Introduction
Libraries are often
called the “heart of the university,” and have long assumed a vital role in
academic life. In recent years, however, libraries (along with many other
university departments and programs) have increasingly been asked to prove
their value to governing and funding bodies. The research report from the
Association of College and Research Libraries, Value of Academic Libraries
(2010), provides a research agenda for academic librarians who seek to
demonstrate the value of library services. One part of the research agenda is
to demonstrate the value that library services add to a university in the form
of student learning and academic success.
One way that librarians
hope to affect student learning is by meeting students in the classroom. Over
the past decade, information literacy instruction has become a major part of
the work of some academic librarians. Information literacy is part of the
general education program at the University of Wyoming (United States): each
student is required to take a course with an embedded information literacy
component, and most of those classes are freshman-level classes that introduce
students to study within their majors. Since 2001 the library’s Research and
Instruction Services department has collected statistics regarding how many
instruction sessions librarians have conducted. The
number has risen from 127 in 2001 to 380 in 2010, and we currently teach
about 7,500 students per year (or half of the student body). In the past three
years, around 50% of those instruction sessions have been aimed at
freshman-level classes. This represents a huge time commitment on the part of
librarians, and it is important to consider whether or not the investment of
time and resources makes a difference to students.
This study attempts to
see where librarians may have the most impact with face-to-face instruction, as
well as to find out how the library instruction program is experienced from a
student point of view. The general education program is undergoing revision,
and we would like to have an argument for embedding information literacy
learning outcomes at different points in the curriculum, rather than embedding
them all in freshman-level courses. This study aims to establish the value of
library instruction at various levels with a scaffolded
approach.
Creating a plan for the
incremental mastery of information literacy skills throughout the college
curriculum is becoming a more prevalent concern in the library instruction
community. A tiered approach to teaching information literacy is in line with
the way many universities teach other literacies, such as writing and math,
with introductory skills at the freshman level and then more advanced practice
as students matriculate. In the 2011 Instruction and Assessment Plan developed
at University of Wyoming Libraries, we included a skills level table that
suggests learning outcomes to be addressed at different points in the
university curriculum (Appendix A). This study deals with the experiences of
students who graduated before the new instruction and assessment plan was in
place, and so there were no common guidelines for librarians to teach
information literacy with increasing complexity; however, in the future with
this common set of practices, we may know with more certainty which skills
students have learned and at what level of study.
Literature Review
Much of the research
literature related to assessment of library instruction is summarized in Library
Assessment in Higher Education by Joseph R. Matthews (2007), in which
multiple studies are categorized as either supportive of the idea that library
instruction has a positive effect on student performance or non-supportive of
that idea. Results are fairly evenly split between studies that find a positive
association and studies that find no association. These studies take the form
of skills testing, academic performance, opinion surveys, and more.
Matthews’s review of the
literature reflects the three major ways that librarians have established
connections between library instruction and student academic success: surveys
of student opinion or habits, examining student work or exams for specific
skills, and analysis of grade point average (or another measure of academic
performance) in relation to library instruction offered. All three of these
methods have limitations: surveys provide an indirect and self-reported
assessment of student success, examining student work places a limit on the
sample size and is labour intensive for researchers, and while comparing grade
point average with library instruction may suggest correlations between student
success and library instruction, there are too many potentially confounding
variables to claim that library instruction causes student achievement.
Student achievement is
defined in Value of Academic Libraries (2010) as one of several
dimensions of student learning. It is often represented by GPA or scores on
tests like the GRE. A student’s GPA is an imperfect measure of learning and
achievement, since grades cannot be directly mapped to learning outcomes like
information literacy. There are factors besides learning or skill mastery that
may be measured in a grade, such as attendance or participation. Despite these
confounding variables, GPA remains a widely accepted surrogate for student
learning.
This literature review
will examine studies of the correlation between library instruction and grade
point average as well as several studies that use focus groups to assess
library instruction programs, because those are the two research methods used
in this study. It will also discuss studies employing a mixed-methods approach
to assess library instruction, which is an emerging area of research without
many articles published to date. Finally, one of the major research questions
of this study is whether a tiered approach in a library instruction program is
effective. While there is literature regarding tiered learning in information
literacy within a class or within a major, there seem to be no such articles
regarding a cross-curricular library instruction program, so although that
topic is included in this study, it is not addressed in the literature review.
