYTo test this proposition, the first author carried out a studyin two secondary (high) schools in Singapore. The partici-pating subjects were Secondary 3 Express stream students(14–15 year olds) who were doing project work on a topicassigned by their respective schools. Appendix 2 outlinesthe research approach that was adopted for this study.

In each school, three or four classes of students of sim-ilar academic ability (i.e. similar previous year examinationresults and similar academic stream) were selected. Thepre-intervention test was administered to all the selectedclasses. One class was randomly selected as the controlcluster, and did not receive any form of intervention (i.e. ILtraining). The remaining classes were given a five-week ILtraining, where the students learnt basic information skillsthat would be useful when carrying out their project work.These skills included the use of various informationsources (print and electronic), awareness of informationattributes and organization, use of various search operators(e.g. Boolean, wildcards, truncation and phrase search),development of search strategies, refinement of searchstrategies, use of robotic search engines and online data-bases, evaluation of information and information sources,and information use and misuse.

After the remaining classes completed their five-week IL training, two of the classes were randomlyselected and were administered the multiple intelligencessurvey (Appendix 3). Upon identification of the dominantintelligence of each student in these two classes, they wereassigned into a homogeneous or heterogeneous cluster.

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

98 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008

The class that was assigned as a homogeneous clustercomprised students who were working in groups of sim-ilar dominant intelligences, whilst the class that wasassigned as a heterogeneous cluster comprised studentswho were working in groups of different dominant intel-ligences. The remaining class of students that received thefive-week IL training was randomly grouped by theirrespective teacher-in-charge.

For the students in the homogeneous or heteroge-neous cluster, they were guided to carry out their projectwork by using their dominant intelligence, which in turnrelates to their interests, as a means to steer their learningand help them find more information and entrench whatthey learn.

For the first school, the project work topic was onEntrepreneurship. Specifically, students worked ingroups and proposed a new product that they believedwould be viable in the international market, based ontheir research of other locally made products that hadbeen globally successful.

For the second school, the project work topic was onCivics Education. Specifically, students worked in groupsand proposed alternatives to the building of casinos inSingapore that would simultaneously address relatedethical and social issues, such as gambling addiction, ille-gal money-lending and dysfunctional families, withinthe Singapore society.

At the end of the entire project work duration, thepost-intervention test was administered to all the selectedclasses.

FINDINGSAltogether, there were 274 students who participated inthe study. A total of 197 students underwent the IL train-ing, whilst 77 students who were from the control groupdid not receive any IL training (Table 1).

For the pre- and post-intervention tests, there was asubstantial response rate of 242 (88.3 per cent) and 248(90.5 per cent) respectively (Table 2). Only students whocompleted both the pre- and post-intervention tests wereincluded in the data analysis. However, only 224 studentscompleted and submitted their projects in the end.

A comparison of the means of the pre- and post-intervention test scores, and their difference, is madebetween students who underwent IL training and thosewho did not (Table 3). It shows that the cluster of stu-dents who did not undergo IL training did better overallfor the pre- test (mean = 287). However, the cluster of stu-dents who went through IL training performed better fortheir post- test (m = 36.2). A paired samples t-test was carried out on the data, yielding an overall significancelevel of 0.000. This implies that the difference between the

Table 1. Breakdown of respondents by IL trainingand experimental groupings

No. of students Percentage

No IL training 77 28.1IL training 197 71.9

Random 36 13.1Homogeneous 81 29.6Heterogeneous 80 29.2

Table 2. Response rates

No. of students Percentage

Pre-test 242 88.3Post-test 248 90.5Valid cases for pre- 219 79.9and post-testsCompleted and 224 81.8submitted projects

Table 3. Percentage mean scores for pre- and post-intervention IL test

(control vs experimental)

Standard Standard p-value Pre deviation Post deviation (paired)

No IL 28.7 10.98 31.4 11.61 0.113trainingIL 26.9 12.12 36.2 10.80 0.000training

Table 4. Percentage mean scores for pre- and post-intervention IL test (with IL training only)

Pre Standard deviation Post Standard deviation p-value (paired)

Random grouping 19.3 10.41 33.0 11.44 0.000Homogeneous grouping 25.9 11.98 36.1 10.23 0.000Heterogeneous grouping 32.3 10.62 38.0 10.76 0.002

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

pre- and post-intervention scores is not due to chancevariation and is in fact due to the training.

