Research Article
Information
Literacy Skills of First-Year Library and Information Science Graduate
Students: An Exploratory Study
Andrea Hebert
Human Sciences,
Education, and Distance Learning Librarian
LSU Libraries
Louisiana State
University
Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, United States of America
Email: ahebert@lsu.edu
Received: 7 Feb. 2018 Accepted:
17 July 2018
2018 Hebert. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
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.
DOI:
10.18438/eblip29404
Abstract
Objective – This
cross-sectional, descriptive study seeks to address a gap in knowledge of both
information literacy (IL) self-efficacy and IL skills of students entering
Louisiana State University’s Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS)
program.
Methods – An online survey
testing both IL self-efficacy and skills was administered through Qualtrics.
The online survey instrument used items from existing instruments (Beile, 2007;
Michalak & Rysavy, 2016) and was distributed to two
cohorts of incoming students; the first cohort entered the MLIS program in fall
2017, and the second entered in spring 2018.
Results – Data varied
between cohorts and between survey instruments for both IL self-efficacy and
skills; however, bivariate analysis of data indicated a moderate positive
correlation between overall IL self-efficacy and demonstrated IL skill scores
in both fall 2017 and spring 2018 cohorts.
Conclusion – The study indicates a need for a larger,
multi-institutional study using a rigorously validated instrument to gather
data and make generalizable inferences about the IL self-efficacy and skills of
incoming LIS graduate students.
Introduction
Students enrolled
in U.S. library and information science (LIS) graduate programs are an
understudied population in LIS literature. Most articles focus on LIS curricula
and teaching methodologies. Very few published studies focus on the fundamental
information literacy (IL) skill set of students entering library school.
Because of this lack of data, research and instruction services librarians who
work with LIS graduate students are unable to anticipate accurately these
students’ information needs and information literacy proficiencies, making it a
challenge to provide support and instruction.
LIS students in
the United States are a heterogeneous mix. LIS graduate programs pull students
from a wide range of undergraduate majors (Taylor, Perry, Barton, & Spencer, 2010), and approximately 49% of students
enrolled in American Library Association (ALA) accredited master’s programs in
the United States are 30 years of age or more (Albertson, Spetka, & Snow, 2015, Table
II-8-c-2-ALA), suggesting that
they are returning to academia after professional employment. The varied
academic and professional backgrounds of LIS graduate students make it hard to
predict what IL skills incoming students may possess. At Louisiana State
University (LSU), it is not uncommon to encounter new LIS graduate students who
cannot look up a book in an OPAC, cannot distinguish a citation for a journal
article from that of a monograph, and who are unfamiliar with peer review, but
librarians who work with LIS graduate students need more than anecdotal
information about these students to serve them efficiently and effectively.
Likewise,
understanding students’ IL self-efficacy can guide librarians in their outreach
and instruction to this population. Students with low self-efficacy need
additional encouragement and guidance (Tang & Tseng, 2013). However, if students’ self-efficacy
is higher than their actual skill level, students may be unaware of their
weaknesses and may be unlikely to seek help (Gross & Latham, 2012). Librarians may need to promote their
expertise and services more heavily not only to students with low self-efficacy
but also to those students who have high levels of IL self-efficacy but lower
levels of demonstrated IL skills.
Literature
Review
Bandura defines
perceived self-efficacy “as people’s judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances” (1977, p. 391). People with positive self-efficacy
beliefs are more likely to engage in activities that improve actual
competencies, but Bandura (1986) is careful to note that misjudgments of
self-efficacy (overestimating or underestimating one’s talents) can cause a
negative impact. People who underestimate their self-efficacy often limit
themselves and underperform because of self-doubt, while those who greatly
overestimate their abilities expose themselves to frustration and failure (Bandura, 1986).
Definitions of IL
vary widely and continue to evolve. The Association of College and Research
Libraries’ Framework for Information
Literacy for Higher Education (2016, para. 5) stresses its more conceptual aspects:
“Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the
reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is
produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and
participating ethically in communities of learning.” For the purpose of this
study, IL will refer to a narrower, more traditional, and concrete
definition—the ability “to recognize when information is needed and . . . the
ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (American Library Association, 1989, para. 3).
There is a
growing body of literature focused on IL self-efficacy and its relationship to
demonstrated IL skills. A systematic review of
literature revealed that out of 53 studies, 41 clearly or partially indicated
that students overestimated their IL skills (Mahmood, 2016). The review included studies dealing
with high school, undergraduate, graduate, and professional students, but only
4 of the 53 studies focused solely on graduate students (Mahmood, 2016). Mahmood (2016) found that 83% of the studies
focusing on undergraduates indicated that undergraduate students frequently
overestimate their IL skills. The results of studies dealing with graduate
students were less conclusive. Boucher, Davies, Glen, Dalziel, and Chandler (2009) noted that graduate students both
under- and overestimated their skill levels, and those who rated their skills
highest often had the lowest performance scores. Likewise, Jackson (2013) found that although some graduate
students accurately predict their skill levels, others overestimated them; in
short, there was no clear correlation. Other studies indicated a weak positive
correlation (Robertson & Felicilda-Reynaldo, 2015) or mixed results (Perrett, 2004). Mahmood’s (2016) review covered the years from 1986 to
2015, but in two recent articles, international graduate students in business
were found to overestimate their IL skills (Michalak & Rysavy, 2016; Michalak, Rysavy, &
Wessel, 2017).
These
contradictory findings echo the conflicting research about graduate student IL
as a whole. Some librarians believe that graduate students’ need for IL
instruction exceeds that of undergraduates because of the intensive research
required by many graduate programs (Crosetto, Wilkenfeld, & Runnestrand, 2007). Catalano’s (2010) research indicates that graduate
students are generally able to evaluate information but lack advanced search
skills; other research indicates that graduate students actually have
sophisticated IL skills (Green, 2010). A study asking graduate students to
rate their feelings of engagement, affirmation, and puzzlement during an
information literacy instruction session revealed conflicting responses,
pointing to a wide range of abilities and competencies among graduate students (Saunders, Severyn, Freundlich, Piroli, &
Shaw-Munderback, 2016). Even when
graduate students are aware that they need research help, they are hesitant to
approach librarians (Harrington, 2009; Sadler & Given, 2007).