Moore, Brewster, Dooroh, and Moreau (2002) at Glendale Community College in
California published results from a project begun in 1999 that studied the
impact of library classes and workshops on student success, with student
success defined as GPA score in the following semester. Their study showed a
positive correlation between library classes and grade point averages, as
compared with a group of students who did not receive library instruction. The
study sample size, however, was quite small. Still, the study is an early
example of a positive correlation between library instruction and student
achievement.
Kirk, Vance, and Gardner
of Middle Tennessee State University (2010) collected data from their
institution’s student database, including GPA, gender, ACT score, and retention,
and matched that data to students who were enrolled in classes that received
library instruction. The researchers hoped to demonstrate a relationship
between library instruction and retention, but they found no measurable effect
on freshman to sophomore retention, nor did they find an effect on GPA. There
were important outcomes of the study, however. According to the authors, the
study provided librarians with encouragement to seek access to student data for
research purposes, which can help librarians not only to prove value, but to
learn about saturation rates for library instruction and find out about gaps in
instruction programs.
The largest study of GPA
and library instruction took place at Hong Kong Baptist University Library, and
analyzed the library workshop attendance and graduation GPA of over 8,000
students (Wong & Cmor, 2011). The study found
that if several workshops were offered to students, there was a higher tendency
for library instruction to have a positive impact on grade point average. The authors suggested that multiple library
workshops (as many as three or four) do have a positive correlation with
greater academic success. The study marked a difference between undergraduate
students who attend library workshops and graduate students who attend library
workshops, but with no consideration of whether the undergraduates had library
instruction in lower-division or upper-division classes.
Focus groups have been
successfully used to assess various aspects of library services, including
library instruction programs. Academic librarians have utilized focus groups in
order to learn about students’ perceptions of the role of the library and
developing information literacy skills (Morrison, 1997), to evaluate library
services related to a problem-based learning curriculum in a school of medicine
(Canning, Edwards, & Meadows, 1995), and to evaluate an information
literacy program for a freshman-level biology course (Spackman,
2007). The first two focus group studies were composed only of students, while
the final study included teaching assistants as well as students. The benefits
of using a focus group include the opportunity to get multiple perspectives at
once (as opposed to a one-on-one interview) as well as the spontaneous interactions
between focus group participants, which can provide interesting avenues for
conversation and for learning (Morrison, 1997).
Mixed-methods research is
a distinctive methodology that combines quantitative and qualitative research
methods. Combining research methods can offer a better understanding of the
research problem as each approach adds an angle for analysis (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Some published library
research projects have made use of this method in order to assess information
literacy. One such study investigated the relationship between critical
thinking and library anxiety among undergraduates in their information search
process (Kwon, 2008). Kwon’s study used a survey
instrument as the quantitative method and an examination of student essays as
the qualitative method. By combining the two methods, the researcher found
significant negative associations between critical thinking and library
anxiety. Another study utilizing mixed methods assessed a
first-year information literacy course via pre- and post-tests and focus
group sessions (Wakimoto, 2010). These examples of
mixed-methods studies illustrate the value of combining qualitative and
quantitative methods in order to understand complicated, multi-faceted issues
like student learning.
The mixed methods study
described in the current article replicates elements of Wong and Cmor’s examination of connections between library workshop
attendance and GPA, but adds the student perspective from focus groups to
support and fill in gaps from the quantitative analysis. The utility of a
tiered approach to information literacy instruction is not thoroughly addressed
in the library literature, and this study of University of Wyoming students
seeks to fill that gap by providing an argument for a programmatic approach
with library instruction at various levels in the curriculum.
Aims
The purpose of this
research is to learn about the relationship between students’ academic success
and information literacy instruction. The author hypothesized that graduating
seniors who had continuing library instruction in their sophomore, junior, or senior
year would be more successful, as reflected by GPA, than students who had
library instruction in their freshman year alone, due to repeated practice and
reinforcement of library research skills. The author also sought to understand
students’ perceptions of their own learning and their experience with library
instruction.
