Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluating Information Literacy Activity at The University of
Manchester: A Case Study
A study submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Librarianship
at
The University of Sheffield
by
Helen Dobson
September 2008
i
Abstract Information literacy dominates the LIS literature and professional practice. At its
most basic it is conceived as the latest version of library skills training; in its
broadest sense it is a concept that informs and defines an educational
approach. Increasingly academic libraries are adopting a strategic approach to
the development and delivery of IL. Strategies can provide a framework for
formalising a programme and defining targets. They may also indicate the level
of institutional engagement with IL. The University of Manchester, one of the
largest research institutions in the UK, does not have an IL strategy and in
August 2007, when this research began, the University Library‟s strategic plan
did not make explicit reference to IL. This study aimed to investigate and
evaluate the level of IL activity at the University.
The research attempted to identify the ways in which IL development
opportunities were provided for students. Data were collected using a variety of
techniques – document analysis, a questionnaire, a small-scale statistical
survey, a focus group, and research interviews – from a range of university
employees representing various stakeholders involved with skills development.
Due to the complexity of the case and the scale of the University the results do
not provide a complete picture of IL activity but are considered representative of
engagement across campus, and have increased understanding of the current
situation. The University does not engage with IL in the holistic sense but
opportunities for skills development are presented within the course curriculum.
This accounts for the disparity of involvement between different librarians. The
institutional culture is identified as potentially the major barrier to IL
development. IL is a key priority for librarians and successful development is
ii
considered dependent on the extent to which JRUL staff champion the cause at
Manchester.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….i
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..ii
List of Figures and Tables…………………………………………………………..v
Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………vi
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………....vii
Chapter 1: Introduction………..…………………………………………………….1
1.1 Introduction…...…………………………………………………………1
1.2 Introducing and Defining Information Literacy…………………...….1
1.3 Information Literacy and Higher Education……………………….....2
1.4 Research Rationale…………………..………………………………..3
1.4.1 Aim……………..………………………………………………..4
1.4.2 Objectives………...……………………………………………..4
1.5 Dissertation Structure…………………………………………...……..5
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………..…………...6
2.1 Introduction…………………………...…………………………………6
2.2 Librarians and IL…………………………………………..…………...6
2.3 Engagement with IL…………………………………..………………..8
2.4 Strategic Approaches to IL…………………………..………………11
2.5 Collaborative Partnerships…………..………………………………13
2.6 Barriers to IL Development……..…………………………………...14
2.7 Summary……………………………………………..………………..18
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………..…………….19
3.1 Introduction……………………………………..……………………..19
3.2 The Methodological Approach………………………………..……..19
3.2.1 The Research Method…………………..…………………...19
3.3 The Research Techniques…………..………………………………20
3.3.1 Literature Review………………………………..……………21
3.3.2 Document Analysis……………………..…………………….22
iv
3.3.3 Questionnaire……………………………………………..…..23
3.3.4 Reference Desk Statistics………………………………..….26
3.3.5 Interviews…………………………………………………..….27
3.3.6 Focus Group……………………………………………..……29
3.4 Ethical Issues……………………………………………………..…..30
3.5 Research Schedule………………………………………………..…31
3.6 Summary…………………………………………………………..…..31
Chapter 4: Results……………………………………………………………..……33
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…..33
4.2 Document Analysis……………………………………………..…….33
4.3 Questionnaire…………………………………………………..……..36
4.3.1 Range and Content of Library Sessions…………..……….36
4.3.2 Delivery Style………………………………………...………..40
4.3.3 Skills Development in the Curriculum………...…………….41
4.3.4 Evaluation of Current Provision……………………..………44
4.4 Reference Desk Statistics……………………………………………46
4.5 Focus Group……………………………………………………..……47
4.5.1 Terminology…………………………………..……………….47
4.5.2 IL and ALLs………………………………………...………….47
4.5.3 IL and Professional Development……………..……………48
4.5.4 Partnerships………...………………………………………...49
4.5.5 Barriers to Development………………………………..……49
4.6 Interviews…………………………..………………………………….50
4.6.1 Terminology………………………..………………………….50
4.6.2 Activity……………………………..…………………………..52
4.6.3 Engagement and Effectiveness…………………..…………57
4.6.4 Lifelong Learning…………………...…………………………60
4.6.5 Partnerships………………...…………………………………61
4.6.6 A Strategic Approach……………………………..………….62
4.7 Summary……………………..………………………………………..63
v
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………...65
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….65
5.2 IL – The Library Perspective…………………………………………65
5.3 IL – Teaching or Training?............................................................67
5.4 IL – The Institutional Perspective……………………………………71
5.5 Summary………………………………………………………………73
Chapter 6: Conclusion……………………………………………………………...74
6.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….74
6.2 Conclusions……………………………………………………………74
6.3 Reflections on the Research Process………………………………77
6.4 Further Work…………………………………………………………..78
6.5 Final Thoughts………………………………………………………...78
Citation List…………………………………………………………………………..80
List of Other Sources Consulted…………………………………………………90
Appendices.......................................................................................................94
Appendix A: The University of Manchester Background Information…...94
Appendix B: Documentary Evidence……………………………………....96
Appendix C: Questionnaire………………………………………………….99
Appendix D: Reference Desk Statistics Sheet…………………………..111
Appendix E: Interview Questions…………………………………………113
Appendix F: Focus Group Questions…………………………………….116
Appendix G: Participant Sheet…………………………………………….117
Appendix H: Research Schedule…………………………………………118
Appendix I: The Embryonic Stage of the ILU…………………………..119
vi
List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 4.1 Content of JRUL Training and Guides Webpages………………..34
Figure 4.2 Content of JRUL Induction Sessions……………………………….37
Figure 4.3 Purposes of JRUL Ongoing Training Sessions……………………38
Figure 4.4 Who Determines Session Content?..............................................39
Figure 4.5 Session and Support Delivery Methods……………………………40
Figure 4.6 Do Schools Provide Training Not Involving Librarians?................42
Figure 4.7 Perceived Purposes of Librarian-Led Sessions…………………...43
Figure 4.8 Instructional Enquiries Answered at JRUL Main Library
Information Desks………………………………………………….....45
Tables Table 4.1 Extent of Training Provided by JRUL……………………………….37
Table 4.2 Factors Determining Delivery Style…………………………………40
Table 4.3 Are Sessions Part of the Set Course Curriculum?........................41
Table 4.4 Summary of Views on Current and Future Provision……………..44
Table 4.5 Terms Suggested Instead of Information Literacy………………...51
vii
List of Abbreviations
ALA – American Library Association
ALIA – Australian Library and Information Association
ALL – Academic Liaison Librarian
CEEBL – Centre for Excellence in Enquiry Based Learning
CILIP – Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
DfES – Department for Education and Skills
EBL – Enquiry Based Learning
EPS – Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
HE – Higher Education
IL – Information Literacy
ILU – Information Literate University
JFCLRG – Joint Funding Councils‟ Libraries Review Group
JRUL – The John Rylands University Library
LILAC – Librarians Information Literacy Annual Conferences
LIS – Libray and Information Studies
NCIHE – National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education
PDP – Personal Development Plan
SCONUL – Society of College, National and University Libraries
UE – User Education
UK – United Kingdom
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
US – United States
VLE – Virtual Learning Environment
WP – Widening Participation
viii
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks to Professor Sheila Corrall for her encouragement, patience,
generosity and good humour.
My thanks also to my colleagues at The John Rylands University Library who
provided support, encouragement, and who patiently answered innumerable
questions. Special thanks go to Rachel Beckett.
Finally I thank everyone who participated in my research.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
This chapter comprises an introduction to the research area and to this study, a
statement of aims and objectives and an outline of the report structure.
1.2 Introducing and Defining Information Literacy
The term information literacy (IL) was first used in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski to
refer to the skills needed by individuals to enable them to make use of a wide
range of information tools and resources (Carbo, 1997). Today IL is a high
profile issue amongst librarians worldwide. Professional organisations adopted
the term and, to encourage acceptance and understanding beyond the sector,
created a structured definition of the concept; the first was created by the
American Library Association (ALA). The Report of the ALA Presidential
Committee (1989) presented a definition stating that to be information literate
“a person must be able to recognise when information is needed and
have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed
information”,
and this definition provided the framework for those created subsequently by
other bodies (Australian Library and Information Association, 2001; Bundy,
2004; Society of College, National and University Libraries, 1999; Armstrong et
al, 2005; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation,
2003). Although definitions typically list the competencies that characterise an
information literate person, IL is not simply a skills set. The ALA‟s Report (1989)
concluded that IL is achieved when a person has “learned how to learn”, and
this link increasingly dominates theory and practice. It is this broader
2
educational concept of IL that differentiates it from the kind of instruction in
which library staff have been involved since the 1970s (Noon, 1994).
As Johnson (2000) suggested, there are many manifestations of IL, and this
may explain the frequent lack of real understanding or recognition. IL was the
presidential theme of The Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals (CILIP) in 2002-03, Sheila Corrall‟s presidential year. At the end
of the year it was acknowledged that IL as a term “was not understood or used
consistently across all sectors in the UK” (Armstrong et al, 2005: 23). A working
party was established to create a simplified definition, backed up with practical
evidence demonstrating the benefits IL brings to individuals, to ensure a broader
understanding in the UK. The aims of CILIP‟s working party together with the
work undertaken by the SCONUL Task Force on Information Skills (1999)
emphasised a shift in focus from library-based skills to a more holistic learning
experience and, as Town suggested,
“a change to the focus of a library‟s work from one of relative isolation
and independence to one of collaboration with teachers and others”
(2003: 63).
1.3 Information Literacy and Higher Education
Higher Education (HE) in the UK has undergone significant change over the last
decade. The drivers for change included technological developments which
drastically altered the nature and extent of information provision (Rader, 2003)
and government recommendations for increasing participation in HE. Emphasis
on the desired attributes of graduates signalled a move towards the creation of a
skilled workforce, well equipped to enhance the prosperity of the nation
(National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997; Department for
Education and Skills, 2003; HM Treasury, 2006). The impact of increasing
student numbers is recognisable in the move towards student-centred learning
3
(Noon, 1994), an acknowledgement of the need to adapt teaching styles to
provide the maximum learning opportunity with the fewest tutor-contact hours.
The Follett Report (Joint Funding Councils‟ Libraries Review Group, 1993)
anticipated the impact that a larger student population would have on library
resources and the role of librarians, eg, the research element of student-centred
leaning increased the need for the development of IL.
IL relates directly to the traditional HE focus on developing independent learners
and the more recent focus on graduate attributes. Incorporating IL in teaching
programmes can provide a holistic learning experience, encouraging the
development of enquiring students who graduate with the skills necessary to be
lifelong learners. The achievement of this level of engagement with IL is
dependent on the willingness of senior executive committees to commit their
institution to a more formalised, strategic approach. The development of IL
strategies is a current theme in the research (Breivik, 2000; Corrall, 2007;
McGuinness, 2006). Adopting a strategy is indicative of an institutions
commitment to and engagement with IL. Librarians continue to act as
champions for IL and the literature contains reports of UK academic libraries
with IL strategies in place or with mission statements making explicit reference
to IL (Howard & Newton, 2005; Rose & Reading, 2006; Stubbings & Franklin,
2006). Such evidence, together with the enthusiastic attendance at national
conferences, eg, LILAC, and exchanges on electronic discussion lists clearly
demonstrates that IL has been accepted by librarians as a natural progression to
more basic library instruction. Without a structured approach to IL education it is
difficult to gauge the extent of related activity occurring within an institution
however.