A comparison of the means of the pre- and post-intervention test scores, and their difference is also

made between the various groupings of students(Table 4). The paired samples t-test p-values showthat there are significant differences between the pre-and post-scores, for the groups that underwent ILtraining.

A comparison of the means of the project evalu-ation marks between students who had IL trainingand those who did not, is made to see if any signifi-cant differences exist (Table 5). It was found that onaverage, students who underwent the IL trainingscored better marks (m = 48.6) for the project thanthose who had no IL training (m = 33.3), as evaluatedby the neutral examiners. The independent samples t-test p-value shows that there is significant differencebetween the two clusters of students, for their projectevaluation score.

A comparison of the means of the project evaluationmarks between the various groupings of students is alsomade (Table 6). It revealed that the homogeneously groupedstudents performed the best (m = 52.1) among the groups.

Four elements in the project assessment rubricsthat were completed by the neutral examiners wereidentified as indicative of the IL competencies of stu-dents and these were analysed according to whetherstudents received IL training (Table 7) or their group-ings (Table 8). Each element was given a score on ascale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 beingthe highest score.

An independent samples t-test was carried out oneach element, which yielded p-values of 0.000 each,indicating that there are significant differences betweenstudents who had undergone IL training and those whohad not.

Similarly, the oneway ANOVA was carried out oneach element, which yielded p-values that are way belowthe significant level of 0.05. This shows that there are significant differences among students based on theirgroupings.

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 99

Table 5. Mean scores for project evaluation(control vs experimental)

No. of Percentage SD Standard students means of error

evaluation marks

No IL 32 33.3 7.74 1.37trainingIL training 157 48.6 14.27 1.14p-value 0.000(independent)

Table 6. Mean scores for project evaluation (with IL training only)

No. of Percentage SD Standard students means of error

evaluationmarks

Random 23 32.0 8.31 1.73groupingHomogeneous 71 52.1 14.12 1.68groupingHeterogeneous 63 50.8 11.86 1.49grouping p-value 0.000(ANOVA)

Table 7. Analysis of project reports (control vs experimental)

Report element No IL training With IL training

n Mean score SD Std error n Mean score SD Std error p-value

1. Use of various information 32 1.6 0.52 0.09 157 2.1 0.68 0.05 0.000sources

2. Use of reliable and 32 1.7 0.64 0.11 157 2.5 0.87 0.07 0.000authoritative information

3. Use of proper citations 32 1.4 0.74 0.13 157 2.2 0.86 0.07 0.0004. Inclusion of complete 32 1.2 0.37 0.06 157 2.3 1.04 0.08 0.000

bibliography

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

100 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008

DISCUSSIONFrom the results obtained, a few observations and interpre-tations can be made. Firstly, the evidence demonstrates thatIL training makes a difference to a student’s knowledgeand skills, as shown in their test scores (Table 3) and alsocontributes to the quality of project work that is done by thestudents, as shown in their project evaluation scores (Table5). It is a widely accepted fact in the IL circle that IL train-ing boosts students’ competencies resulting in better acad-emic performance (Lance, 2001; Scott and Plourde, 2007).

However, a more significant finding of this study isthe differences in test scores and project evaluation scoresof students belonging to different experimental groups.To elaborate, it is observed that the group which had onlyIL training (class 2), performed the worst for their pre-test, but managed to outperform the group that had no ILtraining (class 1) for the post- test (Table 4).