The study was undertaken
with several research questions in mind:
·
What is the relationship between student academic success and
information literacy instruction?
·
Which students receive library instruction and which do not?
·
Is there a good argument for creating a tiered program of
information literacy instruction?
·
How can we improve our program of information literacy
instruction?
Librarians often approach
these questions from a librarian-centred perspective: we gather data on how
many students attend information literacy instruction sessions, how many
students successfully complete research assignments, and so on. At the University
of Wyoming all of our assessment data on this subject has been from the
librarian perspective rather than from the student perspective. The author felt
it was important to find out what the library instruction program looks like
from a student perspective, which is one of the things this project attempts to
do.
Methods
Assessment of student
learning is bound to be imperfect, as so many factors lie outside of the
instructor’s and the librarian’s control, but using a mixed-methods approach to
gather both quantitative and qualitative data can give a more complete picture.
The qualitative method for this study was a focus group discussion. In March
2011, with the assistance of another librarian, the researcher conducted two
focus groups with graduating seniors to learn about their engagement with the
library, and more specifically to find out what they learned from library
instruction sessions. Fifteen graduating seniors were recruited at the spring
Graduation Fair. There were 10 women and 5 men, with majors in humanities,
arts, sciences, applied sciences, and social sciences. This research method, of
course, does not aim to be representative of the whole group of graduating
seniors, but to learn more in depth about a few students’ experiences. The
incentive for students to participate was a free meal and a USB drive. Students
in the groups gave their informed consent to participate and to be recorded.
The facilitator had a script (Appendix B) with questions that each student
answered in turn. Recordings of the two focus groups were transcribed and the
author analyzed responses by organizing comments into six themes, which emerged
from the participants’ comments: 1) suggestions for library instruction
services; 2) anecdotes regarding the value of library instruction; 3) comments
regarding the value of library sources, library space, and library staff; 4)
suggested timing for library instruction; 5) barriers to asking for help; and
6) miscellaneous suggestions or requests. All of these themes proved useful for
answering the questions addressed in this study.
Later in 2011, after
spring graduation exercises, the author requested data from the registrar’s
office for the quantitative element of the study. The Institutional Review
Board approved the transcript request, as well as the focus group element of
the study. The author analyzed the academic transcripts of students who entered
the university between 2005 and 2007 and who graduated between 2006 and 2011,
excluding graduate and professional students. The dataset includes, for each
student, a list of classes taken each year with grades for every class, major
when the student entered the university, major when the student graduated, GPA
at graduation (calculated on a four-point scale), and sex. A total of 4,489
student transcripts were involved.
This analysis required a
list of the classes that librarians have met with for the past several years.
The Research and Instruction Services department has kept records of this since
2001, but with varying levels of detail. A fairly comprehensive list of classes
librarians taught from 2005 to the present was compiled, but in some cases it
was impossible to find out if every section of the classes had library
instruction or if it was just select sections visiting the library. The list of
classes that received library instruction does not include individual student
names or numbers, so when collating the list of classes that received library
instruction with students’ academic transcripts, it was assumed that if a
student completed a course with library instruction, then that student attended
class on the day or days when library instruction was provided.
The author created a
database to compare the transcript data with records of library instruction
sessions offered and sorted students into four groups: 1) those who received freshman-level
library instruction and upper-level (post-freshman) library instruction, 2)
those who received freshman-level instruction only, 3) those who received
post-freshman library instruction only, and 4) those who received no library
instruction. In the statistical analysis ANOVA was used to compare the means of
the four groups, which revealed a statistically significant difference
(p<.0005). Then a post hoc analysis was conducted to discover where the
difference was found using the Dunnett test, with the
fourth group (which received no library instruction) as the control or baseline
group. Because there was no significant difference in GPA between groups one
and three (both of which had upper-level instruction), it was appropriate to
combine those groups. Students who did not receive freshman-level instruction
at University of Wyoming (mostly transfer students) may have received
freshman-level instruction at their previous institutions, which was not
controlled for in the analysis. The resulting three comparison groups were: 1)
those who received upper-level library instruction, 2) those who received
freshman-level instruction only, and 3) those who received no library
instruction. With these three groups the data was reanalyzed, using ANOVA and a
post hoc Dunnett test once again. Following common
statistical practice, the level of significance was set at 0.05.