Few articles
address LIS graduate students’ IL self-efficacy or IL skills, but there is a
suggestion that LIS graduate students have high IL self-efficacy but lower than
expected performance. Several studies point to LIS students having positive IL
self-efficacy (Kurbanoglu, 2003; Pinto, Fernandez-Ramos, Sanchez,
& Meneses, 2013; Saunders et al., 2015). Kurbanoglu’s (2003) study of undergraduates enrolled in
an Information Management program (Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey)
suggests that although there is a slight increase in IL self-efficacy between
students’ first and second years, there is little gain in succeeding years.
Although Kurbanoglu’s (2003) study is valuable, it is not
longitudinal—different students were tested over the course of four years. The
differences in self-efficacy for each program year could be due to the group of
students tested instead of an actual increase in self-efficacy. There is
evidence that LIS graduate students have limited IL skills, including
difficulty formulating Boolean search queries (Conway, 2011; Islam & Tsuji, 2010). In fact, a study of students
entering Curtin University’s (Perth, Australia) Information Studies graduate
program found that “33% of postgraduates were unable to identify a citation as
indicating a journal article; 59% were unable to select the best method of
searching for a specific journal article; 48% were unaware of how to find a
book chapter using a library catalogue; and 33% were unable to identify the
Boolean operator ‘AND’ as a means to narrow a search” (Conway, 2011, pp. 130–131).
A study of LIS
students in 18 countries revealed that although students were confident in
their search skills, the students’ self-reported information behaviors and
attitudes raised “some concerns as to whether LIS students are moving beyond
the general population in their location, search, evaluation, and use of resources”
(Saunders et al., 2015, p. S94). Doctoral students enrolled in
information science programs in Spain, Cuba, and Mexico generally ranked their
IL knowledge as high, but the authors of the study commented, “Although the
results of the self-assessments are encouraging, the authors of this article,
as a result of their extensive experience in training doctoral students and
directing doctoral dissertations, believe that the real world reality is not,
however, as encouraging” (Pinto, Fernandez-Ramos, Sanchez, & Meneses, 2013,
p. 151). Although this
discrepancy has been noted, there are no direct measurements to confirm it.
Aims
This paper
describes an exploratory study to address this gap in knowledge by gathering
data to answer the following questions:
1.
What level of information literacy self-efficacy do first-year
MLIS students have?
2.
What information literacy skills do first-year MLIS students
demonstrate?
3.
Is there a relationship between first-year MLIS students’
perceived and demonstrated information literacy skills?
Methods
The study used an
online survey to determine first-semester MLIS students’ levels of
self-efficacy and to test their IL skills. Each IL skill was keyed to a
self-efficacy belief, allowing the author to compare discrete beliefs and skills.
The author submitted an application for
exemption to LSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to use the survey in fall
2017. The IRB chair reviewed the application for this project (LSU IRB# E10534)
and determined that the project did not require a formal review.
The author
repeated the study in spring 2018 for additional data collection using a
different instrument and a streamlined distribution method. The librarian
submitted another IRB exemption application, which reflected the use of a new
instrument, the change in distribution method, and an updated consent script.
The IRB exemption was granted (LSU IRB# E10817).
Study
Population and Sampling Design
The study
included students entering the MLIS degree program at LSU’s School of Library
and Information Science (SLIS). Participants had to be enrolled in their first
semester of the MLIS degree program and could have no more than 3
graduate-level credits in LIS.
Fall 2017
In fall 2017, 42
students eligible for the study entered the MLIS program at LSU (B. Antie,
personal communication, Sept. 5, 2017); because the study population was small
(N = 42), the author used a census
survey instead of a sample survey. The study relied on a voluntary response,
but the director of the SLIS program encouraged students to complete the
survey. Respondents who completed the survey received an Amazon.com eGift code
worth $5.00 as an incentive after the survey closed; the incentives were funded
by LSU Libraries.
Qualtrics
recorded 61 survey attempts. The author determined that of the 61 responses, 35
were from students who met the inclusion criteria. Data from ineligible
students were deleted. Of the 35 responses from students who met inclusion
criteria, 3 respondents to the survey took the survey twice. In these cases,
the author deduped the responses using the following criteria:
1.
Retain the attempt that is most complete (fewest skipped
questions).
2.
If both attempts are complete, keep the first attempt and delete
the second.
This left 32
valid responses—32 out of 42 eligible students responded to the survey for a
response rate of 76%.
Spring 2018
The spring 2018
study used the same inclusion and exclusion criterion as the fall 2017 study.
On the first day of classes (January 10, 2018), the author obtained a list of
the 30 incoming MLIS students and their university email addresses from the
Office of the University Registrar (B. Antie, personal communication, January
10, 2018). The study once again used a census survey. The study relied on a
voluntary response and no incentive was offered for participating in the
survey. Qualtrics recorded 23 survey attempts; 22 students indicated that they
met the inclusion criteria, and 3 attempts were incomplete. After data from the
ineligible student and from incomplete surveys were deleted, 19 valid responses
were left for a response rate of 65.5%.
Study Design
The survey was
created in Qualtrics, a Web-based survey platform. Five graduate assistants at
LSU Libraries took the survey to ensure the survey’s functionality and provide
an estimated completion time.
On the first day
of the fall 2017 semester (August 21, 2017), SLIS’s Administrative Coordinator
of Academic Services emailed a link to the survey along with a short introduction
explaining the purpose of the study. There were three reminders for
participation after the initial survey distribution on August 21 with the
survey closing on September 6.
The spring 2018
survey was distributed on January 11, 2018, to newly enrolled SLIS MLIS
students (N = 30) to their university
email addresses using Qualtrics. The author sent email reminders through
Qualtrics. The survey closed on January 25, 2018.
Data
Collection Instruments
Respondent data
were collected through Qualtrics. A statement containing information required
by LSU’s IRB prefaced both surveys.
Fall 2017
In fall 2017, the
instrument consisted of 4 questions to measure IL self-efficacy, 18 questions
to measure specific IL skills, and 5 demographic questions. The author gained
permission to use questions 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Michalak and Rysavy’s (2016) Students’ Perceptions of Their
Information Literacy Skills Questionnaire (SPIL-Q) (M. Rysavy, personal
communication, June 16, 2017). SPIL-Q measures perceived IL self-efficacy with
a 5-point Likert scale. Although there are other well-known and validated IL
self-efficacy instruments, in particular Kurbanoglu, Akkoyunlu, and Umay’s
Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale (ILSES) (2006), SPIL-Q allows users to rate their
self-efficacy with just six questions, allowing the author to keep the survey
brief. Questions 2, 3, 4, and 6 measure locating information, accessing
information, evaluating information, and citing, respectively. This modified
SPIL-Q will be referred to as M-SPIL-Q for clarity in this paper.