Theoretically, the students who were homoge-neously (class 3) or heterogeneously (class 4) groupedshould also perform as well as those who were randomlygrouped (class 2), as they all underwent the same ILtraining. Yet, classes 3 and 4 performed better in the post-test compared to class 2. This better performance can beattributed to the impact of using their dominant intelli-gences as a tool to enhance their learning of IL andentrench what they learnt.

It is also observed that students who had IL trainingdid significantly better for their project work than thosewithout IL training. However, the more interesting find-ing is that, among the experimental group of studentswho received IL training, those who were groupedaccording to their dominant intelligences performedbetter for the project work (Table 6). This could beascribed to the use of their dominant intelligence as aspringboard to ignite their interest in learning, and usingthat as a platform to entrench their learning and helpthem produce work of better quality.

Yet another noteworthy observation that can bemade is that students who were homogeneously groupedseemed to show greater improvement in the test and per-form better in the actual project work, than those whowere heterogeneously grouped (Tables 4 and 6). Slavin(1995) mentioned that when students work together, theylearn new things from one another and increase theirown knowledge in the process. Shaw (as cited inHampton et al., 1987) claimed that heterogeneous groupsare more effective than homogeneous groups becausethey possess more varied opinions, abilities, perspectivesand skills. Thus, group work allows students to sharetheir individual views and knowledge, and agree on aconclusion based on the sum of their views and knowl-edge. In other words, students learn more and arrive atbetter conclusions when there is heterogeneity in theirgroup make-up.

However, although excessively homogeneousgroups have been recognized to have a negative effect onperformance (Belbin, 1980, as cited in Moore, 1991), itmust also be understood that children, and even adults,learn more from imitation or copying from role modelscommon patterns of behaviour and perceptions (Ridley,1996, as cited in Pech, 2001). In addition, it has beenshown in studies (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999) thatgroups with heterogeneous make-up tend to have a highdegree of task-related or relationship conflicts. Althoughtask-related conflicts have been found to have positiveeffects on group functions and outcomes (Jehn, 1995),relationship conflicts have been found to be otherwise. Toelaborate, heterogeneous groups with frequent or intenserelationship conflicts tend to have low group functioningbecause of increased levels of stress and anxiety that inturn have a negative effect on their cognitive abilities orpotential (Staw et al., 1981). In addition, relationship con-flicts can also result in antagonistic interaction among thegroup members and thus hamper overall group out-

Table 8. Analysis of project reports (with IL training only)

Report element Random Homogeneous Heterogeneous grouping grouping grouping

n Mean SD Std n Mean SD Std n Mean SD Std p-valuescore error score error score error

1. Use of various information 23 2.0 0.84 0.18 71 2.1 0.62 0.08 63 2.1 0.68 0.05 0.002sources

2. Use of reliable and 23 2.5 0.95 0.20 71 2.5 0.95 0.11 63 2.3 0.73 0.09 0.000authoritative information

3. Use of proper citations 23 2.1 0.78 0.16 71 2.2 0.96 0.11 63 2.2 0.77 0.10 0.0004. Inclusion of complete 23 1.5 0.71 0.15 71 2.5 1.00 0.12 63 2.3 1.07 0.13 0.000

bibliography

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

comes (Janssen et al., 1999). Thus, it can be sufficientlyexplained why students in the homogeneous groups ofthis study managed to perform better than the heteroge-neous groups of students in the project work. However, itmust be emphasized that whether students should begrouped homogeneously or heterogeneously is not a pri-mary focus of this research; what has been established isthat the knowledge of learning theories and styles on thepart of IL educators is definitely beneficial in helping stu-dents become more information literate.

For the analysis of reports, it was discovered thatstudents who had IL training consistently obtainedhigher scores for each of the four elements that wereselected, compared to those without IL training. It can beinferred that with IL training, students were better able touse various information sources, present more reliableand authoritative information, use proper citations andinclude a complete bibliography in their written work.This is consistent with Moore’s findings (2001) that ILinstruction has a significant positive correlation with themastery of the research process as exhibited in the qual-ity of students’ bibliography in their written reports.