4
1.4 Research Rationale
Many UK institutions do not make explicit reference to IL in their policy
documents despite staff across campus already working to develop the
information skills of students: one example is The University of Manchester and
the aim of this research is to discover the level of institutional engagement with
IL. The study relates to Corrall‟s research into IL strategies (2007 & 2008) and
Webber and Johnston‟s idea of the “Information Literate University” (2006),
considering the models created by these authors to measure and explain the
current situation at the university. Furthermore this research is timely as new
appointments to senior positions, eg, the University Librarian, and institutional
reviews have created opportunities for discussing and developing IL, initially
within The John Rylands University Library (JRUL) but subsequently with
various committees, at faculty level and above. The Library has long been
committed to providing training for all students in some form but the patchiness
of provision across subjects raises questions – if librarians‟ offers of training are
not taken up by all disciplines how are students given the opportunity to become
information literate? The research will seek to investigate development
opportunities provided within individual disciplines in order to gain a clearer
picture of the extent of IL activity across the university as a whole. Further
information about the University can be found in Appendix A.
1.4.1 Aim
To discover the extent of IL activity at The University of Manchester, given that
the concept does not appear in the institutional mission statement or strategic
plan.
5
1.4.2 Objectives
In order to achieve the overall aim the research will identify
the current level of IL activity at the University;
where responsibility for skills development lies across the University;
the extent to which staff responsible for or interested in information skills
training understand the concept of IL;
whether the development of an IL strategy is perceived as necessary
and/or a real possibility;
the role of the Library in decision making relating to IL and in IL teaching;
the necessary conditions to improve IL provision, if indications are that it
is currently inadequate.
1.5 Dissertation Structure
The report is divided into six chapters. This first chapter has introduced the
research area and summarised the aims and objectives of the study. Chapter
two consists of a review of the literature and highlights relevant themes. The
next chapter summarises the methodological approach, describes the research
methods, reflects on their success and discusses ethical considerations.
Chapter four presents the results of each of the research methods, focusing on
key findings. The following chapter discusses the results, with reference to the
literature review and the study‟s aims and objectives. The final chapter
summarises and concludes the study, and includes suggestions for further
research.
6
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The body of literature relating to IL has grown exponentially in recent years.
Themes of particular relevance to this research have been identified and provide
the focus and structure of this chapter. The first section discusses the evolution
of the concept of IL and the role academic libraries have played in its
development. The following section looks at engagement with IL within the
academic context. Next there is a discussion of strategic approaches to IL
development. The fourth section explains the importance of collaborative
partnerships in developing and delivering an IL strategy, and the final section
addresses the barriers librarians may need to overcome to ensure the
successful implementation of an IL strategy.
2.2 Librarians and IL
Although IL is still a relatively new term in UK academic libraries it now
dominates the theory behind and informs the practice of the teaching carried out
by librarians. The teaching role of librarians, which can be traced back over
many years (Bruce, 1997; Corrall, 2007; Markless & Streatfield, 2007; Powis,
2004), has been defined by terms such as „user education‟ (UE) or „library skills
training‟. Although understood within the profession these terms were perhaps
less meaningful for those arranging or receiving instruction (Breivik, 2000). The
focus on defining IL in the literature highlights ongoing concerns over clarity and
meaning and perhaps emphasises that IL has different meanings within different
contexts (Nimon, 2001). Owusu-Ansah (2003) criticised discussions dwelling on
semantics but for the varied groups concerned with IL there is validity in efforts
to develop a clear, consistent understanding.
7
Reports and papers providing detailed definitions of IL have been fundamental
in promoting the concept and making this new term meaningful, perhaps most
particularly within the academic community. Early definitions (ALA, 1989;
Armstrong et al, 2005; SCONUL, 1999) included a list of skills or competencies
characterising an information literate person, some of which relate closely to the
training librarians have long provided in search techniques and the use of
resources. Thus IL can be viewed as the latest phase of library-related training
(Bruce, 1997; Johnston & Webber, 2000; Lupton, 2004) and librarians in the HE
sector are logical advocates (Markless & Streatfield, 2007; Stubbings & Franklin,
2006). Librarians worldwide have adopted this role and provided the impetus
driving the IL agenda forward (Bruce, 1997; Corrall, 2008; Lupton, 2004; Powis,
2004).
Librarians are key players in the IL movement but they are urged to consider
how IL differs from the „traditional‟ training carried out in academic libraries. IL is
more than „a library issue‟ (Bundy, 2003; Markless & Streatfield, 2007),
encompassing critical thinking and concerned with the use of information as well
as information retrieval skills (Bruce, 1997; Lloyd & Williamson, 2008; Lupton,
2004). Librarians still share their expertise in effective search strategies for
particular databases but should be aware of differing learning styles and provide
opportunities appropriate to each (Ward, 2006). Information skills are being
addressed as an educational issue by “teachers, technologists and some policy
makers” as well as librarians (Rader, 2003:27). In this wider educational context
the approach to IL should be student-centred (Nimon, 2001), aiming to develop
independent learners capable of critical thinking, and linked explicitly with
graduate attributes (Ward, 2006; Webber & Johnston, 2006) and the lifelong
learning agenda (Bruce, 1997; George et al, 2001; Garner, 2006; Nimon, 2002).
Lupton (2004:16) reminds librarians developing IL programmes that it is not
appropriate to simply “rebadge the old ways” – IL is more complex than the skills
libraries have traditionally taught (Boden & Holloway, 2005).
8
IL as an educational concept has been described variously as “a student
learning outcome” (Breivik, 2000), a subset of independent learning (Hepworth,
2006) and encompassing, as Herring suggests, “not only skills but also attitudes
to and motivation for learning” (Armstrong et al, 2005: 23). The development of
IL is crucial to effective learning (Markless & Streatfield, 2007) and of significant
value in the information society (Bruce, 2001; Webber & Johnston, 2006). The
cumulative process of IL development is a feature librarians must recognise and
consider (Andretta & Cutting, 2003; Galvin, 2005; Grafstein, 2002; SCONUL,
1999). Institutional adoption of IL as an educational concept means that
librarians share responsibility for delivering IL with other stakeholders across
campus (Lupton, 2004). Webber and Johnson‟s (2006) vision of the IL
university (ILU), an institution where all staff and students are information
literate, is an extension of the conceptual view of IL.
While research and debate drives the evolution of IL, practitioner librarians must
make the concept meaningful within their own institution (Burkhardt et al 2005),
adopting the terminology of the other participants in the dialogue where
necessary (Booth & Fabian, 2002; Breivik, 2000; Corrall, 2007; Gullikson, 2006).
Clarity and a well defined meaning reduces misunderstanding caused by
presenting a range of very different programmes as IL (Lupton, 2004) or from
inconsistent use of the term (Bruce, 1997; Ward, 2006). Booth and Fabian
(2002) suggest that a broad conceptual definition is most effective for early
discussions on the development of IL programmes.
2.3 Engagement with IL
IL is a key priority for academic libraries (Booth & Fabian, 2002) and the
abundance of examples documenting the extent and nature of engagement
within individual institutions reflect this (Everest et al, 2005; George et al, 2001;
9
Howard & Newton, 2005; Parker, 2003; Rose & Reading, 2006; Stubbings &
Franklin, 2006; Weetman, 2005). Wallace‟s (2007:531) reference to anecdotal
accounts as „“glad tidings” and “testimonial”‟ echoes earlier suggestions to
promote successes (Breivik, 2000; Burkhardt et al, 2005). Ad-hoc provision,
organised at the grass-roots level and dependent on the co-operation of
academic colleagues (Weetman, 2005), demonstrates librarians' commitment to
IL and readiness to accept opportunities to engage but this approach is
inadequate (Boden & Holloway, 2005; Stubbings & Franklin, 2006). A shift away
from piecemeal approaches towards strategic engagement is increasingly
evident (Breivik, 2000; Corrall, 2008; Ivey, 2003; McGuinness 2006).
Reports of engagement with IL highlight potential problems and issues of
significance for those currently developing programmes. The level of
engagement can represent a library‟s commitment to IL (Breivik, 2000; Brown &
Krumholz, 2002). The highest levels occur where library directors are members
of executive committees alongside institutional management or actively liaise
with influential individuals across campus (Breivik, 2000; Rader, 1995).
According to Owusu-Ansah (2003) libraries determine their own level of
engagement. Doskatsch (2003) specifies librarians‟ views of IL as the key factor
but Webber and Johnston (2006) and Andretta and Cutting (2003) suggest it is
the institutional focus that determines the extent of engagement with IL.
Librarians seeking to engage further should be alert to every potential
opportunity and must identify key stakeholders. This may include keeping up
date with HE literature to ensure awareness of developing trends (Booth &
Fabian, 2002) or recognising teaching possibilities in all encounters with
students (Bruce, 1997; Burkhardt, 2005; Rader, 1995). Galvin (2005) highlights
the significance of encounters at the reference desk and suggests that library
websites should provide opportunities for users to develop their information
seeking behaviour. The development of online modules is a popular approach
for librarians aiming to increase levels of IL engagement. The incorporation of
technology in IL teaching is considered to appeal to, motivate or be expected by
10
students of the „Google generation‟ (Godwin, 2006; Higginbottom, 2008:
Hightower et al, 2008; Jones et al, 2006), to be a factor in reducing incidences of
library anxiety (Seamans, 2002) and as particularly valuable for reaching
Distance Learning students (Galvin, 2005). Librarians should seek to develop
online modules in collaboration with academic staff (Doskatsch, 2003). Doubts
about the benefits of online modules relate to the depth of learning encouraged
(Markless & Streatfield, 2007; Nimon, 2001), and although useful in support of
face to face sessions, they should not be considered an acceptable alternative
(Brown & Krumholz, 2002; Zabel, 2004).
Attempts to increase levels of student engagement with IL should consider
student expectations and information behaviour. Negative attitudes towards the
development of IL may result from misconceptions of HE. Students expecting
passive knowledge transfer may not readily accept responsibility for their
learning development or information seeking (McGuinness, 2006; Nimon, 2001;
Seamans, 2002). Factors influencing information seeking behaviour may
include time constraints due to family or work commitments or students
retrieving the minimum information sufficient to either obtain a pass mark or
back up preconceived ideas (Brown & Krumholz, 2002; Lupton, 2004; Nimon,
2001; Seamans, 2002). An awareness of student perceptions and information
seeking habits can inform the development of effective IL sessions. Student
engagement depends on IL sessions being perceived as relevant and valuable
(Breivik & Gee, 2006; Brown et al, 2003; Nimon, 2001; Sanborn, 2005;
Seamans, 2002). Demonstrating relevance to students of the „Internet
generation‟ who rely heavily on the simple search technique of Google (Godwin,
2006) and do not recognise the flaws in their technique or the expertise of others
(Gross & Latham, 2007) remains a challenge. Students with limited searching
skills tend to display overconfidence in their information gathering abilities
(Gross & Latham, 2007; Hepworth, 2000) so librarians must demonstrate the
superiority of their search strategies. Introducing students to the concept of the
Invisible Web and emphasising the range of information available on the internet
11
overlooked by popular search engines is a way in which librarians can promote
other resources and the benefits of IL (Devine & Egger-Sider, 2004). Other
beneficial outcomes of IL development that should be emphasised to students
are the transferable nature of the competencies (Breivik & Gee, 2006; Markless
& Streatfield, 2007), increased efficiency and the subsequent reduction in
information anxiety (Brown & Krumholz, 2002; Bruce 1997). There is agreement
that embedding IL in the curriculum is the most effective way of making sessions
relevant (Andretta & Cutting, 2003; George et al, 2001; Ward, 2006) and credit
bearing IL sessions are considered the key to student engagement
(McGuinness, 2006; Stubbings & Franklin, 2006; Webber & Johnston, 2003). A
portfolio allowing students to reflect on their development of IL is considered an
effective assessment tool (Lupton, 2004), and assessment should include
formative feedback to encourage further development (Webber & Johnston,
2003).