The author
adapted questions from the Information Literacy Assessment for Education
(ILAS-ED) to measure IL skills. ILAS-ED, also known as B-TILED (Beile, 2007), assesses basic IL skills with
multiple-choice questions. During ILAS-ED’s development, the instrument
demonstrated reasonable reliability and validity (Beile, 2005, 2007). It is freely available and has been
used in several IL studies (Alfonzo & Batson, 2014; Batarelo Kokić &
Novosel, 2014; Cannon, 2007; Catalano & Phillips, 2016; Jesse, 2012;
Magliaro, 2011; Robertson & Felicilda-Reynaldo, 2015; Tewell & Angell,
2015). Although the
instrument was developed in 2005, the terminology used in the questions is
still current.
ILAS-ED consists
of 35 questions. Questions 1 and 2 deal with general self-efficacy, questions 3
through 6 deal with students’ library instruction history, questions 7 through
28 test IL skills, and questions 29 through 35 collect demographic data. For
the purpose of this study, the author excluded questions 1 and 2 because
self-efficacy was measured with more granularity by M-SPIL-Q. Question 3 was omitted
as irrelevant to SLIS’s online students because it dealt with attending “a tour
or physical orientation of the library” (Beile, 2007, p. 19). The study also omitted questions 4
through 6, which concerned receiving instruction in the library, in the
classroom, and one-on-one; without contextual information about how long ago
the instruction took place, by whom or at which institution the instruction was
given, or what the instruction covered, this data would provide limited insight
about the impact of the instruction on IL self-efficacy or skills.
Demographic data
about age, ethnicity/race, and gender was collected with the intent to identify
patterns (see Appendix A for demographic questions), but preliminary analysis
of data about age, gender, and race/ethnicity provided little insight. The
survey also solicited information about the highest degree obtained and the
number of years since respondents received their most recent degree. The
results section details the collected demographic data.
Because ILAS-ED
was designed for students in education programs, some of the original ILAS-ED
questions were modified for use with LIS students with the consent of ILAS-ED’s
author (P. Beile, personal communication, June 20, 2017). (Appendix B presents
the modified questions along with the corresponding ILAS-ED question number.)
The modified form of the ILAS-ED will be referred to as M-ILAS-ED.
Spring 2018
Although the data
from the M-SPIL-Q and M-ILAS-ED instruments gave the author valuable insights,
the fall 2017 assessment measured some aspects of IL with multiple questions,
while others were measured with only a few; for example, seven questions were
used to assess the ability of students to access information, but only two
questions were used to assess students’ citation skills (see Table 1).
When the study
was repeated for additional data collection in spring 2018, the author chose to
use Michalak and Rysavy’s (2016) unmodified SPIL-Q to measure
self-efficacy and their Information Literacy Assessment (ILA) instrument to
measure IL skills. Michalak and
Rysavy granted the author permission (R. Michalak, personal communication, Dec.
7, 2017) to use the unmodified SPIL-Q instrument and a minimally modified
version of their ILA instrument (2016). The SPIL-Q and ILA instruments were
developed together, so each question on the ILA corresponds to a SPIL-Q item,
and each IL skill was measured by the same number of questions.
There were only
two modifications to the ILA instrument. Module 1, question 5 was modified to
reflect LSU’s name and library’s name. Module 2, question 8 was changed from
“Materials in the Hirons Library are organized . . .” to “Materials in most
major university libraries in the United States are organized . . .” to make
the question applicable to U.S. universities in general. The survey used the
same demographic questions used in the fall 2017 study; the results section
reports the collected demographic data.
Table 1
Fall 2017 IL
Self-Efficacy Beliefs Keyed to M-ILAS-ED Questions
M-SPIL-Q Self-Efficacy Belief |
Corresponding M-ILAS-ED Questions |
Locating
Information |
Questions
8, 9, 10, 12, 20 |
Accessing
Information |
Questions
11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
Evaluating
Information |
Questions
7, 19, 21, 23 |
Citing |
Questions
24, 25 |
Data
Analysis Techniques
The author
transferred the data collected in Qualtrics to SPSS. Each item from M-ILAS-ED
was keyed to one of the four self-efficacy beliefs (locate, access, evaluate,
and cite) measured by the four questions from M-SPIL-Q, allowing individual
skills to be measured against self-efficacy beliefs for possible correlations.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of skills keyed to questions.
The total
M-SPIL-Q and M-ILAS-ED scores were used to calculate the Pearson correlation
coefficient to determine whether there was a possible correlation between
students’ IL perceived self-efficacy and demonstrated IL skills.
The same
procedure was followed in spring 2018, this time using the SPIL-Q and ILA
scores. Again, each question in the ILA was keyed to a self-efficacy belief
(developing a topic, locating information, accessing information, evaluating
information, writing, and citing) in SPIL-Q. The librarian keyed the questions
as described by Michalak and Rysavy (2016).
Results
Fall 2017
Of the 31
respondents to the gender question, the majority of respondents were female (n = 24, 75%); the remainder were male (n = 7, 22%) or preferred not to answer (n = 1, 3%). Of the 32 respondents to the
race question, 20 (63%) were white, 5 (16%) were black or African American, 2
(6%) identified themselves as Hispanic of any race, 3 (9%) identified
themselves as two or more races, and 2 (6%) preferred not to answer. Of the 19
respondents to the age question, 2 (11%) were between 20 and 24 years of age, 7
(37%) were between 25 and 29 years of age, 2 (11%) were between 30 and 34 years
of age, 2 (11%) were between 35 and 39 years of age, 3 (16%) were between 40
and 44 years of age, and 3 (16%) were between 45 and 49 years of age.