For students who had IL training, it was also seen thatamong the various experimental groupings, students whowere grouped according to their dominant intelligences(i.e. learning styles) obtained higher scores for three out ofthe four elements. It can be sufficiently concluded that theapplication of learning styles on students has a positiveimpact on students’ mastery of the research process as well.

RECOMMENDATIONSAppropriate pedagogical methods and close monitoringof the learning process, on the part of IL educators, needto be in place so that IL instruction is ingrained and lasting. It must be realized that IL education is not meantto be ephemeral, and that a long-term, continuous ILteaching approach based on sound pedagogy that is well-integrated within the school curriculum will be moreeffective in ensuring that students are equipped with ILcompetencies.

When IL educators are able to identify their stu-dents’ interests and niches in learning, continuouslymonitor their students’ progress and application of skills,and constantly provide many opportunities for thoseskills to be utilized, then the actual learning of IL is ableto take place. There is no singular pedagogical approachthat can be claimed to teach IL most effectively. However,IL educators ought to make an effort to experiment withthe various approaches to find one or a combination of afew methods that are best suited to the class that theyteach based on the learning styles or preferences of thestudents. It is thus recommended that IL educators beequipped with pedagogical training in addition to theirdiscipline knowledge in library and information science,which generally promotes user-centred approaches.

On top of that, on the part of teachers, they must beadequately trained in IL. At the moment, Singaporeschool teachers are not exposed to IL, and there are no ILcourses for either pre-service or in-service teachers. It isthus recommended that IL training be part of pre-serviceteacher training or professional development for schoolteachers. It is only when these different measures are inplace that IL competencies can be effectively imparted tostudents.

This research has also found that students at thesecondary (high) school level may not have the neces-sary IL competencies. However, it must be acknowl-edged that the findings of this research relate to aparticular context, which may not be indicative of stu-dents’ IL competencies in general. Thus, this is an area ofIL research that warrants further investigation in othercontexts. Nevertheless, based on the findings of thisresearch, it is recommended that IL be integrated withinthe school curriculum, and taught in stages in a continu-ous manner, essentially beginning at the primary (ele-mentary) school level. For instance, an incrementalmulti-year school library training programme for stu-dents that is conducted weekly could be developed andimplemented in schools (MacDonald et al., 2000). Thisprogramme could incorporate IL competencies for stu-dents, as part of a compulsory annual enrichment com-ponent in the school curriculum. This would mean thatprimary (elementary) school students would take sixyears to complete the basic IL training module, andwhen they proceed to secondary (high) school, theywould then continue with the intermediate module foranother four or five years, and thereafter the advancedmodule at the pre-university level for two or three years.

CONCLUSIONIL competencies are generally accepted as being useful instudent learning and in developing independent learnersand future knowledge workers. However, the teaching ofIL competencies cannot be left to chance or spontaneousmethods. Instead, it should be researched on, deliberatelyplanned and synergized with appropriate pedagogicalapproaches to ensure effective learning, retention andapplicability amongst students. It is anticipated that ILteaching approaches, which are infused with sound ped-agogical methods, would yield more effective studentlearning and skills application in various tasks andassignments, as well as better academic achievement.

REFERENCESAmerican Library Association (ALA) (1989) Presidential

Committee on Information Literacy: Final report.Washington, D C, January 10, para. 3, URL (con-sulted May 2007): http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.htm

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 101 at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bell, S.J. (2004) ‘The Infodiet: How Libraries can Offer anAppetizing Alternative to Google’, Chronicle ofHigher Education 50 (24): B15.

Bowler, L., Large, A. and Rejskind, G. (2001) ‘PrimarySchool Students, Information Literacy and the Web’,Education for Information 19 (3): 201–24.