2.4 Strategic Approaches to IL
Significant change in IL provision requires a strategic approach and there is
evidence of such development within an increasing number of institutions
(Breivik, 2000; George et al, 2001; Ivey, 2003; McGuinness, 2006; Rader,
2004). Corrall (2008) discovered that IL strategies in UK universities do not
always conform to the norms of standard strategy documents. Librarians
preparing strategy documents should be familiar with standards appropriate to
and expected by the management of their institution; this is another area in
which librarians should adopt the tone and language of those with whom they
are in discussion. The support of institutional decision makers is fundamental to
progress (Howard & Newton, 2005) – their recognition of IL as a key concept will
determine if it is to be embedded in the culture of the institution (Webber &
Johnston, 2006).
12
Successful strategies relate IL to the institution‟s mission and the national HE
agenda, present objectives clearly and state the library‟s plan (Booth & Fabian,
2002), emphasising the library‟s role, expertise and the resulting positive
outcomes (Doskatsch, 2003; Nimon, 2002). The strategy may be presented as
a timely response to the needs or problems of an institution (Breivik, 2000;
O‟Sullivan, 2002), or be aligned with the recommendations of the national HE
agenda or the requirements of professional accreditation bodies. The current
emphasis on lifelong learning and the skills agenda in the UK (DfES, 2003)
provides an opportunity that librarians in the US and Australia were able to
respond to earlier due to national acceptance of IL standards (Lupton, 2004;
Ward, 2006). IL can also be presented as an aid in student retention (Breivik,
2000), of relevance to „Personal Development Plans‟ (PDP) (NCIHE, 1997) or as
necessary for e-learning (Andretta, 2005; George et al, 2001) or student-centred
learning, eg, Enquiry Based Learning (EBL) (Andretta & Cutting, 2003;
Hepworth, 2000; McKinney & Levy, 2006). Frameworks incorporated within
proposed strategies can relate IL to institutional goals or problems (George et al,
2001; Stubbings & Franklin, 2006) or alternatively, include structured plans for
the implementation of the IL strategy. Universities must ensure equality of
opportunity for all fee-paying customers and strategic plans demonstrate a
commitment to ensuring a fair and consistent approach to a given issue. Such
an approach to IL is important because studies (Armstrong & Norton, 2006;
McGuinness, 2006; Weetman, 2005) have found that although academics
acknowledge the importance of the skills element of IL some expect
development to occur throughout a student‟s course of study, by “osmosis”,
without the need for intervention or a systematic approach. While such attitudes
prevail the significance of information skills cannot be explicitly related to the key
skills and graduate attributes frequently mentioned by the UK government
(NCIHE, 1997; DfES, 2003; HM Treasury, 2006). HE in the UK is a highly
competitive market; education is seen as “a consumer transaction” (George et
al, 2001:280) and institutions are increasingly emphasising the value of their
courses. Strategy planners should recognise the powerful influence of their
13
customer base in policy development (Doskatsch, 2003) and think broadly even
if early steps must be small. Flexibility and a realistic approach (Burkhardt et al,
2005; Hepworth, 2000), together with adequate time and resources are key
factors in the planning and successful implementation of a strategy (Ivey, 2003).
2.5 Collaborative Partnerships
Collaborative partnerships between the library and key stakeholder groups are
the critical factor in most successful IL programmes reported (Andretta, 2005;
Breivik & Gee, 2006; Brown & Krumholz, 2002; Grafstein, 2002; Hepworth,
2000; McGuinness, 2006; Rader, 2004; Sanborn, 2005; Town, 2003). Existing
partnerships between academics and individual librarians provide opportunities
for small-scale initiatives but represent a fragmented and limited approach to IL
(Booth & Fabian, 2002; Hepworth, 2000; Peters et al, 2003). Where
relationships between individual librarians and academic departments are not
well developed librarians “are unaware of what teaching staff are doing” (Big
Blue, 2002). Partnerships with influential administrative staff across campus,
particularly those responsible for programme development, would encourage a
more holistic, strategic approach (Bruce, 1997; Ivey, 2003; Nimon, 2001; Rader,
1995). Developing partnerships across campus may seem daunting to
librarians, raising questions about the role of the librarian in teaching IL and in
relation to other curriculum matters (Lupton, 2004) but librarians must assert
themselves, engaging in conversations with key stakeholders or as members of
influential committees (Booth & Fabian, 2002). Librarians should initiate
conversations about IL with a view to building up partnerships at every given
opportunity (Breivik, 2000; Burkhardt et al, 2005), as HE evolves rapidly and
curriculum development occurs regularly (Nimon, 2002).
Institutional shifts towards a student-centred learning model highlight the role of
librarians and other non-academic groups in supporting the learning process
14
and should result in the integration of these groups within the teaching and
learning infrastructure (Hepworth, 2000) and the creation of „multi-skilled teams‟
(George et al, 2001). Librarians can justify their inclusion by emphasising their
role as „teaching‟ rather than „training‟ (Boden & Holloway, 2005), by their
understanding of HE, including teaching and learning issues (Booth & Fabian,
2002; Powis, 2004), by emphasising their competence and proficiency, eg,
incorporating technology in the design and delivery of sessions (Jones et al,
2006), or by reference to government recommendations for increased library
involvement in teaching and learning, eg, the Follett Report (JFCLRG, 1993).
Successful partnerships depend on shared goals, mutual appreciation of the
benefits of relationships for all participants, ongoing communication and
commitment to maintaining the partnerships, mutual respect, resource sharing
and appropriate levels of competence (Booth & Fabian, 2002; George et al,
2001: Doskatsch, 2003; Ivey, 2003; Nimon, 2002) – above all, librarians cannot
be seen as subordinates in collaborative partnerships (Donham & Green, 2004).
2.6 Barriers to IL Development
The process of developing IL programmes within individual institutions is neither
smooth nor easy and factors hindering progress are common to the experience
of many librarians (Webber & Johnston, 2003). The difficulties in attaining the
support of academics for the development of IL are perceived as a major barrier.
Many librarians have good relationships with individual academics (Bundy,
2003) and reports suggest that academics recognise the importance of IL skills
even when they are not considered a high priority (McGuinness, 2006; Peters et
al, 2003; Weetman, 2005). Despite such promising hooks there is often
reluctance to embed library-led IL within existing programmes (Stubbings &
Franklin, 2006), or to accept that the library should have anything more than a
support role (McGuinness, 2003). Academics perceptions of librarians may
relate to their own experiences as students – this could account for low
15
awareness of the evolving teaching or facilitating role of the academic librarian
(Doskatsch, 2003; Nimon, 2001). McGuinness‟s (2003; 2006) research into
academics perceptions of IL and the role of the library in developing IL found
that academics from different disciplines understood IL differently, that many
believe their coursework requirements present sufficient opportunities for the
development of IL, and that the extent to which students develop IL depends on
their own motivation and willingness to engage, a belief also reported in Everest
et al (2005). Such beliefs and entrenched attitudes create barriers between
librarians and academics but they are not all insurmountable, and there are
other reasons for limited collaborative effort. Academics in McGuinness‟s
(2003) study cited lack of time and opportunity as the reasons they didn‟t
collaborate with librarians, while in Webber and Johnston‟s study (2006)
academics felt that the bureaucracy created by university managers and
administrators and the resulting lack of resources created barriers to innovation
and development. The crucial thing for librarians attempting to forge
partnerships with academics therefore is to explain the concept of IL adequately
and to make suggestions for how an IL programme could be delivered for their
own department. Responses may differ according to faculty or department but
the flexible nature of the proposed programme and the readiness of librarians to
tailor aspects of it to the requirements of individual departments should resolve
problems.
Institutional culture has a significant impact on the development and progress of
any new strategy, particularly for „traditional‟, pre-1992 institutions (Boden &
Holloway, 2005). The corporate nature of HE means that the vision of
management and the emphasis on accountability determine the institutional
focus (Hepworth, 2006). A commitment to IL (Webber & Johnston, 2006), or a
readiness to adopt a new concept or approach (Booth & Fabian, 2002) are key
factors at an institutional level for the development of an IL strategy; a change in
leadership is especially significant, as seen at the University of Lincoln (Moore,
2003). Changes in focus are not always welcomed by academics, particularly if
16
they challenge the status of teaching staff (Andretta, 2006), but they can provide
useful opportunities for librarians aiming to embed IL (Booth & Fabian, 2002;
Breivik, 2000; Bundy, 2003; Donham & Green, 2004). IL development can be
constrained by an institutional culture, eg, where there is an ongoing dominance
of didactic teaching styles (Webber & Johnston, 2006) or where approved
resources are delivered through a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and this
approach is emphasised at the expense of other kinds of teaching innovations
(Webber & Johnston, 2003). Presenting students with a range of approved
resources within a VLE is a useful introduction to information sources for new
students (Wallace, 2008) but at later stages of a course reliance on a VLE may
hinder opportunities for discovery, deep learning and the development of
information behaviour recognised as valuable throughout life (Abson, 2003;
Andretta, 2006; Joint, 2005).
The Widening Participation (WP) agenda and emphasis on recruiting overseas
students has resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of non-traditional
students at universities. Institutions must acknowledge and incorporate the
support needs of non-traditional students and this may provide another
opportunity for librarians promoting IL (Andretta & Cutting, 2003; Hepworth,
2006; Powis, 2004). Marketing the library is a way of challenging institutional
culture and increasing awareness of librarians‟ expertise and the successful
outcomes of recent IL programmes (Brown & Krumholz, 2002; Burkhardt et al,
2005; Kezar, 2006; Seamans, 2002). Librarians should be prepared to
demonstrate the value of IL to the institution and the individual and to evaluate
the success of their strategy. Given the complex nature of IL evidence of
success is not easily quantifiable but librarians should resist focusing on the
acquisition of „lower order skills‟ which may yield statistical data easily and
instead focus on the learning outcomes achieved through a structured
developmental IL programme (Ivey, 2003; Lupton, 2004; Webber & Johnston,
2003).
17
Approaching IL strategically and collaboratively may highlight training issues for
library staff which, if unresolved, could present a barrier to significant IL
development. All partners involved in developing and delivering IL programmes
need the appropriate knowledge and skills to fulfil the role required of them. The
acceptance of librarians as partners in teaching by academic staff and students
can be dependent on teaching experience and an understanding of HE and
pedagogical issues (Ivey, 2003; Lupton, 2004). Failure to address any lack of
such knowledge can cause cross-campus communication problems, hindering
progress and limiting the impact of librarians‟ attempts to develop IL strategies
(Hepworth, 2006). Libraries treating all encounters with students as IL teaching
opportunities should ensure that all library staff are equipped to fulfil this role
(Powis, 2004).