The highest
degree obtained by respondents was a bachelor’s degree (n = 23, 72%), followed by a master’s degree (n = 8, 25%), and a doctoral degree (n = 1, 3%). Twenty respondents (63%) had earned their degree within
the last 5 years, 6 (19%) had earned their most recent degree within the last 6
to 10 years, 5 (16%) within the last 11 to 15 years, and 1 (3%) within the last
16 to 20 years.
Table 2 reports
the mean M-SPIL-Q and M-ILAS-ED scores. The highest possible M-SPIL-Q score was
20; the highest possible M-ILAS-ED score was 18.
Tables 3 and 4
summarize the mean scores of each of the four areas (locating information,
accessing information, evaluating information, and citing) tested by M-SPIL-Q
and M-ILAS-ED.
The author used
SPSS to calculate Pearson’s r to
determine if a correlation existed between M-SPIL-Q scores and M-ILAS-ED scores
(Table 5). The results indicate a moderate positive correlation that is
statistically significant (p
<.005), meaning that as self-efficacy scores increased so did IL scores.
Table 2
Fall 2017 M-SPIL-Q and M-ILAS-ED Scoresa
|
n |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
M-SPIL-Q |
32 |
8 |
20 |
15.37 (77%) |
3.28 |
M-ILAS-ED |
32 |
6 |
15 |
10.88 (60%) |
2.34 |
aNumbers are rounded to the nearest hundredth; percentages are rounded to
the nearest percent.
Table 3
Fall 2017
M-SPIL-Q Scores (n = 32) by
Subcategorya
M-SPIL-Q Subcategory |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
Locate |
1 |
5 |
3.81 (76%) |
1.00 |
Access |
1 |
5 |
3.56 (71%) |
1.05 |
Evaluate |
1 |
5 |
4.03 (81%) |
.90 |
Cite |
1 |
5 |
3.97 (79%) |
1.03 |
aNumbers are
rounded to the nearest hundredth; percentages are rounded to the nearest
percent.
Table 4
Fall 2017
M-ILAS-ED Scores (n = 32) by
Subcategorya
M-ILAS-ED Subcategoryb |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
Locate |
1 |
4 |
2.88 (58%) |
.94 |
Access |
1 |
7 |
3.91 (56%) |
1.45 |
Evaluate |
0 |
4 |
2.28 (57%) |
.99 |
Cite |
0 |
2 |
1.81 (91%) |
.47 |
aNumbers are
rounded to the nearest hundredth; percentages are rounded to the nearest
percent.
bThe total
possible points for each subsection of the M-ILAS-ED are as follows: Locate 5,
Access 7, Evaluate 4, Cite 2.
Table 5
Correlation between M-ILAS-ED and
M-SPIL-Q Scores
|
M-SPIL-Q |
M-ILAS-ED |
|
M-SPIL-Q |
Pearson
Correlation |
1 |
.561a |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.001 |
|
n |
32 |
32 |
|
M-ILAS-ED |
Pearson
Correlation |
.561a |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.001 |
|
|
n |
32 |
32 |
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Spring
2018
Of
the 19 respondents, 14 (74%) were female and 5 (26%) were male. The majority of
respondents were white (n =13, 68%). Three respondents (16%) identified
themselves as Black or African American, 1 respondent (5%) identified as
“Hispanic of any race,” 1 respondent (5%) selected American Indian or Alaskan
Native, and 1 respondent (5%) preferred not to answer. The largest percentage
of respondents (n = 7, 37%) were between 25 and 29 years of age, 2 respondents
(11%) were between 20 and 24 years of age, 2 respondents (11%) were between 30
and 34 years of age, 2 respondents (11%) were between 35 and 39 years of age, 3
respondents (16%) were between 40 and 44 years of age, and 3 respondents (16%)
were between 45 and 49 years of age.
Of the 19
respondents, 9 (47%) held a bachelor’s as their highest degree, 8 (42%) held a
master’s degree as their highest degree, and 2 (11%) held a doctoral degree.
Over half of respondents (n = 10,
53%) earned their most recent degree within the last 5 years, almost a third (n = 6, 32%) had earned their most recent
degree within the last 6 to 10 years, 2 respondents (11%) within 11 to 15
years, and 1 respondent (5%) 21years ago or more.
Table 6 reports
the mean SPIL-Q and ILA scores. The highest possible SPIL-Q score was 30; the
highest possible ILA score was 60.
Table 6
Spring 2018
SPIL-Q and ILA Scoresa
|
n |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
SPIL-Q Total |
19 |
12 |
30 |
24.53 (82%) |
5.23 |
ILA Total |
19 |
37.33 |
56.49 |
49.59 (83%) |
5.42 |
aAll numbers are
rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Mean scores were calculated
in each of the six tested areas for both the SPIL-Q and ILA (Tables 7 and 8).
The author used
SPSS to calculate Pearson’s r to
determine if a correlation existed between SPIL-Q and ILA scores (Table 9). The
results indicate a moderate positive correlation that is statistically
significant (p < .005).
Table 7
Spring 2018
SPIL-Q Scores (n = 19) by Subcategory
a
SPIL-Q
Subcategory |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
Develop a Topic |
2 |
5 |
4.05 (81%) |
1.08 |
Locate |
1 |
5 |
4.05 (81%) |
1.18 |
Access |
2 |
5 |
4.05 (81%) |
.91 |
Evaluate |
2 |
5 |
4.16 (83%) |
1.02 |
Write |
2 |
5 |
4.11 (82%) |
.94 |
Cite |
2 |
5 |
4.11 (82%) |
.99 |
aNumbers are rounded to the nearest hundredth; percentages are
rounded to the nearest percent.
Table 8
Spring 2018 ILA
Scores (n = 19) by Subcategory a
ILA Subcategory |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
SD |
Develop a Topic |
5 |
10 |
8.26 (83%) |
1.52 |
Locate |
5 |
10 |
7.53 (75%) |
1.12 |
Access |
2.84 |
10 |
7.68 (77%) |
2.04 |
Evaluate |
5.5 |
10 |
7.87 (79%) |
1.25 |
Write |
6.5 |
10 |
9.26 (93%) |
.96 |
Cite |
7 |
10 |
9.00 (90%) |
1.00 |
aNumbers are rounded to the nearest hundredth; percentages are
rounded to the nearest percent.