Brown, C., Murphy, T.J. and Nanny, M. (2003) ‘TurningTechno-savvy into Info-savvy: AuthenticallyIntegrating Information Literacy into the CollegeCurriculum’, Journal of Academic Librarianship 29 (6):389–98.

Bruce, C.S. (1997) Seven Faces of Information Literacy.Adelaide, South Australia: AUSLIB Press.

Bruce, C.S. (2002) ‘Information Literacy as a Catalyst forEducational Change: A Background Paper. WhitePaper’. prepared for UNESCO, the US NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science,and the National Forum on Information Literacy.Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic, July 2002, URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolit-conf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf

Bruner, J. (1977) The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Chard, S. (2001) Project Approach in Early Childhoodand Elementary Education. Project Approach, URL(consulted May 2007): http://www.project-approach.com/foundation/learning.htm

Cognard, A. (2004) ‘Cognard’s Philosophy: Find the “Ah”Moment’, USA Today. 10 June.

Feuerstein, R. (1980) Instrumental Enrichment: AnIntervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of MultipleIntelligences. NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The Theory inPractice. NY: Basic Books.

Grafstein, A. (2002) ‘A Discipline-based Approach toInformation Literacy’, Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 28 (4): 197–204.

Grant, M.M. (2002) ‘Getting a Grip on Project-basedLearning: Theory, Cases and Recommendations’.Meridian 5 (1), URL (consulted May 2007):http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/

Hampton, D.R., Summer, C.E. and Webber, R.A. (1987)Organizational Behavior and the Practice ofManagement. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Hart, G. (2000) ‘Project Work as a Vehicle for InformationLiteracy Education in a Circuit of South AfricanPrimary Schools’. 66thth IFLA Council and GeneralConference, Jerusalem, Israel, August 13–18, 2000,URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/074-133e.htm

Heil, D. (2005) ‘The Internet and Student Research:Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills’, Teacher Librarian33 (2): 26–9.

Hickey, G.M. (2004) ‘“Can I pick more than one project?” – Case Studies of Five Teachers who usedMI-based Instructional Planning’, Teachers CollegeRecord 106 (1): 77–86.

Jacobson, T.E. and Mark, B.L. (2000) ‘Separating Wheatfrom Chaff: Helping First Year Students BecomeInformation Savvy’, Journal of General Education 49(4): 256–78.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999)‘How Task and Person Conflict Shape the Role ofPositive Interdependence in Management Teams’,Journal of Management 25: 117–41.

Jehn, K.A. (1995) ‘A Multimethod Examination of theBenefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict’,Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 530–57.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, Gregory B. and Neale, MargaretA. (1999) ‘Why Differences Make a Difference: AField Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performancein Workgroups’, Administrative Science Quarterly 44:741–63.

Julien, H. and Boon, S. (2002) ‘From the Front Line:Information Literacy Instruction in CanadianAcademic Libraries’, Reference Services Review 30 (2):143–9.

Kasowitz-Scheer, A. and Pasqualoni, M. (2002)Information Literacy Instruction in Higher Education:Trends and Issues. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY:ERIClearinghouse on Information and Technology(ED 465375).

Lance, K.C. (2001) Proof of the Power: Recent Research onthe Impact of School Library Media Programs on theAcademic Achievement of US Public School Students.ERIC Digest, Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouseon Information and Technology (ED 456861).

MacDonald, M.C., Rathemacher, A.J. and Burkhardt, J.M.(2000) ‘Challenges in Building an IncrementalMulti-year Information Literacy plan’, ReferenceServices Review (28) 3: 240–7.