Significant change within HE institutions requires adequate resourcing (Breivik,
2000; Corrall, 2007; Ivey, 2003; Nimon, 2001; Webber & Johnston, 2006),
including time for meetings with potential partners or developing strategy
documents with colleagues. The availability of funding at some institutions has
made possible the creation of new posts for the development of IL programmes
and resources (Doskatsch, 2003; Haugh, 2005). Without funding the impact of
developing an IL programme is that existing library staff are required to take on
extra work (Doskatsch, 2003; Hepworth, 2000) or that existing library funding
and resources are reallocated (Breivik, 2000). Such solutions, although
pragmatic, limit the potential for dramatic change. Resource issues also affect
librarians organising IL sessions – innovation can be restricted by a lack of
training facilities (Stubbings & Franklin, 2006). Before IL strategies are finalised
consideration must be given to the facilities available; ultimately it is the issue of
resources that dictates what is achievable.
18
2.7 Summary
IL is understood differently by the various stakeholders within an academic
environment. Library managers discussing the development of an IL strategy
must determine what IL means to them and this definition must be accepted by
their teaching librarians. They will not necessarily use the term IL in discussion
with colleagues on campus but all library staff involved in advocacy or teaching
must be aware of their institutional definition. The meaning is significant in
relating IL to institutional goals and needs and embedding IL within learning
programmes rather than delivering stand-alone sessions. Commitment to IL
does not depend on the existence of a strategy but without a formal policy there
is no guarantee of a fair and consistent approach or the provision of equal
opportunities for all. Successful IL programmes depend on the establishment of
collaborative partnerships between librarians, academics and administrative
staff with responsibility for teaching and learning issues. Other critical factors
determining success include institutional readiness, adequate resources, and an
ongoing commitment to IL from library management. Perceived barriers to the
development of IL should encourage librarians to suggest flexible, pragmatic
solutions.
19
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the research process undertaken, describing and justifying
the approach, methodology and methods chosen, and considering ethical
issues.
3.2 The Methodological Approach
The research question suggests the appropriate methodological approach
(Denscombe, 2003). As the aim of the research was to develop an in-depth
understanding of an individual case a qualitative approach was adopted.
According to Gorman and Clayton (2005) constantly evolving complex social
situations cannot be measured but can be understood by interpreting actions
and events. A multiple method approach, including techniques associated with
both qualitative and quantitative research, was used in data collection. This
offered a deeper understanding of the case and provided a means of validating
results by identifying “converging lines of enquiry” (Yin, 2003: 98).
3.2.1 The Research Method
The case study is an appropriate method in evaluation research (Yin, 2003).
The emphasis is on the uniqueness of one particular example and the research
does not claim to generalise (Stake, 1995). Case studies focus on a social
phenomenon within its natural setting, allowing the researcher to develop an in-
depth, holistic understanding. As Denscombe (2003: 35) states, case studies
20
“have the potential to deal with the subtleties and intricacies of complex
social situations”.
One benefit of this approach is that it is possible to identify interconnected
relationships and determine the impact of these relationships (Denscombe,
2003). It is characteristic of case studies, and qualitative research generally,
that the emphasis is on processes rather than outcomes as researchers seek to
understand why things happen as they do (Bell, 2006; Gillham, 2000; Gorman &
Clayton, 2005).
The case study approach was used to carry out an in-depth investigation of IL
activity at the University, identifying significant relationships and accounting for
the current situation. The iterative and flexible nature of qualitative research
allowed the researcher to redesign the study, eg, a questionnaire was not
included in the original research plan but was incorporated later due to the
insufficient depth of statistical information retrieved during the early document
analysis phase.
Case studies focus on the particular which prevents comparison and
generalisation. While it is possible to make comparisons with similar cases
using background information and the literature review (Denscombe, 2003;
Silverman, 2005) the power of this research method lies in the depth of
coverage of an issue and the use made of the results (Gillham, 2000). Further
value is in
“the contribution qualitative methods can make.…in enlightening
policymakers about the….experience of those for whom the policy is
formulated” (Slater, 1990: 111).
21
3.3 The Research Techniques
When designing a project the researcher must determine the kind of information
required to answer the research question and select appropriate techniques to
yield such purposive data. Data retrieved may highlight further information
needs and the research design must be revised to accommodate different
research techniques (Richards, 2005). The original research plan for the case
study incorporated a literature review, document analysis, informal
communication and interviews. As the study progressed and the complexity of
the situation became apparent the range of techniques expanded to include a
questionnaire, a statistical-based survey and a focus group.
3.3.1 Literature Review
The process of carrying out a literature review ensures that the researcher
develops a broad knowledge and understanding of the topic under investigation
(Bell, 2006; Hart, 1998). The initial phase of the review provides background
information and later stages develop the researcher‟s familiarity with key
concepts and issues. The original research plan may be redefined as the
literature review progresses. The result of the review process is a critical
summary of the dominant themes and issues, presented in a way easily
understood by a reader with limited knowledge of the field.
Literature for the review was retrieved in a variety of ways. Initial searches were
carried out on databases such as LISA and Web of Knowledge; Google Scholar
was used for subsequent searches. The researcher also scanned the contents
of new issues of key journals. Useful library classification numbers were found
by searching library catalogues allowing the researcher to locate specific items
and browse shelves for other relevant material. Bibliographies and literature
review articles, eg, Reference Services Review, provided further references
22
which were followed up. Other useful references were recommendations both
from the researcher‟s supervisor and from speakers at conferences and
seminars.
Such is the volume of literature written relating to the study that it was necessary
to narrow the scope of the research and to concentrate on selected key issues.
This gave both the review and the study a definite structure.
3.3.2 Document Analysis
Existing documents are useful in case study research for providing background
information or more detailed evidence (Richards & Morse, 2007; Yin, 2003).
The internet has significantly increased the volume of information sources easily
available to researchers (Richards, 2005). Where access is restricted
researchers should aim to eliminate bias, liaising with intermediaries where
possible (Denscombe, 2003). Documentary analysis should be approached
cautiously: all documents are produced for a specific purpose (Yin, 2003) and
researchers should recognise that they may not depict the reality of
organisational operation (Silverman, 2005).
The researcher is a member of JRUL staff and so was familiar with the
organisation of the University and of training activity provided by the Library at
the outset. Initial document retrieval and analysis was carried out to identify
areas of IL activity at the University. Searches were carried out on the
University website using a variety of terms including „information literacy‟ and
„information skills‟. Examples from the literature and the researcher‟s own
familiarity with practices at the University informed the decision to adopt various
terms in searches. Results were analysed and organised according to
relevance. Useful results formed the basis of further investigation. Data
retrieved indicated an institutional engagement with the HE skills agenda which
23
broadened the original research question. The researcher easily identified
activity relating to the development of skills but it wasn‟t immediately evident
how such activity either did or could relate to IL. Subsequent searches focused
on documents relating to strategy and to skills development and were carried
out by browsing the webpages of two faculties, of relevant administrative
departments, eg the Teaching and Learning Office, and JRUL. The researcher
also had access to the library intranet. Access restrictions on the webpages of
the faculties of Medical and Human Sciences and Life Sciences prevented
searches being repeated across the institution.
Documentary evidence of IL activity and commitment to skills development was
sifted, organised and presented thematically, with reference to specific
examples. A list of documents consulted can be found in Appendix B. The
University website incorporates a vast range of information which it wasn‟t
possible to interrogate due to the small-scale nature of the research project.
Nevertheless the information retrieved provided a background picture of the
extent of engagement with IL within certain areas of the University and was
useful in the development of subsequent data collection techniques. The
researcher‟s position as a member of JRUL staff proved advantageous by
providing the opportunity to ask questions and clarify details as necessary.
3.3.3 Questionnaire
Although typically associated with quantitative methodology questionnaires can
be useful in qualitative research (Gillham, 2000). They are an appropriate tool
when straightforward information, either fact or opinion, is sought from a large
research population (Denscombe, 2003), yielding “descriptive statistics related
to specific activities” (Gorman & Clayton, 2005: 12). Questionnaires are not
easy to design (Gillham, 2000) and to ensure success they should be presented
clearly, allowing respondents to easily read and understand the questions and
24
accompanying instructions. Respondents should also receive information about
the research and an assurance of anonymity (Bell, 2006; Burton, 1990;
Denscombe, 2003).
The research questionnaire was designed to retrieve baseline data indicating
the level of engagement with IL at JRUL. The sample group comprised all 25
Academic Liaison Librarians (ALLs) who, between them, have responsibility for
55 subject areas. The sample group was selected to produce a clear picture of
IL provision according to faculty which could be related to other areas of activity
across campus. The need for statistical data provided an opportunity to seek
opinions as well as factual information and the resulting questionnaire was
divided into two sections (See Appendix C). The first section sought information
related to the range and style of teaching sessions offered for each subject. The
second section asked ALLs to give reasons for the current situation, sought to
determine the level of collaboration between faculty and ALL and provided
opportunities for ALLs to express their opinions about current IL provision at the
university and make suggestions for future developments. While the researcher
recognised grouping questions according to topic to be good practice in
questionnaire design (Burton, 1990) the purpose of division here was to offer
respondents anonymity in answers to questions seeking opinions. Anonymity
for the questionnaire as a whole couldn‟t be guaranteed because the factual
answers related to specific subject disciplines; each questionnaire included
details of the subject it related to and was distributed to the relevant ALL.
Another reason for dividing the questionnaire was to reduce the effort required
of respondents. This was a particular issue as many ALLs at JRUL have more
than one subject responsibility and it was hoped that minimising the effort and
time required of respondents would be reflected in a good response rate.
The questionnaire contained both closed and open-ended questions, and where
it was considered appropriate respondents were given the opportunity to expand
on their answers. The draft version was piloted with two colleagues and a
25
revised version was prepared by implementing recommendations and
suggestions from the pilot and from the researcher‟s supervisor. The researcher
was hopeful that ambiguities had been eliminated and that questions would be
easily understood but explanations of potentially difficult terminology were
included. An information sheet attached to the questionnaire explained the
purpose and nature of the research. Questionnaires were delivered by internal
mail and the researcher sent an e-mail to the sample group inviting them to take
part in the study and specifying a preferred return date.
Seventeen ALLs completed questionnaires representing a 68% response rate
which is considered “very acceptable” (Burton, 1990:62). This provided
information for 34 discipline areas which gives a picture of IL activity relating to
64% of subjects studied at the University.
Data from completed questionnaires were recorded and the results presented as
tables or graphs “to maximise clarity” (Fink, 1995:1). Accompanying summaries
provide further explanation and include free-text responses as necessary.
Ultimately the questionnaire did not prove a satisfactory data collection tool.
Despite numerous revisions the questions were not easy to answer. Some
respondents sought guidance from the researcher when completing the
questionnaire and others provided free-text answers where they could not be
reduced to a tick-box category. The complexity of the information sought
demanded a more structured approach and further division of categories. The
results are indicative of the type of work done by ALLs but are not specific
enough allow comparisons. The limited number of free-text responses was
disappointing; did this imply a lack of time available to complete the
questionnaire or is this a topic that most ALLs haven‟t given much thought to?
The ALLs who didn‟t complete questionnaires fall essentially into two categories.