Table
9
Correlation
between SPIL-Q and ILA Scores
|
SPIL-Q |
ILA |
|
SPIL-Q |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.668a |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.002 |
|
n |
19 |
19 |
|
ILA |
Pearson Correlation |
.668a |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.002 |
|
|
n |
19 |
19 |
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Discussion
Research Question
1: Self-Efficacy
Michalak and
Rysavy (2016) defined students who felt they had
adequate skills in an area as those who selected 4 or 5 (agree or strongly
agree). In fall 2017, the only mean score above 4 was for evaluating
information, although the mean scores for citing information (3.97) and
locating information (3.81) were close to this cutoff. The mean score for
students’ confidence in accessing information (3.56) suggests more ambivalence.
The students in
the spring 2018 cohort were more confident; the mean score for each area was
above 4.0, indicating most students felt like they had adequate skills in all
six areas.
The majority of
students in both cohorts felt like their skills were adequate, supporting the
findings of Pinto, Fernandez-Ramos, Sanchez, and Meneses (2013) and Saunders et al. (2015) that LIS students have positive IL
self-efficacy.
Research
Question 2: Demonstrated IL Skills
In
fall 2017, the mean M-ILAS-ED scores in the four tested IL skill areas showed
that students performed best in citing, followed by locating, evaluating, and
accessing information.
Mean scores
present a general overview of skills, but item level analysis gives granular
insight into the specific skills of the incoming students and indicates
specific weaknesses. In fall 2017, at least half of the respondents incorrectly
answered 7 of 18 questions. The seven items and percentage of students
answering incorrectly follow:
·
72% were unable to
identify the best source to locate a brief history and summary of a topic
(ILAS-ED, question 8).
·
78% were unable
to identify options offered in advanced search interfaces (ILAS-ED, question
11).
·
50% were unable
to identify the best place to find recent scholarly articles in a particular
subject (ILAS-ED, question 13).
·
62% were unable
to select the best set of synonyms and terms related to a concept (ILAS-ED,
question 15).
·
66% respondents
were unable to identify a citation for chapter in a book (ILAS-ED, question
19).
·
59% were unable
to select the best way to locate a journal article using the library’s catalog
(ILAS-ED, question 20).
·
59% were unable
to able to determine the reliability of a story on the Internet (ILAS-ED,
question 23).
Five of the
questions on which 50% or fewer respondents answered correctly had been
modified (questions 8, 13, 15, 20, and 23 on the original ILAS-ED). Although
the changes to the questions were minor (see Appendix B), the possibility of
poor adaptation may have contributed to the respondents’ lower performance.
Despite the modifications, the findings point to a gap in knowledge to some
fundamental skills used in locating, accessing, and evaluating information.
In spring 2018,
the mean scores of entering MLIS students in developing a topic; locating,
accessing, and evaluating information; writing; and citing as measured by the
ILA instrument were all 75% or above (see Table 8). However, looking at the
results on the item level highlights weaknesses:
·
53% of
respondents did not identify that information in a library is selected through
a review process as the best description of what distinguishes the information
in the library from information on the Web (module
2, question 1).
·
47% of
respondents were unable to identify the Library of Congress Classification
system as that most often used in major U.S. universities (module 2, question
8).
·
58% of
respondents did not know how to search for different endings of a word by using
truncation (module
3, question 3).
·
58% of
respondents were unable to identify the least important action in evaluating a
resource when writing about the history of a topic (module 4, question 2).
·
37% of
respondents indicated that not every website needs to be evaluated before using
information found on it (module 4, question10).
In both fall 2017
and spring 2018, a high percentage of respondents demonstrated a lack of basic
knowledge and skills. These findings are similar to Conway’s (2011) experience with LIS graduate
students. Librarians who serve LIS graduate students cannot assume that
incoming students possess skills and knowledge that are considered fundamental
in the LIS discipline. Librarians should keep this gap in mind when
constructing LibGuides and other resources for LIS graduate students. If librarians
are providing one-shot instruction or embedding in an LIS graduate course, they
may want to consider administering a pretest before designing instruction and
activities so they can address gaps in knowledge and skills.
Research
Question 3: Correlation
In
the first phase of the study (fall 2017), there was a modest positive
correlation between M-SPIL-Q and M-ILAD-ED scores (r = .561, p < .005).
There was also a moderate positive correlation (r = .668, p < .005) between
SPIL-Q and ILA scores in spring 2018, again indicating a possible positive
correlation between perceived IL self-efficacy and actual IL skills. These
moderate positive correlations echo the correlation between IL self-efficacy
and skills found by Robertson & Felicilda-Reynaldo’s (2015) study of
graduate nursing students.
Although there is
a positive correlation between IL self-efficacy and skills, there are
indications of discrepancies between perceived and actual IL skills. This study
reveals specific examples of students misjudging their skill level. For
example, in fall 2017, the mean M-SPIL-Q score of 15.38 (SD 3.28) indicates
that students were confident about their IL skills, but the mean M-ILAS-ED
skill score, 9.5 (SD 2.578) out of a possible score of 18, indicates a low
skill level (see Table 2). In addition, in fall 2017, 84% of respondents rated
their ability to evaluate information as adequate, but the mean score for
demonstrated ability to evaluate information was 2.28/4.0 (57%) (see Table 4).
These
discrepancies confirm the concern that LIS graduate students overestimate their
IL skills put forth by Pinto, Fernandez-Ramos, Sanchez, and Meneses (2013), which was based on personal
observations, and by Saunders et al. (2015), which was based on the self-reported
information behaviors of LIS graduate students. In both cases, the researchers
did not have data about demonstrated IL skills. When working with individual
LIS graduate students, practitioners should remember that a student’s skill
level may not may measure up to the student’s confidence; librarians should
probe to identify the student’s actual competence or knowledge instead of
relying on the student’s self-reported understanding and ability.
Research
Limitations
The
study’s most significant limitation is its small, self-selected sample size. A
larger sample of students from multiple MLIS programs across the country would
yield more reliable data and generalizable results.
The
use of two different instruments in fall 2017 and fall 2018 introduced
additional limitations. Although using two different instruments gave the
author insight into which test might be more suitable for large scale use, it
did prevent the author from establishing a clear baselines of IL self-efficacy
and skills for MLIS students, and although general trends could be identified,
results between the two cohorts could not be directly compared.