Results
Focus Groups
The 15 graduating seniors
who participated in the focus groups reported between one and four visits to
the library for instruction and said that such visits were generally useful.
Students expressed the need for two different types of instruction: an
orientation in the first year followed by upper-division instruction in which
students learn about resources in their majors.
When discussing when, in
the course of a college career, library visits are most useful, 12 of the 15
students suggested that a first-year visit plus later visits would be ideal.
One student expressed it this way: “It
would be cool if you had a freshman thing, then as you get more specialized in
your field, more specific, scholarly instruction.”
Another suggestion on this topic was to create a library orientation (in-person
or online) for transfer students or for review by upper-division students.
Course guides that provide an opportunity for later review are also valued by
students.
Eight students talked
about asking a librarian for help when they lacked information about how to use
the library. Others said they learned to use the library by asking friends or
through trial and error. Some expressed real barriers to asking for help:
I think a lot of people – especially our generation –
because we’ve grown up with the Internet and computers and that’s the way we’re
used to finding things out, so we’re not as inclined to ask people for help.
We’re just like, “Phhht, I can figure this out. Give
me three hours and a mouse and I’ll figure it out.”
Another student’s response suggests that an important aspect of library instruction is
increasing awareness of library services:
If you’re completely ignorant then you have no
idea that you don’t even know. So unless somebody tells you that you don’t know
you don’t know, then you’re not going to go look for that information.
In general, as students
learn more in college they become more aware of what they do not know (part of
the educational process), and that includes library and information literacy
topics.
All of the students in
the focus groups talked about research projects completed in specific classes
and the databases, sources, and tools used for those projects that they learned
about from library instruction sessions. Students also said that the library
enabled them to do other things, such as valuing scholarly research over basic
Web search results.
Academic Transcript Analysis
Analysis revealed a statistically significant
relationship between students’ GPA at graduation and upper-division library
instruction. The three comparison groups were: 1)
students who received upper-level library instruction, 2) students who received
only freshman-level instruction, and 3) students who received no library
instruction at all. The mean GPA for each of the three groups is displayed in
Table 1; though the variance looks very small, statistical analysis reveals
that there is a statistically significant difference. Table 2 shows the results
of ANOVA: there is a statistically significant difference between the three
groups, F(2,4486)=3.089, p<.0005. A post hoc
analysis was conducted to find where the difference lies. The Dunnett test was used and the “none” group was considered
the control or baseline group, as seen in Table 3. Dunnett t-tests
treat one group as a control, and compare all other groups against it. The
Dunnett test shows that the only group different from
the control group is the upper-level instruction group with a mean difference
of .0748, p<.0005. Thus, students who receive upper-level instruction
at the library also have higher GPAs, while there is no significant difference
in GPA for students who have only freshman-level library instruction.
Because this is ex post facto research, the author cannot claim that the
instruction was the cause of the increase; there are too many confounding
variables to claim causality in the relationship between information literacy
instruction and GPA. Perhaps most notably, there is probably an effect from the
repetition of instruction, which was not analyzed in this study. But the
analysis shows a statistically significant positive correlation between
upper-level library instruction and a higher grade point average at graduation.
Table 1
Mean GPA for Three Comparison Groups
|
MEAN GPA
|
|
Group 1: Upper-level library instruction
|
3.289
|
|
Group 2: Freshman-level library instruction
|
3.247
|
|
Group 3: No library instruction
|
3.214
|
Table 2
ANOVA to Discover
Difference between Groups with Upper-level Library Instruction and Groups
Without
|
ANOVA
|
|
GPA
|
|
|
Sum
of Squares
|
Df
|
Mean
Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
Between
Groups
|
1.259
|
2
|
.630
|
3.089
|
.046
|
|
Within
Groups
|
914.405
|
4486
|
.204
|
|
|
|
Total
|
915.664
|
4486
|
|
|
|
Table 3
Dunnett Test to Find the Difference between Groups
|
Multiple Comparisons
|
|
GAP
Dunnet t(>control)
|
|
(I) groups
|
(J) groups
|
Mean Difference (I-J)
|
Std. Error
|
Sig.