Four of the group have expressed enthusiasm for and interest in IL work in
26
meetings attended by the researcher and their thoughts and opinion are sorely
lacking from the results. For three others academic liaison is not the main focus
of their roles; initial inductions are provided by other ALLs within the relevant
faculty team but questions about the ongoing provision of training opportunities
within their subject areas remain unanswered.
3.3.4 Information Desk Statistics
The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the extent of IL teaching
ALLs provide for University of Manchester students. The data collected illustrate
only part of the extent of training activity. The researcher‟s own experience and
the literature suggested the value of measuring the extent of informal, „point of
need‟ IL-related teaching done at information desks staffed mostly by
paraprofessional library staff. This approach would also indicate training
provided for other user groups. A statistics sheet, similar to those normally kept
at information desks but containing much more detailed enquiry options, was
prepared (See Appendix D). By presenting the sheet in a familiar format it was
hoped that staff would remember to record statistics for the study as well as
weekly Library statistics. The detailed options were necessary to develop a
picture of the extent of informal training activity and the options were explained
further on an attached sheet. Statistics sheets were kept at seven of the main
library‟s eight information desks for one week1. The results are not completely
representative of the enquiries dealt with during a typical week because the
need to measure this example of IL activity was not recognised until March 2008
and the data collection was carried out during a relatively quiet period at the
library, immediately prior to Easter vacation. Nevertheless, the data contribute
towards a more holistic understanding of the situation
1 Staff absence prevented statistics being recorded at the eighth enquiry desk.
27
3.3.5 Interviews
Interviews are “an essential source of case study information” (Yin, 2003),
allowing the researcher to develop an in-depth understanding of the case
(Gillham, 2005) and “to enquire into why individuals or organizations behave in
the way that they do” (Gorman & Clayton, 2005:125). Semi-structured
interviews are particularly valuable for their flexibility and the quality and detail of
resulting data. Although consisting of pre-planned questions respondents are
invited to speak freely due to the open-ended nature of the questions. The
structured organisation of questions provides an element of control for novice
researchers (Richards & Morse, 2007) and a framework for analysis.
Gillham (2005) states that good research questions suggest appropriate
research methods. To evaluate the extent of IL activity at the University it was
necessary to conduct interviews with relevant participants: the depth of
description and explanation anticipated could not be achieved using a different
method. Interviewees are often selected “because they have some special
contribution to make” (Denscombe, 2003:172) but researchers are dependent
on the availability and willingness to participate of their identified target sample
(Bell, 2006). Background research, suggestions sought from colleagues and the
researcher‟s own discoveries identified potential interview participants.
Fourteen people were contacted by email and invited to take part in the
research. From this group 12 people, representing a range of involvement with
skills development activity across the University, agreed to be interviewed for
the study. All respondents were provided with information about the research
prior to the interview. A semi-structured interview was developed consisting of
six question areas (See Appendix E). It was necessary to be flexible about
questions within each area because the interviewees represented different roles.
One set of questions would not have been appropriate to all.
28
Trialling and piloting interviews are important stages in interview design (Bell,
2006; Gillham, 2005). Time constraints did not allow systematic trial and
revision. Instead question development and refinement was aided by
suggestions from the researcher‟s supervisor and the first interview carried out
was treated as a pilot. This was possible as the interviewee was a fellow JRUL
employee who agreed to discuss the interview experience, highlighting difficult
questions as necessary, and who was willing to be interviewed a second time if
drastic revision was needed. The „pilot‟ interview allowed the researcher to
refine her interview technique which included the use of prompts, to ensure all
topics were covered, and probes, to encourage the respondent to provide fuller
answers and to clarify meaning.
All interviews were recorded, with the permission of the interviewee, and
transcribed fully. While it is recommended that transcripts are produced as soon
as possible and ideally “the day after the interview” (Gillham, 2005: 123) the time
constraints of the interview schedule meant that a backlog was inevitable;
consequently the transcription period exceeded the interview stage. Transcripts
were read through, coded and analysed. Results are presented according to the
question themes.
The interviews proved successful in providing a depth and range of information
unanticipated by the researcher. Interviewees were keen to talk about their
experiences and share their knowledge and resources. Suggestions of further
useful contacts were made on three occasions, and the researcher was given
access to course handbooks, online modules and was invited to attend a
meeting of a newly formed Academic Skills Development group. However, had
transcription been possible at an earlier stage the researcher would have
revisited and made alterations to the set of questions; the value of some
questions which arose in particular interviews but which hadn‟t been asked of
other interviewees wasn‟t recognised until after the interviews were completed.
The range of university staff in the interview sample provides an insight into the
29
approach taken to skills development across campus. The researcher regrets
the lack of evidence from the Engineering and Physical Sciences faculty and the
Careers Service in particular however – neither of these divisions responded to
requests for an interview.
3.3.6 Focus Group
Focus groups can be used to complement other research methods, eg, “as a
contemporary extension of surveys” (Bloor et al, 2001:9). Such use provides an
opportunity for a researcher to clarify or elaborate on the findings produced from
prior methods. Guidelines suggest that groups should consist of a minimum of
six and a maximum of fourteen people, and that there should be diversity in the
sample selected to encourage discussion.
A focus group was organised as an extension to the questionnaire. Gillham‟s
(2000) assertion that questionnaire respondents often ignore open-ended
questions proved accurate and so an opportunity to discuss the main issues was
considered to be a valuable exercise that could offer deeper understanding.
Four participants were selected from the questionnaire sample – a limited
number determined by logistics (Bloor et al, 2001) but reflecting the purpose of
the group. The researcher aimed for a diverse group by including
representatives from each faculty team, each of whom had made interesting and
encouraging comments either as part of the questionnaire or to the researcher
directly. A list of areas to be covered in the discussion was prepared and sent to
the participants in advance of the meeting (See Appendix F). In the role of
facilitator the researcher provided prompts and probing questions as
appropriate, guiding the group through the question areas and ensuring that all
participants had the chance to speak. The group discussion was recorded and
transcribed. The results of the transcript analysis are presented according to the
question areas.
30
The focus group obtained more in-depth information than the questionnaire
allowed. All participants were generous in sharing their experiences and
opinions. Including more librarians in the focus group would have further
enhanced the quality of the data retrieved and increased the level of
understanding but the limited availability of a larger group at one particular time
made this impossible. Limitations on the researcher‟s own time prevented a
separate group meeting being arranged.
3.4 Ethical Issues
Researchers are obliged to consider the rights and welfare of their participants
and to carry out the research with integrity (Denscombe, 2003). Informed
consent should be obtained from all participants and they should be assured of
anonymity.
Ethics approval was granted by the University of Sheffield and university
guidelines were followed in all dealing with participants. Informed consent was
obtained from participants by providing an information sheet which included
details of the nature of the research project, an explanation of why the individual
was chosen to take part, an assurance of anonymity and confidentiality and a
reminder that withdrawal from the study was possible at any stage (see
Appendix G). All who took part signed a consent form. All documentation
relating to participants was accessed by the researcher alone.
31
3.5 Research Schedule
The study was carried out in a twelve month period, beginning in August 2007
and concluding in August 2008 (see Appendix H for the detailed research
schedule).
3.6 Summary
The case selected was much broader and more complex than originally
anticipated. Thus the flexibility of the case study approach which enabled the
redesign of the research plan and the inclusion of further methods of obtaining
in-depth information proved significant throughout the data collection period. All
the research techniques provided evidence of engagement with IL to some
degree but they were not equally effective.
Document analysis proved an important means of developing an understanding
of the breadth of the case but the volume and inconsistency of data retrieved
convinced the researcher of the need to supplement this method with other
techniques. The completed questionnaires demonstrated the difficulty ALLs
experienced attempting to quantify their highly complex and individual situations.
The structure of the questionnaire was too basic and too rigid to obtain either a
full and exact statistical picture of activity or an understanding of ALLs opinions
about IL in sufficient depth. The focus group, organised because the researcher
wanted to increase this level of understanding, provided an interesting
discussion but the results do not differ significantly from those of the
questionnaire. Statistics obtained from JRUL information desks do not indicate
the full extent of instruction occurring there – had they been recorded at a more
typical period during the term they would have been more representative.
32
The interviews proved to be the most successful and enjoyable of all the
methods. They provided the most rich and detailed picture of activity across
campus by explaining the workings of and interaction between various
departments. These conversations were fundamental in allowing the researcher
to develop an understanding of the current level of engagement with IL at the
University.
33
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Introduction Results from the document analysis, questionnaire, statistical survey, focus
group and interviews are presented in this chapter. Larger sections are
subdivided and arranged thematically.
4.2 Document Analysis
Despite the inconsistent terminology used and differing meanings of recurring
terms evidence of activity incorporating IL-related skills was found across
campus within departmental „pockets‟. The results present a partial picture of IL
activity but are considered indicative of institutional engagement and
commitment to skills development. Documents consulted have been allocated
an identifying letter and are listed in Appendix B.
The University is committed to providing “Opportunities to acquire the
knowledge, competences and analytical skills necessary for personal,
intellectual and professional development” (DocA). Faculty education strategies
contain evidence of such opportunities occurring within the curriculum. A first
year module based on study or research skills is mandatory in some schools
and is recommended in the Humanities Faculty Teaching and Learning
Education Strategy (DocB). Vague titles make it difficult to gauge the extent of
such modules but examples include “Approaches to Geographical Research”
(Geography), “Research Study Skills” (Linguistics) and “Academic Development”
(English Literature). Library documents also indicate commitment to IL
development – the current draft strategy states that by 2010 “50% of annual
undergraduate students will complete a Library programme in study and
research skills”(DocN).
34
At an operational level activity is evident in a variety of ways and training
opportunities are provided by various stakeholders. The „information skills‟ page
on JRUL‟s website defines IL, explains the role of the Library in the development
of IL skills and includes links to externally prepared online tutorials, eg, Intute‟s
Virtual Training Suite (DocC). Subject specific guidance is available for most
disciplines on individual „Training and Guides‟ pages. The range of information
included differs dramatically between subjects however; good examples include
database guides, guides to literature searching and information about drop-in
sessions but others seem unsure of their purpose or intended audience and do
little more than explain that “(t)raining in the use of library and information
resources is arranged for all new students” (DocD). All 50 subject pages were
interrogated and the range of content is presented in Figure 4.1.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Induction PPT Library Guide Literature
Searching
Database
Guides
Internet
Tutorials
Regular
Training
Sessions
One-to-one
Support
Advice from
ALL
Referencing
(inc EndNote)
Content
Nu
mb
er
of
Su
bje
cts
Figure 4.1 Content of JRUL Training and Guides Webpages
35
An Information Skills group, chaired by the User Education (UE) Librarian, was
established in 2004 to create generic training resources and encourage a
collegiate approach to IL development within the Library. The creation of “a
strategy document that defines the meaning and intended outcomes of
information literacy teaching” is listed in the group‟s objectives2 (DocO).
Further examples of JRUL‟s engagement with IL are the recent creation of a
role, funded by „Roberts Money‟3, with the purpose of developing IL resources
for research students, and sessions delivered by the WP Librarian to various
groups, eg, students from local schools or colleges and new overseas and
mature students of the university (DocE).
Within the curriculum the focus on skills development is evident in programme
specifications, eg, Physics undergraduate courses aim to
“(f)oster students' development of the transferable and personal skills,
including those of problem-solving, analysis, independent learning, IT and
communication, which will be essential to their future careers”
(DocF),
and English Literature courses aim to
“encourage continuous, developing process of reflection, enabling both
responsibility for personal learning and ability to make informed choices
for future development” [sic] (DocG).