Markuson, C. (1996) From Clay to Copper, URL (consultedMay 2007): http://www.sirs.com/corporate/newsletters/link/linksp96.htm

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

102 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 103

Maslow, A. (1943) ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’,Psychological Review 50 (4): 370–96.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE) (1997a)Information Literacy Guidelines. Languages andLibrary Branch, Curriculum Planning andDevelopment Division. Singapore: Ministry ofEducation.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE) (1997b)Information Literacy Supplementary Materials. Lang-uages and Library Branch, Curriculum Planning andDevelopment Division. Singapore: Ministry ofEducation.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE) (1997c) TheExtensive Reading and Information Literacy (ERIL)Programme. Languages and Library Branch,Curriculum Planning and Development Division.Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Moore, A.C. (2001) The impact of hands-on information lit-eracy instruction on learning/knowledge of informa-tion literacy concepts and mastery of the researchprocess in college courses: A quasi-experimental study.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Moore, P. (2002) ‘An Analysis of Information LiteracyEducation Worldwide’. White Paper prepared forUNESCO, the US National Commission onLibraries and Information Science, and the NationalForum on Information Literacy. Information LiteracyMeeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic, July2002, URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/moore-full-paper.pdf

Moore, S. (1991) ‘Understanding and Managing Diversityamong Groups at Work: Key Issues for OrganisationalTraining and Development’, Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training 23 (4–5): 208–17.

NSW Department of Education and Training (2002)Multiple Intelligences. Inform, October 2002, URL(consulted May 2007): https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/inform/yr2002/oct/multiple.htm

Orr, D., Appleton, M. and Wallin, M. (2001) ‘InformationLiteracy and Flexible Delivery: Creating aConceptual Framework and Model’, Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 27 (6): 457–63.

O’Sullivan, C. (2002) ‘Is Information Literacy Relevant inthe Real World?’, Reference Services Review 30 (1):7–14.

Pech, R.J. (2001) ‘Termites, Group Behaviour, and theLoss of Innovation: Conformity Rules’, Journal ofManagerial Psychology 16 (7): 559–74.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999)‘Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work GroupDiversity, Conflict, and Performance’, AdministrativeScience Quarterly 44: 1–28.

Piaget, J. (1929) The Child’s Conception of the World. NY:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Rader, H.B. (2002) ‘Information Literacy – an EmergingGlobal Priority.’ White Paper prepared forUNESCO, the US National Commission onLibraries and Information Science, and the NationalForum on Information Literacy. Information LiteracyMeeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic, July2002, URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/rader-fullpaper.pdf

Rockman, I.F. (2003) ‘Information Literacy, a WorldwidePriority for the Twenty-first Century’, ReferenceServices Review 31 (3): 209–10.

Scott, K.J. and Plourde, L.A. (2007) ‘School Libraries andIncreased Student Achievement: What’s the BigIdea?’, Education 127 (3): 419–29.

Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: AnExperimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.

Slavin, R.E. (1995) ‘Enhancing Intergroup Relations inSchools: Cooperative Learning and Other Strategies’,in W.D. Hawley and A.W. Wells (eds) Toward aCommon Destiny: Improving Race and Ethnic Relationsin America, pp. 291–314. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, M.K. (1999) ‘Learning Theory’. The Encyclopedia ofInformal Education (infed), URL (consulted May2007): http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm.

Spitzer, K.S., Eisenberg, M.B. and Lowe, C.A. (1998)Information Literacy: Essential Skills for theInformation Age. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERICClearinghouse on Information & Technology (ED427780).

Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1981)‘Threat-rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior:A Multilevel Analysis’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 26: 501–24.

Stoffle, C.J. (1998) ‘Literacy 101 for the Digital Age’,American Libraries 29 (11): 46–8.

Timpson, W.M., Winokur, M.A. and Merline, A.M. (2002)‘Skills for Success in College: What Students Needfrom High School’, International Electronic Journal forLeadership in Learning 6 (4), URL (consulted May2007):http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume6/timpson.html#exploring

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

104 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008

United States Department of Education (1983) A Nation atRisk. National Commission on Excellence inEducation, URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Virkus, S. (2003) ‘Information Literacy in Europe: A Literature Review’, Information Research 8 (4),paper no. 159, URL (consulted May 2007): http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Watson, J.B. (1913) ‘Psychology as the Behaviourist Viewsit’, Psychological Review 20: 158–77.

