Practicing what we preach

1
Practicing what we preach Practice vs. philosophy
in information literacy instruction Priscilla
Coulter1, Susan Clarke2 and Lani Draper3 Ralph W.
Steen Library, Stephen F. Austin State
University Box 13055 SFA Station, Nacogdoches, TX
75962 1pcoulter_at_sfasu.edu, 2sclarke_at_sfasu.edu,
3lhdraper_at_sfasu.edu
INTRODUCTION An analysis of ACRLs Information
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
Education1 reveals that just over 50 of desired
information literacy (IL) learning outcomes
involve higher-order thinking skills. However, at
Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), a
variety of constraints on IL instruction (e.g.
limited time for planning and delivery,
negative/ambivalent faculty or student attitudes,
teaching methods) often limit the content of our
instruction to lower-order skills. To discover
whether other IL programs face similar
limitations, we used an online survey to gather
information about IL practice in academic
libraries nationwide. The responses allow us to
1) estimate how well current IL practices match
the widely-accepted ACRL IL philosophy and to 2)
suggest factors preventing the professions
complete evolution from bibliographic instruction
(imparting how-to-use-the-library skills) to IL
instruction (imparting lifelong learning skills).
METHODS ACRL IL outcomes higher or lower? With
keywords suggested in Blooms taxonomy2, we
classified each of the 87 outcomes described in
ACRLs Information Literacy Competency Standards
for Higher Education as a higher or lower order
thinking skill. The distribution of skills was
remarkably even 50.6 (44) of outcomes indicate
higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis or
evaluation), while 49.4 (43) imply lower order
thinking (knowledge, comprehension or
application). Survey. A 13-question survey was
created via SurveyMonkey3 and distributed via
various relevant professional e-mail listservs.
Questions were closed- and open-ended, and
focused on instructional librarians methods and
perceptions of IL practice. Survey responses and
statistical analyses are available online4.
Students in a one-shot IL session at Stephen F.
Austin State University
SURVEY RESULTS Though over 70 of our 356
respondents report basing their IL programs on
the ACRL standards, as a whole they spend a
greater percentage of their instructional time on
lower-order skills (35 - 95) than on
higher-order skills (20 - 55). One-shot
face-to-face delivery style was by far the most
common (95.8). Contrary to our expectations,
there were no apparent differences between the
skills emphasized in one-shot vs. semester-long
instructional formats, nor did librarians
teaching in these two formats differ in their
perceptions of their programs effectiveness.
However, some interesting differences arose
between librarians who feel that their IL
programs have a positive, long-term impact on
student learning outcomes (satisfied
librarians, N267) and those that do not
(unsatisfied librarians, N34) 1) Skills
taught though trends were not significant for
each topic surveyed, satisfied librarians report
spending less time on certain lower order skills
(e.g. navigation of the library website (?24.56,
p0.03)) and more time on certain higher order
skills (e.g. discussion of real-life relevance of
IL skills (?28.486, p0.004)). Indeed, more
satisfied respondents (72.3) report basing their
instruction on ACRL standards than do unsatisfied
respondents (58.8). 2) Teaching methods
satisfied librarians are more likely to use a
wide variety of teaching methods, most notably
interactive activities such as games and group
discussion. 3) Program strengths and weaknesses
Satisfied librarians overwhelmingly cite positive
faculty attitudes as the greatest strength of
their IL programs (72.7), while assessment
methods were the most frequently reported
weakness (45.7). Unsatisfied librarians (N34)
cite IL delivery style as a primary weakness of
their instructional programs (80.6) quality of
instructional facilities was the most commonly
stated program strength. Not surprisingly,
unsatisfied librarians also differ in the
perceived degree of institutional support 64.5
of unsatisfied librarians cite the lack of such
support as a program weakness (versus 34 of
satisfied librarians).
CONCLUSIONS The importance of higher-order
thinking skills, particularly as applied to the
research process, is clear there is little
reason for college students to find information
if they cannot analyze, synthesize or evaluate
it. Instructional librarians are faced with the
challenge of integrating these skills into their
classrooms in ways that engage students our
survey points to making the most of IL delivery
style by using varied and interactive teaching
methods as key to meeting this challenge. It may
be that traditional library use training needs
to be deemphasized in order to make room for more
evaluative activities. Indeed, why spend class
time on material that a well-designed handout,
online tutorial or help page can deliver with
perhaps greater impact? Or, in this age of
declining reference statistics, perhaps students
unable to navigate the library website should be
referred to the reference desk, freeing up
valuable class time (and students attention
spans) for the weightier challenges, and the
real-life applications (most likely to catch and
maintain student interest), of the research
process. The need to develop positive
collaboration with faculty is certainly not a new
issue to IL nor is the elusiveness of
institutional support, which may impact space,
equipment, instructor positions, faculty
attitudes and delivery style. While this survey
did not delve into solutions for the lack of
either faculty or administrative support, it did
reemphasize their importance to the ultimate
success of IL instruction. Respondents were
generous with their comments, and we encourage
readers to visit the complete survey results4 to
benefit from the insight and experiences of their
satisfied and unsatisfied instructional
colleagues. We also invite further discussion,
ideas and comments at the blog linked on the
webpage listed below4.
NOTES 1. Information literacy competency
standards for higher education. (2000).
Retrieved January 18, 2006 from
http//www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standard
s.pdf. 2. Bloom, Benjamin S. (1984). Taxonomy of
educational objectives. Boston Allyn and
Bacon. 3. SurveyMonkey homepage
http//www.surveymonkey.com 4. SFASU faculty
webpage (Priscilla Coulter) http//www.faculty.s
fasu.edu/pcoulter/pvp.htm