Course descriptions include details of intended skills development in their
objectives and learning outcomes, sometimes within specific categories, eg,
intellectual skills and transferable skills (DocH). A first year undergraduate
module handbook incorporating training and guidance provided another
example of a „pocket‟ of IL activity (DocP).
2 The previous Deputy Director of JRUL cited library commitments in other areas and the
“bedding in” of the new university after the merger in 2004 as reasons for the failure to achieve this objective (Leitch, 2008). 3 „Roberts Money‟ is funding provided through Research Councils for the development of
transferable skills in postgraduate research students and researchers. The recommendation for such funding was made in The Roberts Review, „SET for Success‟ (2002).
36
PDP is a process which encourages students to reflect on their skills
development (DocI). All students have the opportunity to complete a PDP
portfolio, although the implementation of PDP is generally devolved to school
level, and this process seems to be closely connected with IL development.
PDP also encourages students to consider extra-curricular skills development.
Such training opportunities, based around the development of key graduate
skills, are organised by the Careers Service (DocJ) .
Study Skills webpages on the Faculty of Humanities Student Services website
(DocK) help students to “identify, develop and enhance” their skills. The
„Research Skills‟ section which includes information about using the Library and
carrying out internet searches links most closely with IL but advice about
employability is provided in another section. This site is also recommended to
students in the Faculty of EPS (DocL).
The approach to skills training for PGR students is much more structured –
programmes are guided by a strategy and programmes are delivered by faculty
or school graduate offices, eg. SAGE in the School of Arts, Histories and
Cultures, and GraDS in EPS (DocM).
4.3 Questionnaire
4.3.1 Range and Content of Library Sessions
Student groups offered ongoing training by librarians slightly outnumber those
receiving just an initial induction (see Table 4.1). With hindsight the researcher
feels that the wording of question one may have skewed these results – some
ALLs may provide only an initial induction at the request of the School but they
still provide support and one-to-one training as required which, although not as
formalised as the ongoing provision options in the questionnaire, is worth noting.
37
The results suggest that postgraduate provision may not be offered or that ALLs
do not deliver this training.
Undergraduate Postgraduate
Taught
Postgraduate
Research
Induction Only 15 14 10
Ongoing Provision 19 18 21
Total Number of
Subject Groups (34)
34 32 31
Table 4.1 Extent of Training Provided by JRUL
The content of induction sessions is displayed in Figure 4.2.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Library Building/Services E-resources Citation skills/Endnote Plagiarism/copyright
Session Content
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nt
Gro
up
s
In brief In depth
Figure 4.2 Content of JRUL Induction Sessions
38
Figure 4.3 indicates that the purposes of ongoing training throughout a course
vary; some sessions are intended to encourage incremental skill development
whilst others refresh knowledge and skills previously covered or prepare
students for particular assignments. It is possible that different approaches may
relate to student level or the training requirements of different subjects.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Increasingly in-depth training Refresher sessions To support specific assignments In line with University PGR
training
Purposes of Sessions
Nu
mb
er
of
Su
bje
ct
Gro
up
s
Life Sciences Engineering & Physical Sciences Medical & Human Sciences Humanities
Figure 4.3 Purposes of JRUL Ongoing Training Sessions
Question 5 attempted to discover the extent to which librarians work
collaboratively in their teaching role. Respondents were asked who determines
the content of their sessions. The results are shown in Figure 4.4.
39
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UG Induction UG Ongoing PGT Induction PGT Ongoing PGR Induction PGR Ongoing
Type of Session
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
Academic Liaison Librarian (ALL) Faculty/School
ALL + Library Faculty Team ALL + Faculty/School Academics
ALL + User Education Librarian (Use of Generic Resources) ALL + User Education Librarian (Other Ways)
Figure 4.4 Who Determines Session Content?
Content is determined in various ways with no discernible patterns even within
library faculty teams. Librarians determine the content for all undergraduate
inductions either individually, together with library colleagues, or by using
generic resources prepared by the UE Librarian. Some librarians work with
academics preparing ongoing undergraduate training sessions and all
postgraduate sessions. Four respondents reported different approaches for
different disciplines or even for different modules within the same discipline.
The questionnaire did not request an explanation for the current situation so the
significance of results can only be guessed at, eg, do librarians determine the
content for all sessions they provide because the School asks simply for „a
library session‟ or are some long-serving librarians able to design sessions
themselves having built up a relationship of trust and respect with the School
over many years?
40
4.3.2 Delivery Style
Most sessions are delivered in a passive lecture style (see Figure 4.5).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lecture style
(passive)
Lecture style
(active)
Practical
(unassessed)
Practical
(assessed)
Online (passive) Online
(interactive)
One-to-one
(appointment)
One-to-one
(drop-in)
Delivery Methods
Nu
mb
ero
f S
ub
jec
t G
rou
ps
UG Induction UG Ongoing PGT Induction PGT Ongoing PGR Induction PGR Ongoing
Figure 4.5 Session and Support Delivery Methods
Table 4.2 shows factors determining the delivery style of sessions.
Factors Determining Delivery Style Number of Librarians (Total = 17)
Size of group 16
Session content 15
Time limitation 12
Type of room available 11
Student feedback/evaluation from previous sessions
6
Consideration of the effectiveness of different teaching styles
5
Consideration of methods appropriate to students with differing learning styles
4
Table 4.2 Factors Determining Delivery Style
41
Other factors mentioned were “the time of year sessions are run” (Respondent
I), “comfort” and consideration of the needs of overseas students (Respondent
H)
Group size and session content are the most important determining factors,
each highlighted by six respondents; time limitation was mentioned by four
respondent, including Respondent D who commented that
“(i)n an ideal world, it would be the opportunity for experimenting with
differing learning styles which would be the most important”.
Respondent L selected time allocation and group size as limiting factors; her
preference would be to design sessions around teaching and learning styles and
in relation to student evaluation.
4.3.3 Skills Development in the Curriculum
Table 4.3 indicates the number of sessions that are incorporated into the set
course curriculum. Attendance at sessions is often mandatory although this
varies widely between student groups and between different courses.
Respondents A and H noted that even when sessions are timetabled attendance
is still essentially voluntary.
All Sessions Some
Sessions
No Sessions
UG Induction 7 2 5
UG Ongoing 5 5 5
PGT Induction 6 1 6
PGT Ongoing 1 6 4
PGR Induction 4 3 7
PGR Ongoing 1 3 8
Table 4.3 Are Sessions Part of the Set Course Curriculum?
Respondents were asked about other training provided within schools. Many
librarians are either not involved in all the information skills training offered by
their Schools or are unaware of any „in-house‟ training. That which is provided
42
within schools, without assistance from librarians, differs according to subject;
some disciplines organise introductory sessions for new students while others
deliver a programme throughout the duration of the course.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Yes No Don't Know
Answers
Nu
mb
er
of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Humanities Life Sciences MHS EPS
Figure 4.6 Do Schools Provide Training Not Involving Librarians?
Very few librarians are involved in setting or marking assignments relating to the
sessions they run. Of the five librarians who set assignments, only one marks
them.
Question 10 sought to discover attitudes to the librarian‟s teaching role.
Respondents‟ perceptions of the purposes of the sessions they deliver are
shown in Figure 4.7.
43
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Introducing Library Services & Resources Teaching Information Literacy Skills Encouraging Good Academic Practice
Purposes of Librarian-Led Sessions
Nu
mb
er
of
Re
sp
on
de
nts
Humanities Life Sciences MHS EPS
Figure 4.7 Perceived Purposes of Librarian-Led Sessions
The researcher hoped to find a clear distinction between a focus on library skills
and IL skills but this is not apparent. A possible explanation is that responses
relate collectively to undergraduate and postgraduate training and that sessions
differ according to the level. Eleven respondents indicated the weighting of their
sessions according to their earlier selections. Of this group five devote between
50% and 100% of allocated time to JRUL‟s buildings, services and resources.
Five of the remaining six respondents concentrate more on IL skills the focus
ranging from 60% to 80%. The remaining respondent splits time evenly
between both. Those perceiving the encouragement of good academic practice
to be one of their purposes spend between 5% and 15% of a session covering
this; Respondent H commented that he dealt with “good bibliographic practice
and a little more, but not good academic practice”. Other purposes noted were
reducing information overload anxiety, promoting information skills as time-
saving tools (Respondent D), and demonstrating the transferability of skills to
real life research in a work environment (Respondent A).
44
4.3.4 Evaluation of Current Provision
Table 4.4 summarises the respondents‟ views on current provision and future
needs for information skills training.
Yes No Don’t Know No Answer
Does the University currently meet information skills needs of students?
4
10
3
-
Would you like to do more information skills work within your ALL role?
11
3
2
1
Is there a need for a more co-ordinated approach to information skills teaching across the University?
13
2
2
-
Is there a need for a more co-ordinated approach to information skills teaching within the Library?
8
6
3
-
Table 4.4 Summary of Views on Current and Future Provision
Of the 13 respondents who don‟t think or know if the University currently meets
the information skills needs of its students only five expanded on their answer;
among these were comments that
improvements to the current situation depend on collaboration between
the Library and School (Respondent F);
tailored sessions and assignments linked to sessions would be useful
(Respondent P);
at the moment “it‟s a bit of a hotch-potch” (Respondent H).
Respondent O, who thinks that the University does meet the needs of its
students, commented that “this is a constantly moving target needing annual
revision”.
45
Most ALLs want to do more information skills work and three respondents made
further comments. Respondent F alluded to personal (“a new line manager”)
and professional development (“attendance at a training course on teaching and
learning styles”) as his reasons for wanting to be more involved. Respondent A
highlighted the structural arrangements preventing the scaling up of training to
cover all students within a particular subject area (“it would be impossible for me
to deliver all the necessary training”). Respondent E mentioned the need for a
more structured approach, including liaison and discussions about “what is
important” and “effective teaching styles”. Respondent H, who is undecided
about further involvement, stated that while “happy with the content level” he
feels there is a need for “more non-contact approaches and more individual
sessions”.
Thirteen respondents agreed that there is a need for a more co-ordinated
approach to information skills training at the university. Of those who made
extra comments all but one were thinking from a librarian‟s/trainer‟s perspective.
Comments highlighted the benefits of “joined up thinking” (Respondent G) and
“exchange of experience” (Respondent O), and potential problems arising from
“different providers” (Respondent H) or from the Library being overlooked
(Respondent C). The remaining respondent had a different perspective and
commented that better co-ordination would “ensure consistency and ensure all
students get an equal opportunity” (Respondent P).
There was less support for the idea of better co-ordination within JRUL. Those
who agreed were asked where responsibility for co-ordination should lie. Of the
few responses none favoured one individual in a role specific to the task.
Respondent F stated explicitly that co-ordination should not be the responsibility
of the UE Librarian. Suggestions were for a “small group with representatives
from various subject areas” (Respondent O) or for organisation at faculty level,
either a group comprised of Faculty Librarians or the faculty teams themselves,
including ALLs (Respondents E, F & G). Respondent A suggested that adopting
46
a team approach would allow ALLs to deliver training in specialist databases to
students from other disciplines, allowing students to benefit from all available
training rather than being limited to that offered within their own subject areas.