Webber, S. and Johnston, B. (2000) ‘Conceptions ofInformation Literacy: New Perspectives andImplications’, Journal of Information Science 26 (6): 381–97.

Whitehead, M.J. and Quinlan, C.A. (2003) ‘InformationLiteracy in Higher Education’, Feliciter 1: 22–4.

Yeap, L.L., Myint, S.K., Lim, L.H. and Low, G.T. (2005) ToEmpower, be Empowered. Singapore: McGraw-HillEducation (Asia).

Zurkowski, P.G. (1974) The Information Service EnvironmentRelationships and Priorities. Washington DC: NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Sciences(Paper No. 5, p. 6) (ED100391).

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 105

Appendix 1 Summary of common learning style models

Category Example Main characteristics Test instrument

Information Fleming’s VARK Based on main sensory modes of: Simple questionnaire processing-based model – Visual instrument of

– Aural 13 questions– Read/Write– Kinaesthetic

Kolb’s LSI Four learning modes across two dimensions:- Pre-1985 version Perception consisted of

– concrete experience (CE) 9 questions; – abstract conceptualization (AC) post-1985 version

Processing consists of – reflective observation (RO) 12 questions– active experimentation (AE)

Combination of 2 learning modes yield one of four learning styles:-

– converger (AC + AE)– assimilator (AC + RO)– accommodator (CE + AE)– diverger (CE + AE)

Personality-based Myers-Briggs’ MBTI Four dimensions:- Instrument consists of– introversion vs. extroversion 126 test items – sensing vs. intuiting– thinking vs. feeling– judging vs. perceiving

Combination of one function from each dimension yields one of 16 personality types

Felder-Soloman ILS Four dimensions:- Original version– active vs. reflective consisted of – sensing vs. intuitive 28 question items;– visual vs. verbal current version– sequential vs. global consists of 44 items

Multi-dimensional Dunn & Dunn LSM Five stimuli of 21 elements:-and instructional – environmental (sound, light, temperature, design) Questionnaire forpreferences-based – emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, young children is

structure) pictorial-based; for– sociological (self, pair, peers, team, adult, variety) older children and – physiological (perceptual, intake, time, mobility) youths consists of– psychological (global-analytic, hemisphericity, 104 question items;

impulsive-reflective) for adults consists of 100 items

Gardner’s MI Eight intelligences:- No instrument – verbal/linguistic endorsed by– logical/mathematical Gardner– visual/spatial– bodily/kinaesthetic– musical– intrapersonal– interpersonal– naturalistic

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

106 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008

Control class – no IL

training or any

other intervention

Phase IIA: Basic information literacy training (5 weeks)

No further

training or

intervention

Phase IIB: Administration of multiple

intelligences survey

Phase IIIB: Submission & evaluation of group reports + group artefacts + individual student logbooks

Phase IIIC: Post-intervention information literacy survey test

Homogeneous grouping Heterogeneous grouping

Phase IIIA: Further coaching on how to apply IL skills in a

more focused manner (5–6 weeks)

School A

Assignment of project topic

Phase I: Pre-intervention information literacy survey test

Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1

Phase IV: Group interviews

Appendix 2. Diagrammatic illustration of using multiple intelligences to enhance learningof information literacy within the context of project work (per school)

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 107

APPENDIX 3Multiple Intelligences Survey

Adapted from Walter Mckenzie (1999) at http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htmand

Diana Bohmer (2004) at http://myschoolonline.com/content_gallery/0%2C3138%2C566-30084-1-32685%2C00.html

For each statement given below, tick �� YES or NO.