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
|
Lower Bound
|
|
Upper-level instruction
|
No instruction
|
.07480*
|
.03607
|
.031
|
.0079
|
|
Freshman-level instruction
|
No instruction
|
.03328
|
.04469
|
.310
|
-.0496
|
*The mean difference is significant
at the 0.05 level.
Discussion
Putting qualitative
results together with quantitative results provides a well-rounded assessment
of the instruction program. For each of the research questions listed, answers
can be drawn from both the qualitative and quantitative elements of this study
for a more complete picture.
Relationship between Student Academic Success and Information
Literacy Instruction
The students in the focus
group all discussed specific skills or tools learned in library instruction
sessions that they were able to use in research projects assigned for various
classes, which points to the importance of library instruction in academic
success. Additionally, the academic transcript analysis shows a significant
relationship between upper-division information literacy instruction and GPA at
graduation, which is one standardized way of measuring academic success.
Clearly, the difference in GPA is very small (.075 between no library
instruction and upper-level library instruction), but that difference can
determine whether or not a student is accepted into a specific degree program
and can also be an important factor for students applying to graduate schools.
Courses and Programs That Include or Do Not Include Library
Instruction
All of the students in
the focus groups received library instruction, but the students who had
transferred to the University of Wyoming after studying elsewhere expressed the
need for a library orientation. An important
consideration for librarians is to understand that transfer students are less
likely to know the basics about the library. The analysis of academic
transcripts also revealed degree programs in which students are less likely to
receive library instruction. Data gathered and analyzed in this study may be
useful in marketing library instruction to those departments; this is an area
for future research and action.
The Argument for Creating a Tiered Program of Information Literacy
Instruction
One of the major
questions going into this project was whether there is a good argument for
creating a tiered program of information literacy instruction. When students
were asked when they would like to have received library instruction, 12 of the
15 in focus groups said they would like a freshman visit to introduce the
library and its services plus a later, subject-specific visit. The fact that
there is a correlation between upper-division library instruction and higher
GPA at graduation also suggests that information literacy instruction after the
freshman year is important. Additionally, learning theory argues that
reinforcement and scaffolding are important to developing an understanding of
concepts. The latest version of our departmental instruction and assessment
plan includes a section that outlines appropriate learning outcomes for
different levels, and we hope to make an argument that the new general
education program should include information literacy learning outcomes at both
the freshman-level and in an upper-division class in every major.
Improving the Information Literacy Instruction Program
Not every student takes
the same path through college, but seeing the path that some take is
enlightening for lesson planning and program development. Information literacy
is integrated in the university curriculum, but that curriculum is somewhat
fragmented and experienced differently by each student. Seeing how students
actually experience the library instruction program is important to designing a
cohesive (and non-repetitive) curriculum. In the focus groups, some students
expressed irritation at hearing the same thing over again in library
instruction sessions. It seems obvious, but instruction librarians should
differentiate between lower-division and upper-division learning objectives.
Students suggested creating videos or short tutorials to cover the basic
orientation information that upper-division students could review and that
transfer students could use. One important thing learned from the analysis of
academic transcripts is that three-quarters of UW students receive
freshman-level instruction, so librarians should be aware when going in to
upper-division classes that we are speaking to students who already know the
basics. Many of the students also said that they appreciated the availability
of an online course guide to refer to after the library instruction session;
students who had not found a guide for their class or major were jealous of
students who had such guides. Students’ comments about their willingness to
talk to a librarian about research questions also suggest that meeting with
them in their classes and inviting them to ask questions are an important part
of library instruction.
Limitations
The limitation of using
focus groups is that results are not necessarily generalizable across a student
body or between institutions. The analysis of academic transcripts was limited
by the imperfect records kept regarding sections of courses that received
library instruction. Additionally, it is important to remember that in ex post facto research such as this,
researchers cannot claim that the library instruction was the cause of the
improved grade point averages among students who received instruction in
upper-division classes; there is simply a correlation. There are numerous other
variables that will have an effect on GPA and learning: student motivation and
preparedness, research assignments that are engaging and challenging, level of
course instructor engagement, and many more. This analysis can hardly take all
of those factors into consideration. Using GPA as a surrogate for student
learning is not a direct measure of student learning, and there are differences
in GPA that cannot be accounted for. Average GPAs differ between majors and
colleges at University of Wyoming and at other institutions, and grade
inflation is a common concern in higher education. Library instruction and its
effects in various disciplines are another area for future study. Also, this
study focused on the value of library instruction embedded at different levels
in the university curriculum, but did not account for the effect that repeated
library instruction sessions may have. Students in the transcript analysis
comparison groups had between zero and six library instruction sessions and
another analysis might look at the differences that emerge when students have
repeated interactions with librarians in the classroom.