4.4 Information Desk Statistics
Instruction is provided within the library outside of formal structures, at „the
teachable moment‟. It is significant that information desk staff respond to the IL
and training needs of all library users, not only registered students and staff of
the university. Figure 4.9 indicates the nature of training provided at JRUL
during one week. Assistance with locating and accessing information forms the
basis of most instructional enquiries.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Using
JRUL
libra
ry cat
alog
ue
Loca
ting
printe
d m
ater
ial in
JRUL
Using
prin
ted
refe
renc
e m
ater
ial
Using
oth
er o
nline
cata
logu
es
Acc
essing
e-jo
urna
l arti
cles
Acc
essing
e-b
ooks
Using
libr
ary da
taba
ses
Using
mat
erial in
othe
r for
mat
s
Using
JRUL
web
page
s
Using
inte
rnet
sea
rch
engine
s
Plann
ing
liter
atur
e se
arch
Ref
eren
cing
(non
-End
note
)
Using
End
note
Pas
sed
to A
LL
Enquiry Categories
Nu
mb
er
of
En
qu
irie
s
Student Staff Other
Figure 4.8 Instructional Enquiries Answered at JRUL Main Library Information Desks
47
4.5 Focus Group
4.5.1 Terminology
All participants considered „information skills‟, the term adopted at JRUL, to be
clearer and more meaningful than IL; they described IL as encompassing more
advanced techniques. For FGLibC “IL is more what I do with the second, third,
fourth years”. The consensus was that communication with academics did not
require a specific term – FGLibB commented “I‟m just grateful when they contact
me and ask for a database session, I don‟t want to go into terminology!” It was
suggested that difficulties articulating training requirements to librarians could
indicate limitations in academics‟ IL – “there‟s probably an element of us
needing to deliver information skills training to the academics themselves”
(FGLibA).
The term „information skills‟ is not generally used with students – FGLibB
stressed the value of promoting sessions with reference to the database content
because while students may display confidence in their general information
searching “they may not be aware of how to use databases “.
Only one librarian talked of the lifelong relevance of IL – “I suppose IL is being
able to interact in the wider world with anything which requires you to find
information and to make choices about what to do with that information”
(FGLibD). He recognised the importance of developing search techniques that
could be useful after graduation but distanced librarians from involvement in
such development – “We don‟t see all that as our responsibility”.
4.5.2 IL and ALLs
None of the participants considered the development of the IL agenda to have
had a significant effect on their role. Training sessions were described as
having always been organised in accordance with the requirements of individual
academics (FGLibC) and the discussion then focused on other factors that
48
affected the nature of IL work and delivery of sessions. These included the
institutional adoption of Blackboard4 and increases in group size. FGLibB
commented that the internet has increased the importance of training because
although students can now easily find some information themselves
“it won‟t be the relevant information, (and) before, 10 or 20 years ago,
they might have gone to see a librarian because they may have been
stuck”.
The participants do not generally engage with the IL community nationally. As
practitioners they talked of benefiting from exchanging experience and ideas
within the information profession at JRUL or other universities, or from outside
the profession, be that subject specific or relating to business and marketing.
FGLibC described referring to
“the top 20 universities in the world…to find out what they‟re doing in
terms of library websites, School websites, just to get a feel for what‟s
happening”.
FGLibA suggested that engaging with the IL community “seems sometimes like
overcomplicating what should be a fairly straightforward part of your job”.
4.5.3 IL and Professional Development
FGLibA and FGLibD mentioned the usefulness of training sessions relating to
teaching and learning styles but the main discussion centred around the
introduction of Blackboard and the subsequent need for technical skills. All
participants agreed that they do not have the necessary skills to create high
quality online courses. FGLibD suggested the need for very specific training
“because there are only a few things I need to know and I‟m not
interested in anything else, and if I do need anything else I need to know
that I can go to someone who‟ll tell me straight away”.
4 Blackboard is the virtual learning environment (VLE) system currently in use at the university.
49
FGLibA commented – “I don‟t think it‟s my job and to do it really well, it‟s a full
time job, isn‟t it?” and suggested the need for “a small team of IT and software
development people who deliver projects for the library”.
4.5.4 Partnerships
Partnerships between ALLs and individual academics or schools were seen as
the most important. FGLibC described working closely with his School –
“it should be a partnership between us and the Schools in the whole
information management process with us kicking it off with the awareness
and extracting and them doing more on how they want it managed and
presented”.
For FGLibB partnerships are with enthusiastic academics who respond to her
emails – “so in that respect some students won‟t get the same benefits as other
students even within your school”. FGLibD continued the theme of
inconsistency by referring to the number of ALLs who have time-consuming
administrative roles and the effect this has on the level of support that can be
provided.
Participants acknowledged that strategic partnerships should be developed by a
senior librarian. They discussed the implications of a strategic approach to IL
and did not oppose a strategy “as long as it was phrased suitably generically”
(FGLibC) and did not affect their current approaches.
4.5.5 Barriers to Development
The main concern for participants was lack of time. This related to their
opportunities to attend IL conferences and training courses and to the depth of
training they are able to deliver. FGLibB highlighted the difficulty of fitting library
sessions into course timetables –
“I can see that lecturers might not have that much time to give you but
they say „make it last an hour‟ and you think „but an hour‟s not enough‟!”
50
Increasing student numbers have had a negative impact on the style and
effectiveness of sessions librarians deliver. FGLibA commented
“if you‟re only given an hour and it‟s 400 students there‟s absolutely no
way you can go into (any) kind of depth (using) interactive learning and
what have you…”
and though he enjoys working with small groups and individual students
considers that “realistically you can‟t deliver that to all students”.
FGLibD suggested that in response to requests for training sessions he might
advise academics on the most effective delivery option. FGLibA agreed that
ALLs should be more assertive –
“I think maybe we should be more willing to do that because it‟s much
more effective. It‟s the old fashioned approach isn‟t it, where you‟re given
a slot because it‟s in the timetable…”
FGLibB and FGLibC described how they had increased the effectiveness of their
sessions. FGLibB‟s suggestion of running sessions in February rather than
October proved successful –
“it‟s a lot more relevant because they‟re already thinking about their
dissertation proposal and then they realise that databases have a lot to
offer”.
FGLibC described having redesigned his whole training programme to increase
its effectiveness and to engage students.
4.6 Interviews
4.6.1 Terminology
Although IL is not a term currently used at the University most interviewees felt
that they understood it and most of the elements of the CILIP definition of IL
were recognised. A consistently used alternative did not emerge but when
pressed to suggest a term currently used that might incorporate IL “research
51
skills”, “study skills”, “information skills” and “skills training” were suggested,
although there was no distinction according to the role of interviewees (see
Table 4.5).
Librarians Academics Admin. Staff
“Information
Skills”
2 1
“Research Skills” 1 2 1
“Study Skills” 1
“Skills Training” 1
Table 4.5 Terms in Current Use Incorporating IL
Other suggestions were specific to particular module sessions (“How to find and
evaluate sources” – AcadE) or training programmes (“Managing the Literature” –
AdminA). AcadB acknowledged
“I‟m not sure we have a phrase that encapsulates it quite as clearly as
information literacy does”,
whilst AcadC thinks that a particular term isn‟t used universally –
“it would be seen as part of this generic thing, this „graduateness‟ that
[students] somehow mysteriously absorb throughout their three years”.
AdminB explained that
“most of the skills development at the University is curriculum-embedded
so it happens as part of the normal teaching and learning process”.
Elements of IL are thus addressed within individual programmes alongside study
skills or transferable skills and not as a separate agenda.
Eight interviewees5 recognised benefits in the use of a single term across
campus with clarification of meaning cited as the main reason. AdminA stressed
5 Four academics, two librarians and two members of administration staff.
52
the importance of clarity for overseas students while AdminC suggested that a
single term could be useful in promoting sessions and engaging students.
AcadB considered a single term to be helpful but not particularly important “as
long as it is clear to students what the aims are and what skills they should
develop”. AcadD recognised that training and guidance currently provided by
the library under the heading „information skills‟ might undermine terminology
used with students in his discipline, although this problem would be eradicated if
his ALL concentrated on the development of IL and not discrete skills. For
AdminB problems caused by the rare or inconsistent use of a term relating to
skills development are evident from students‟ difficulties articulating their skills
achievements in their PDP portfolio.
4.6.2 Activity
Examples provided by the academics confirm that skills development is
addressed within the curriculum and highlight a range of approaches and
different levels of engagement. The most advanced approach to skills teaching
was AcadB‟s example –
“there is a systematic programme going on from the basic „there‟s a
library, it‟s huge‟ to „where to find it‟ to „they have textbooks‟ so that by the
middle of year two they should be getting comfortable at using a pretty full
range of resources”.
Skills training is delivered through an online course and tutorials and always
relates to coursework assignments –
“one of the exercises there will be….going into the library and finding
books, finding journals, and they will have to write an essay using these
resources in semester one, so the idea is that we link all these activities
together”.
Advanced skills in the use of electronic resources are introduced in the second
year as preparation for literature review assignments. AcadB oversees skills
courses for students within two faculties and works closely with the relevant
ALLs, who provide video lectures, in both cases.
53
AcadC‟s example is similarly comprehensive and systematic. The first year
skills module, now delivered in Blackboard, consists of
“two lectures, an online plagiarism test, an online library quiz as a follow
up to a library tour and a library Powerpoint”.
This also relates to coursework assignments and is followed up in consecutive
years by modules covering report writing, which “reinforces some of the citation
skills”, and “a prep course for the undergraduate dissertation”.
These examples developed out of AcadB‟s “interest in helping students develop
these skills” and because AcadC
“thought that this was something that the whole of the first year should
have rather than the „hit and miss-ness‟ of if you were in so and so‟s
tutorial you got it, if you were in so and so‟s you didn‟t get it”.
These examples have been established parts of the respective undergraduate
courses for 10-15 years.
The three other academics interviewed are at earlier stages of their careers.
Two of them are involved in developing the skills content of their courses.
AcadE described her current teaching role and a previous post held in the
School created specifically to develop study skills provision. In the study skills
post she organised workshops and drop-in sessions covering
“referencing, how to do research effectively, how to give a presentation,
all those sorts of things”
as well as creating bespoke sessions on request and developing a Web-CT6
study skills module, to provide permanent ongoing support after the dedicated
staff post expired. Her current teaching position involves designing the tutorial
programme through which “academic skills” are developed in the context of the
syllabus for first and second year undergraduates – “if we have a couple of
6 Web-CT was the VLE system previously used at the university.
54
papers to evaluate we‟ll try and pick ones that are related to the topics we are
studying”.
Within AcadA‟s discipline there is currently no structured approach to skills
training. Among her attempts to equip students with the skills they lack on
arrival at university she described a successful initiative to improve the standard
of students on her course –
“I thought that if we took the students in the first year and both gave them
the types of training and the information on resources that they needed
and at the same time had really high demands of them this might help us
to produce better students subsequently…..And we have seen that”.
Other initiatives include holding the first seminar of the first year course in a
library classroom, organising archive training sessions in JRUL Special
Collections and arranging a study skills programme for first year students. While
a systematic training programme is desirable the need to be realistic about what
is achievable was stressed. Future developments will be informed by the results
of a recent student survey.
AcadD represented an example of an impressive individual initiative.
Handbooks for the modules he co-ordinates include comprehensive guidance on
the research process, eg, instruction in searching the library catalogue,
accessing electronic journals and searching databases as well as guidelines for
writing an essay and providing references. His reasons for including this level of
support are the lack of a significant element of skills instruction for students of
his discipline and his sense that the first year module intended to provide the
necessary skills is inadequate –
“all the pedagogical evidence shows that if you try to teach skills
separately from the acquisition of knowledge it‟s just irrelevant”.