PART INo. Statement YES NO

1 I enjoy reading all kinds of materials from books to magazines and even food labels2 I enjoy maths and I do not have difficulty doing mental calculations3 I enjoy drawing or doodling, and I love art4 I enjoy playing all kinds of sports and outdoor games5 I enjoy many kinds of music6 I enjoy interacting and working with others7 I enjoy working alone and I feel that I am more productive that way8 I enjoy learning about plants, animals and other things in nature9 Foreign languages interest me and I seem to find it easy to pick up words or phrases in

different languages10 I get frustrated when things are disorganized, unstructured or disorderly11 I like taking things apart and figuring out for myself how to put them back together again12 I cannot sit still for long periods of time – I end up tapping my feet, fidgeting and

drumming my fingers13 I can easily tell when a particular tune or music is off-key14 I learn better in study groups than alone15 I often need a quiet place to work or think16 I can easily identify a particular plant or animal and distinguish one from another17 I enjoy learning new words and using them in my writing or speech18 I enjoy solving problems19 I understand diagrams, charts, floor plans or maps easily20 I use a lot of hand gestures, body movements and facial expressions when talking to people21 I can easily remember the tunes or melodies of songs that I have just heard for the first time22 I can easily tell how my friends are feeling by looking at their faces and expressions23 I can accurately and easily express how I feel or think24 I enjoy playing with my pets or tending to my garden more than I would talking to or

interacting with people25 I love playing word games and word puzzles26 I love playing logic puzzles, brainteasers or strategy games that require well-planned or

calculated moves27 I love three-dimensional (3D) puzzles and enjoy creating 3D models28 I love using my hands to make things such as creating my own bookshelf rather than buying

a ready-made one29 I love singing or humming a tune30 I enjoy being around people and striking conversations with them31 I have a collection of things that hold special meaning for me such as my collection of

seashells from the beach that I went to with my late grandfather32 I enjoy spending time in parks, zoos, natural reserves and on the beach

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Teaching information literacy through learning styles

108 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008

APPENDIX 3 (continued)

33 I pay careful attention to grammar rules when reading, writing or speaking34 I like to give or receive step-by-step instructions or directions35 I can find my way around new places easily36 I like working with tools and I learn better by doing rather than reading37 I can play a musical instrument and I enjoy learning to play other musical instruments38 I have many friends but only a few close friends39 I learn or do my best when I have an emotional attachment or strong belief in a particular

subject40 I am fascinated by natural phenomena like the solar/lunar eclipses, volcanic eruptions, viral

mutations and the likes41 I love writing and I even keep a diary/journal42 I ask a lot of questions about how things work and I am only satisfied if the answers make

sense or are logical to me43 I can recall things mentally very well and can recreate images accurately in my mind44 I pick up a new sports or learn dance movements easily and quickly45 I can easily identify the source or the instrument that produces a particular sound46 My friends confide in me and I am able to empathize with the way that they feel47 I have strong moral beliefs and principles that I will not compromise easily48 I take part in ecological activities such as cleaning the beaches, saving the whales, save

the trees and reforestation49 Debates and public-speaking are activities that I participate in50 I like working with computers and calculators51 I like to daydream and mentally imagine how things would look like52 I enjoy doing things that require me to be physically active and involved rather than those

that require me to sit and think or write53 I listen to music a lot and it lifts my spirits when I feel down54 I enjoy participating in clubs and societies55 I know what exactly are my strengths and weaknesses56 I always practise the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

INTAN AZURA MOKHTAR ET AL.

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 40 (2) JUNE 2008 109

PART IISection A Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F Section G Section H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31 3233 34 35 36 37 38 39 4041 42 43 44 45 46 47 4849 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

TOTAL

Section A - Verbal/Linguistic IntelligenceSection B - Logical/Mathematical IntelligenceSection C - Visual/Spatial IntelligenceSection D - Bodily/Kinesthetic IntelligenceSection E - Musical IntelligenceSection F - Interpersonal IntelligenceSection G - Intrapersonal IntelligenceSection H - Naturalist Intelligence

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on April 8, 2009 http://lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from