Recommendations
This study helped the
institution identify ways to improve instruction assessment practices, and
other libraries can benefit from these observations as well. Tracking which
courses receive library instruction is vital. One recommendation that emerged
from this study is to create or revise instruction reporting forms to collect
data on the course, section, learning outcomes addressed, and assessment
methods used. We must determine what coding is used in academic transcripts and
use the same on reporting forms in order to facilitate data analysis.
There are other measures of student
academic success that may be more meaningful than GPA, such as subsequent
employment rates, employer evaluations of former students, or percentage of
students who go on to graduate school. Those are valuable ways for librarians
to assess the effectiveness of library instruction. Correlating GPA, however,
does provide a starting point for proving the value of library instruction.
A mixed-methods study of
this type can help an instruction program to plan for future assessment
efforts. Overall, a program-level survey from a student-centred perspective can
give libraries a starting place for a longitudinal, coherent program of
assessment as it offers a
view on how library instruction touches students, and can help librarians to
design a cohesive and effective library instruction program. Asking students
about their preferences, what they value, and how library instruction can be
improved provides insight that librarians need.
Conclusions
The focus groups and
academic transcript analysis undertaken in this study demonstrated a positive
correlation between higher GPA and information literacy instruction at
University of Wyoming, when the instruction was offered in upper-division courses
rather than solely in freshman-level classes. This data provides an argument
for creating a tiered program of information literacy, with information
literacy learning outcomes embedded at different levels in the university
curriculum. The study also provided librarians with a more complete picture of
which students receive library instruction and which do not, along with data to
provide to instructors and departments regarding the potential positive effects
of library instruction. A library instruction program that has clearly defined
goals for students at every level of university study and a scaffolded
approach to student mastery of information literacy skills will have the
greatest impact on student learning and student success.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jenny
Weatherford for assistance with statistical analysis, David D. Kruger for
facilitating focus groups, Lori Terrill for a very helpful internal peer review
of this article, and University of Wyoming library administration for providing
incentives for focus group participants.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorenson, C.
(2010). Introduction to
research in education (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Canning, C. S., Edwards, A. J., &
Meadows, S. E. (1995).
Using focus groups to evaluate library services in a
problem-based learning curriculum. Medical Reference Services
Quarterly, 14, 75-81.
Kirk, R., Vance, J., & Gardner,
J. (2010). The impact of library instruction on freshman performance &
retention. Proceedings from Library Assessment Conference 2010:
Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment. Baltimore, MD:
Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved 2 Feb. 2012 from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/kirk_rachel.pdf
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.
Matthews, J. R. (2007). Library assessment in higher education. Westport, CT:
Libraries Unlimited.
Moore, D., Brewster, S., Dorroh, C., & Moreau, M. (2002). Information competency instruction
in a two-year college: One size does not fit all. References Services Review
30(4), 300-306. doi:10.1108/00907320210451286
Morrison, H. G. (1997). Information
literacy skills: An exploratory focus group study of student perceptions. Research
Strategies, 15, 4-17.
Oakleaf, M. (2010). Value of academic libraries: A
comprehensive research review and report. Chicago: Association of College
and Research Libraries.
Spackman, E. (2007). Utilizing
focus groups to evaluate an information literacy program in a general biology
course. Science & Technology Libraries, 27(3), 3-28. doi:10.1300/J122v27n03_02
Wakimoto, D. K. (2010). Information literacy instruction
assessment and improvement through evidence based practice: A mixed method
study. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(1), 82-92.
Wong, S. H. R., & Cmor, D. (2011). Measuring association
between library instruction and graduation GPA. College &
Research Libraries, 72(5), 464-473.
2012 Bowles-Terry.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License
2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.