The
timing of the survey in fall 2017 was problematic. To collect students’ answers
before they were exposed to IL instruction in graduate LIS classes, the survey
needed to be distributed at the beginning of the semester; however, the
beginning of the semester corresponded to the catastrophic destruction caused
by Hurricane Harvey. Although most of Hurricane Harvey’s destruction was in
Texas, portions of Louisiana also experienced flooding. SLIS’s MLIS program in
an online degree program, and students are scattered across the United States;
however, many of them live in Louisiana. Some eligible students may have been
affected directly, and those living in other areas of the state may have had
family in devastated areas. There is no way to measure the effect that
Hurricane Harvey had on the response rate or on respondents’ performance. It is
impossible to quantify the emotional impact of the storm on those it affected
either directly or indirectly. Completing an optional survey would have been a
low priority for affected students.
Funding
limited the measurement instruments available for use. Many standardized
measurement instruments for IL with rigorous testing for reliability and
validity, such as the Research Readiness Self-Assessment (RRSA) (Ivanitskaya, Laus, & Casey, 2004) and the
Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (SAILS) (Radcliff, Oakleaf, & Van Hoeck, 2014) are fee-based (Sparks, Katz, & Beile, 2016). With
additional funding, the study could be repeated with an established instrument
across multiple LIS graduate programs.
Future
Considerations
Repeating the
study across multiple institutions would yield a larger sample size that could
help librarians target specific groups for outreach. For example, in fall 2017,
students having completed their most recent degree in the last five years (n = 20) had the lowest mean IL score,
10.70 (SD 2.54), and students between 20 and 24 years of age (n = 6) had the lowest mean IL score of
all age groups. This finding suggests that outreach and instruction efforts
should focus on younger students and more recent graduates, but the results apply
only to this small cohort of students at a single university. A large sample
size that includes students from different institutions would make analysis of
the data on age, highest degree earned, and years since most recent degree
useful for librarians planning outreach to incoming LIS graduate students.
Additional
demographic questions could reveal useful insights into student needs. For
example, questions about previous areas of study could indicate whether
students beginning MLIS programs with degrees in particular subjects enter with
higher or lower IL skills. Questions about library work experience could give
insight into its impact on IL. Working in a library is often cited as an
motivation to enroll in an LIS graduate program (Ard et al., 2006; Kim, Chiu, Sin, & Robbins,
2007; Taylor, Perry, Barton, & Spencer, 2010). Data could substantiate or refute
the assumption that students with library work experience may score higher in
both self-efficacy and demonstrated IL skills than students with no history of
working in a library. The number of online MLIS students has grown rapidly. In
the 2003–2004 academic year, approximately 67% of LIS programs responding to
the ALISE survey reported offering internet or web-based classes (Saye, 2008); by 2013–2014 , 96% of programs
responding to the survey reported offering online courses (Albertson, Spetka, & Snow, 2015). Research suggests that online MLIS
students have a unique profile (Oguz, Chu, & Chow, 2015). It is possible that the scores of
online students could differ from those of face-to-face students.
Although LIS
graduate students have been reported to consult librarians more frequently than
graduate students in other programs (Tracy & Searing, 2014), LIS graduate students in the United
States are still more likely to consult with their instructors and classmates
than with librarians (Saunders et al., 2015). Tracy and Searing’s (2014) survey
study on LIS graduate students as library users found that LIS students “need
to learn search strategies and resources as much as other graduate students” (p. 377). LIS library liaisons can use the
data collected from assessments of skill and self-efficacy to guide their
outreach efforts to the areas of greatest weakness, especially if self-efficacy
exceeds assessed skills.
Results could be
used in collaborations between LIS professors and LIS librarian liaisons to
address gaps in knowledge in a systematic way, such as the program described by
Lamb (2017) at the Department of Library Science
at Indiana University at Indianapolis. In this program, students are given
diagnostic pretests that are used to prescribe a series of self-paced tutorials
designed to address the varying degrees of technological proficiency of
incoming LIS students (Lamb, 2017). Students who score 85% or above on a
pretest are exempt from completing the corresponding tutorial, so students only
need to complete the tutorials for skills in which they are not deemed
proficient (Lamb, 2017).
There are
indications that LIS faculty are aware of that some incoming LIS graduate
students lack foundational IL skills (Lamb, 2017; Pinto, Fernandez-Ramos, Sanchez,
and Meneses, 2013). This suggests an additional
opportunity for research comparing how LIS professors rate LIS graduate
students’ information literacy proficiency to how LIS graduate students rate
their own skill level.
Conclusion
This exploratory,
cross-sectional, descriptive study measured both the IL self-efficacy and
demonstrated IL skills of students entering an MLIS program. The collected data
suggests that a moderate positive correlation exists between IL self-efficacy
and skills.
This study also
tests the feasibility of a larger, multi-institution study that would fill a
gap in the literature about LIS graduate students and provide other librarians
who support these students with data to inform their instruction and outreach
plans. This study may also be the first part of a longitudinal study of how
MLIS students’ IL self-efficacy and skills develop as students progress through
their graduate program.
References
Albertson, D., Spetka, K., & Snow, K. (2015). ALISE
library and information science education statistical report 2015. Seattle,
WA. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org/assets/documents/statistical_reports/2015/alise_2015_statistical_report.pdf
Alfonzo, P., &
Batson, J. (2014). Utilizing a co-teaching model to enhance digital literacy
instruction for doctoral students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies,
9, 61–71. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ddc5/79e2dcbf825d7a11e122615a89a27646f482.pdf
American Library
Association. (1989). Presidential Committee on information literacy: Final
report. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
Ard, A., Clemmons,
S., Morgan, N., Sessions, P., Spencer, B., Tidwell, T., & West, P. J.
(2006). Why library and information science? Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 45(3), 236–248. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20864520
Association of
College and Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for
higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Bandura, A. (1977).
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social
foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Batarelo Kokić, I.,
& Novosel, V. (2014). The ball is in your court: Information literacy
self-efficacy and information literacy competence relation. In S. Kurbanoglu,
S. Špiranec, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, R. Catts (Eds.), Information
Literacy. Lifelong Learning & Digital Citizenship in the 21st Century
(pp. 512–520). https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_54
Beile, P. M. (2005). Development
and validation of the Beile Test of Information Literacy for Education (B-TILED).
University of Central Florida. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/penny-beile/18/
Beile, P. M. (2007).
The ILAS-ED: A standards-based instrument for assessing pre-service teachers’
information literacy levels. In Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2007, pp. 1–27). Retrieved
from http://eprints.rclis.org/16928/
Boucher, C., Dalziel,
K., Davies, M., Glen, S., & Chandler, J. (2009). Are postgraduates ready
for research? Poster presented at the Librarians Information Literacy Annual
Conference (LILAC). Cardiff, UK. Retrieved from http://rrsa.cmich.edu/documents/RRSA_poster_LILAC_2009.pdf
Cannon, T. (2007). Closing
the digital divide: An assessment of urban graduate teacher education students’
knowledge of information literacy and their readiness to integrate information literacy
into their teaching. University of San Francisco. Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/252
Catalano, A. (2010).
Using ACRL standards to assess the information literacy of graduate students in
an education program. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice,
5(4), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8V62B
Catalano, A., &
Phillips, S. R. (2016). Information literacy and retention: A case study of the
value of the library. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(4),
2–13. https://doi.org/10.18438/B82K7W
Conway, K. (2011). How
prepared are students for postgraduate study? A comparison of the information
literacy skills of commencing undergraduate and postgraduate Information
Studies students at Curtin University. Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, 42(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722218
Crosetto, A.,
Wilkenfeld, P., & Runnestrand, D. (2007). Responding to the needs of our
graduate students: A pilot information literacy course in graduate education.
In T. Jacobson & T. Mackey (Eds.), Information literacy collaborations
that work (pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Neal-Shuman Publishers.
Green, R. (2010).
Information illiteracy: Examining our assumptions. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 36(4), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.005
Gross, M., &
Latham, D. (2012). What’s skill got to do with it?: Information literacy skills
and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(3),
574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21681
Harrington, M. R.
(2009). Information literacy and research-intensive graduate students:
Enhancing the role of research librarians. Behavioral & Social Sciences
Librarian, 28(4), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639260903272778
Islam, M. A., & Tsuji,
K. (2010). Assessing information literacy competency of Information Science and
Library Management graduate students of Dhaka University. IFLA Journal, 36(4),
300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210388243
Ivanitskaya, L.,
Laus, R., & Casey, A. M. (2004). Research Readiness Self-Assessment:
Assessing students' research skills and attitudes. Journal of Library
Administration, 41(1/2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v41n01_13
Jackson, C. (2013).
Confidence as an indicator of research students’ abilities in information
literacy: A mismatch. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2),
149–152. https://doi.org/10.11645/7.2.1848
Jesse, S. (2012).
Subject specific information literacy curriculum and assessment. Christian
Librarian, 55(1), 2–16. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=tcl
Kim, K.-S., Chiu,
M.-H., Sin, S.-C. J., & Robbins, L. (2007). Recruiting a diverse workforce
for academic/research librarianship: Career decisions of subject specialists
and librarians of color. College & Research Libraries, 68(6),
533–552. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.6.533
Kurbanoglu, S.
(2003). Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and
lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310506295
Kurbanoglu, S.,
Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A. (2006). Developing the information literacy self-efficacy
scale. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610714949
Lamb, A. (2017).
Debunking the librarian “gene”: Designing online information literacy instruction
for incoming library science students. Journal of Education for Library
& Information Science, 58(1), 15–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1150595
Magliaro, J. (2011). Comparing
information literacy needs of graduate students in selected graduate programs
through the Technology Acceptance Model and Affordance Theory. University
of Windsor. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/424
Mahmood, K. (2016).
Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review
of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Communications in
Information Literacy, 10(2), 199–213. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/cf4e25b16ec2420c9168033977cdcd3d
Michalak, R., &
Rysavy, M. D. T. (2016). Information literacy in 2015: International graduate
business students’ perceptions of information literacy skills compared to
test-assessed skills. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(2),
152–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1145787
Michalak, R., Rysavy,
M. D. T., & Wessel, A. (2017). Students’ perceptions of their information
literacy skills: The confidence gap between male and female international
graduate students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(2),
100–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.003
Oguz, F., Chu, C. M.,
& Chow, A. S. (2015). Studying online: Student motivations and experiences
in ALA accredited LIS programs. Journal of Education for Library &
Information Science, 56(3), 213–231. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1074636.pdf
Perrett, V. (2004).
Graduate information literacy skills: The 2003 ANU skills audit. Australian
Library Journal, 53(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2004.10721622
Pinto, M.,
Fernandez-Ramos, A., Sanchez, G., & Meneses, G. (2013). Information
competence of doctoral students in information science in Spain and Latin
America: A self-assessment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(2),
144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.006
Radcliff, C., Oakleaf,
M., & Van Hoeck, M. (2014). So what? The results and impact of a decade of
IMLS-funded information literacy assessments. In S. Durso, S. Hiller, M.
Kyrillidou, & A. Pappalarado (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Library
Assessment Conference: Building effective, sustainable, practical assessment
(pp. 801–809). Seattle, WA: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://old.libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/24radcliffpanel.pdf
Robertson, D. S.,
& Felicilda-Reynaldo, R. F. D. (2015). Evaluation of graduate nursing
students’ information literacy self-efficacy and applied skills. Journal of
Nursing Education, 54(3, Suppl), S26–30. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150218-03
Sadler, E. (Bess),
& Given, L. M. (2007). Affordance theory: A framework for graduate
students’ information behavior. Journal of Documentation, 63(1),
115–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710723911
Saunders, L.,
Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., Dogan, G., Becker, P., Blumer, E., … Terra, A. L.
(2015). Information behaviors and information literacy skills of LIS students:
An international perspective. Journal of Education for Library &
Information Science, 56, S80–S99. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073544
Saunders, L.,
Severyn, J., Freundlich, S., Piroli, V., & Shaw-Munderback, J. (2016).
Assessing graduate level information literacy instruction with critical
incident questionnaires. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(6),
655–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.008
Saye, J. D. (2008). Library
and information science education statistical report 2005. Chicago, IL.
Sparks, J. R., Katz,
I. R., & Beile, P. M. (2016). Assessing digital information literacy in higher
education: A review of existing frameworks and assessments with recommendations
for next-generation assessment. Research report. ETS RR-16-32. ETS
Research Report Series. Princeton, NJ: ETS Research Report Series. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12118
Tang, Y., &
Tseng, H. W. (2013). Distance learners’ self-efficacy and information literacy
skills. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.008
Taylor, S. D., Perry,
R. A., Barton, J. L., & Spencer, B. (2010). A follow-up study of the
factors shaping the career choices of library school students at the University
of Alabama. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(1),
35–47. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20865334
Tewell, E., &
Angell, K. (2015). Far from a trivial pursuit: Assessing the effectiveness of
games in information literacy instruction. Evidence Based Library &
Information Practice, 10(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8B60X
Tracy, D. G., &
Searing, S. E. (2014). LIS graduate students as library users: A survey study. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.05.004
Appendix A
Demographic Questions
To which gender
do you most identify? (radio button)
Female
Male
Non-binary/third
gender
Prefer to
self-describe _____
Prefer not to
answer
Age (drop down)
19 or less
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55 or over
Race ethnicity
(drop down)
Hispanic of any
Race
American Indian
or Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African
American
Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander
White
Two or More Races
International
Race or Ethnicity
Unknown
Prefer not to
answer
Years since
obtaining your most recent degree (radio button)
5 or less
6-10
11-15
16-20
21 or more
Highest degree
earned (radio button)
Bachelors
Masters
Doctorate
Appendix B
Questions Modified from ILAS-ED
Question 7
Which of the following characteristics
best indicates scholarly research?
a. available in an academic library
b. indexed by an academic database
c.
reviewed by
experts for publication
d. written by university faculty
Question 8
You are unfamiliar with the topic of the whole language movement,
so you decide to read a brief history and summary about it. Which of the
following sources would be best?
a. a book on the topic, such as Perspectives on whole language learning: A
case study
b. a general encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Britannica
c.
an article on the
topic, such as “Whole language in the classroom: A student teacher’s
perspective”
d. an education encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia of Education
Question 10
You are looking for a peer-reviewed article about the librarian’s
role in open education resources and textbook affordability efforts. The most
appropriate place to look is:
a. a library & information science
database
b. Wikipedia
c.
a news resources
database
d. both (a) and (c)
Question 12
Research studies in library and information science are generally
first communicated through:
a. books published by library
associations
b. library science encyclopedia entries
c.
newsletters of
library associations
d. professional conferences and journal
articles
Question 13
You have been assigned to write a
short class paper on effective library instruction techniques. Your professor
indicated three recent scholarly sources would be sufficient. Which strategy is
best to locate items?
a.
search a general
academic database and a library and information science database for journal
articles
b.
search a library
and information science database for journal articles
c.
search the
library catalog for books
d.
search the
library catalog for encyclopedias
Question 14
Select the set of search terms that best represent the main
concepts in the following:
What are the
benefits associated with library use for low-income students?
a. library use, benefits, low-income
students
b. library use, benefits, students
c. library use, low income, students
d. library, low-income students, use
Question 15
Select the set that best represents synonyms and related terms for
the concept “college students.”
a. colleges, universities, community
colleges…
b. Millennials, students, undergraduates…
c. graduate students, freshmen,
sophomores...
d. university, adult learners,
educational attendees...
Question 16
While researching library patrons, you find that they are also
sometimes called “library customers” or “library clients.” You decide to look
for information on the subject in a database that indexes library science
literature. To save time you write a search statement that includes all three
terms. Which of the following is the best example to use when you have fairly
synonymous terms and it does not matter which of the terms is found in the
record?
a. patrons and customers and clients
b. patrons or customers or clients
c. patrons, customers and clients
d. patrons, customers or clients
Question 18
You have a class assignment to
investigate how summer reading programs impact student achievement. A keyword
search in an academic database on “summer reading programs” has returned over
600 items. To narrow your search, which of the following steps would you next
perform?
a.
add “impact” as a
keyword
b.
add “student
achievement” as a keyword
c.
limit search
results by date
d.
limit search
results by publication type
Question 20
Your professor suggested you read a particular article and gave
you the following citation:
Thomas, W., & Shouse, D. (2014). This is
not a dumpsite: The problem of evaluating gift books. Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services, 38(3-4), 63-69.
Which of the
following would you type into the library’s catalog to locate the actual
article?
a.
author search:
Thomas
b.
journal title
search: Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services
c.
journal title
search: This is not a dumpsite: The problem of evaluating gift books
d.
subject search: gift
books
Question 21
The following
item was retrieved from a database search. What kind of source is it?
Title: The Effect
of Library Instruction Learning Environments on Self-Efficacy Levels and
Learning Outcomes of Graduate Students in Education
Author(s): Beile,
Penny
Publication Year:
2002
Abstract: The
purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of three learning
environments: (1) campus-based students who attended a classroom library
instruction session; (2) campus-based students who completed a Web-based
library tutorial; and (3) distance students who completed a Web-based library
tutorial on library skills self-efficacy levels and learning outcomes among
graduate students of education.
Notes: Presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New
Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002)
Number of Pages:
8
Accession Number:
ED453084
a. a book
b. a book chapter
c. a conference
paper
d. a journal
article
Question 23
While researching the U.S. legislative
system, you find the following story on the Internet:
Congress Launches National
Congress-Awareness Week WASHINGTON, DC—Hoping to counter ignorance of the
national legislative body among U.S. citizens, congressional leaders named the
first week in August National Congress Awareness Week. “This special week is
designed to call attention to America’s very important federal lawmaking body,”
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said. The festivities will kick off with a
10-mile Walk for Congress Awareness. The item is from a newspaper Web site,
which states it is “America’s Finest News Source.”
Given this, the
following action is in order:
a.
you can use the
story as it’s obviously from a reputable news source
b.
you decide to investigate
the reputation of the publisher by looking at their Web site
c.
you decide to
investigate the reputation of the publisher by looking at other Web sites
d.
you should not
use the story because Web information is not always trustworthy
Question 24
Based on the following paragraph,
which sentence should be cited?
(1) Libraries
were once quiet spaces reserved for readers. (2) As libraries increased their
community programming, they began to shift to the more social (and unquiet)
places with which we are familiar today. (3) Many libraries try to preserve
some aspects of their quiet past while continuing to offer engaging programing.
(4) The public seems to want this as well; in a Pew research poll, 61% of
Americans said that they believe libraries should have completely separate
locations or spaces for quiet and social activities.
a.
1
b.
2
c.
3
d.
4