His concern extends to the current drive to deliver resources via Blackboard
which he fears will de-skill students further –
55
“there‟s no reason for the students ever to go to the library anymore and
this has real implications. This means that at level two and three….and
at level four increasingly, at Masters level, there are no research skills”.
A structured programme of training opportunities is provided for PGR students,
in line with the recommendations of the Roberts Review7. AdminA explained
that the skills needs of new students in her School are audited in a “training
needs assessment” and discussed with supervisors in regular meetings
throughout the course of study. She described the programme, a mix of
workshops and online activities beginning with induction and including sessions
on “Managing the Literature”, EndNote8, and “Statistics and Data Handling”.
The librarians interviewed represent a wide range of responsibility relating to
skills development. LibA‟s examples included a mix of proactive and reactive
approaches. As an ALL most of the sessions she delivers are in response to
requests from academics within her discipline; few result from the offers to
provide training she regularly sends out to academics. She also described a
programme of training sessions delivered at the site library where she works, an
historic arrangement that pre-dates the university merger and which
demonstrated a systematic approach to skills training. Workshops and drop-in
sessions, based around course timetables, are offered throughout the academic
year and range from basic introductions to library services to the use of subject-
specific databases. Examples of sessions requested by academics were
mentioned but such arrangements are not typical of activity across the School.
LibA offered an explanation –
“I was trying to…..build it into their sessions so they do the lecture and I
follow it up with something but I just don‟t think that they get the concept”.
7 The Roberts Review, „SET for Success‟ (2002) recommended that PGR students carry out at
least two weeks of skills development training per year of study. 8 EndNote is an electronic reference management system.
56
Llibrary staff within Special Collections train students in the use of archives.
LibC described encouraging the development of skills relating to the use of a
research library, eg, interrogating archive catalogues, handling archive material,
and the ethical use of information, which is particularly significant as “so many of
the people represented in the archives I look after are still alive”. Students
become aware of archivists as valuable sources of information because
occasionally collections aren‟t catalogued or
“there‟ll be somebody with a particular expertise who‟ll be able to say
„well, this doesn‟t look on the surface like it‟s relevant but in fact there‟s
these other things to take into account‟”.
Currently sessions are arranged at the request of enthusiastic academics but
the intention is to revert to the more formalised kind of outreach programme in
existence prior to recent building renovations.
JRUL also provides training to a range of groups through the WP scheme.
Information skills sessions, introducing „gifted and talented‟ school and college
students to the library and electronic resources, are regularly delivered.
Overseas students are often required to attend such sessions prior to starting
their course and mature students in the Humanities Faculty are offered this kind
of introductory session.
Although library directors acknowledge the extent to which JRUL staff currently
engage with information skills work a recent change in the management
structure has created an opportunity to begin discussions about the need for a
strategic approach to IL and LibB is involved with developing an IL strategy for
JRUL. Investigations into the range of skills activity across campus and
discussions with influential figures within each faculty will inform the resulting
strategy which in turn should “bring information skills up the agenda”.
Opportunities for skills training are also provided on campus by the Student
Union. The course offered is
57
“based loosely on all these employability studies that come out that say
„we love graduates but we wish they had x, y and z‟” (AdminC).
Workshops include presentation skills, assertiveness and project management,
but information skills are not part of the programme because AdminC doesn‟t
perceive them as being connected to graduate skills and believes that they are
delivered elsewhere on campus.
Institutional policies, eg, PDP, incorporate and encourage skills development.
AdminB explained that
“it‟s becoming more encouraged that we talk about these things because
they‟re enhancement activities and the University‟s moving towards an
enhancement-led quality process”.
This is apparent from the trial adoption of the Higher Education Achievement
Reward (HEAR), a document recording the extra-curricular achievements of
graduating students and providing “a rich picture about what the student‟s
achieved and anything else they‟ve done” (AdminB).
The examples of skills activity presented here provide only a small insight into
the level of institutional engagement. AcadA and AdminB believe that there are
many more instances –
“I have a feeling there‟s a lot more going on that we don‟t actually know
about but because people are busy and it‟s not necessarily a priority they
don‟t want to sit down and think „oh yes, I teach that skill, I teach that
skill…‟” (AcadA).
AdminB believes that because “everything‟s been devolved to the lowest
possible level….it‟s very difficult to find out what‟s going on anywhere”.
4.6.3 Engagement & Effectiveness
Student engagement was recognised as the key factor in the effectiveness of
skills training by all interviewees, although only two people (LibC & AcadD)
connected this explicitly with pedagological research.
58
Academics engage students by embedding skills development within the
curriculum (AcadB, AcadC, AcadD & AcadE) but can still be required to justify
session content –
“they will tell you if they think it‟s boring or irrelevant or whatever so I think
if you make it clear from the start „this is what we‟re doing, this is why
we‟re doing it, this is how we‟re going to do it‟ they tend to take to it more”
(AcadE).
Problem-Based Learning was mentioned by AcadB as a pedagological
approach which encourages skills development and which “puts more of the
onus of the studying and learning on to the students”. AcadD described how his
marking scheme rewards engagement and improvement –
“someone who started on a high level but who doesn‟t really change
would get a lower mark than someone who started on a low level and
finished on a lower level than the other person but who had actually
engaged with the process”.
AcadA, frustrated at her students‟ lack of intellectual curiosity and tendency to
focus on exam results, attempts to engage them by encouraging their interest in
the process of learning –
“I want it to stimulate their interests, spark their curiosity, make them
question and think things they wouldn‟t have done otherwise”.
AcadD and AcadE described similar problems of engaging students with the
independent learning style of an undergraduate education –
“there‟s a small but substantial minority of students…who believe that
knowledge is out there and that I have it and they don‟t and that my job is
to give it to them and their job is to accept it with gratitude (AcadD).
Most interviewees highlighted the importance of making sessions relevant to
students, occasionally citing examples of low attendance at voluntary workshops
(AcadA, AcadE, LibA & AdminC). AdminB believes that anything provided “as
an add-on…doesn‟t work”, and LibA recognised that redesigning sessions and
59
“tailoring (them) more to the programmes” could increase their effectiveness.
The relevance of activities provided for PGR students is considered to extend
beyond their period of study –
“if we show them something that could be useful in the future, really show
them…the students recognise why they‟re doing it as opposed to just
some more training….” (AdminA).
The importance of making training relevant was also mentioned with reference
to Blackboard modules, and specifically to those currently being developed by
JRUL. The difficulty of making generic modules relevant to students was
highlighted. AcadD stressed “it‟s really important that you understand their
identity” and according to AcadC,
“unless it‟s keyed in to something that reinforces it,…..a practical course
that they‟re learning on something that they have to do, it‟s just not going
to get the buy in”.
LibA agreed that generic online modules are not ideal but suggested that
creating and maintaining tailored tutorials would be very labour intensive.
Students completing the training programme provided by the Student Union
receive a certificate. AdminC described how this seems to appeal to overseas
students who “are into getting another bit of paper, not necessarily just for the
paper‟s sake but because it‟s extra-curricular”.
The effectiveness of skills teaching is acknowledged as difficult to measure.
Where feedback is provided for students it doesn‟t relate specifically to skills
acquisition. AcadC explained that
“they‟re not assessed on the individual skills that they‟re acquiring…..we
assess them through the dissertation at the end and it‟s multi-criteria
based assessment and…one of the criteria would be the ability to deal
with source material but that‟s wrapped up with a whole load of other
things, so there‟s no direct assessment”.
AcadB described a similar situation –
60
“often it‟s more about the writing skills rather than the finding information
skills although that comes into it, you know, if they haven‟t found very
much or the wrong sort of information, or not deep enough information, or
they haven‟t evaluated that information correctly”.
The value of assessment as a tool for engaging students was recognised by
AcadE, who is planning to redesign assessment for her tutorials, and AcadD,
whose marking schemes encourage effort and development –
“My third years……mark each other‟s work, in groups – it transforms the
quality of their work”.
AdminB described how the HEAR will make it possible to record non-credit
bearing achievement, eg, “‟this student‟s done a programme that heavily
involved EBL and EBL has the following key skills‟”.
Student evaluation indicates the effectiveness of sessions and may inform future
developments (LibA, AcadB, AcadC, AcadD, AcadE, AdminA & AdminC).
Concern with maintaining or increasing the effectiveness of skills training was
expressed by all the interviewees in some form, eg, increasing timeliness of
sessions, spreading the skills focus throughout the course of study, developing a
strategic approach. AcadE commented
“I think it will be evaluated constantly and we‟ll always be thinking „ok,
what worked?‟, „What didn‟t?‟, „What can we do differently?‟, „How can we
use new ideas?‟”
4.6.4 Lifelong Learning
The lifelong value of skills developed during a course of study was recognised
by all interviewees. Three academics referred to the importance of the process
of learning over content (AcadA, AcadB & AcadD),
“I would like them to leave knowing how to acquire the information they
need in all sorts of ways because….it doesn‟t matter what the content
course is, as long as they‟re learning about different databases, learning
61
about going about different ways of finding information, those skills are
useful for any topic” (AcadA).
This idea was echoed by others, including LibA who considered that her
database sessions might be too specific –
“it should be much more along the lines of „how do you research…..
information‟, but not just „you do it by looking at these databases‟, more
„well what are you using it for? Why do you have to find it?‟, what‟s the
„why‟ in it all?”
However the main aim expressed was the development of employable
graduates and the skills referred to were of the practical, subject-specific variety.
4.6.5 Partnerships
Only one academic described successful collaborative partnerships with ALLs –
“I see it as a sort of partnership because it‟s part of my view of trying to
develop skills, particularly IT skills, in students, and increasingly that is….
the way they access information through the library and elsewhere, so it
has been very much a collaborative effort” (AcadB).
AdminA talked of a similar relationship with her ALL but the remaining
academics did not give examples of involving ALLs in their skills teaching.
AcadA and AcadD described positive relationships but do not promote the
availability of ALLs to their students, their reasons suggesting they are unaware
of the support role of ALLs. AcadE worked with an ALL when employed in a
specific study skills role but had not incorporated this level of involvement in
curriculum teaching.
Interviewees were receptive to the idea of working with library staff, eg,
organising electronic resource sessions relating to coursework. AcadD‟s
concern about collaborating was a further reduction in contact time with his
students –
“if I gave up one seminar that would be another 10% of my contact hours
gone right there”.
62
AcadA described the value of working in partnership with programme
administrators and explained how such a relationship had prompted the
organisation of study skills workshops, delivered by staff from outside the
discipline area, earlier in the year.
Library staff regularly attempt to develop partnerships with academics. LibA
contacts academics in her School by email
“…and at the end of it all say „do you want anything for your research or
teaching needs? Do you want to arrange a sessions with your students?‟
The problem with it is that I don‟t know if they see it as necessary.”
LibC described successfully contacting academics to offer seminars relating to
specific archives. LibB explained her intention that librarians be admitted to
Teaching and Learning Committees, “to involve librarians in the process of
structuring the curriculum”.
The administrative staff interviewed described partnerships based around
committee membership. AdminA‟s role involves co-ordinating a PGR skills
programme. She belongs to various committees and interest groups within her
Faculty and across campus and cited the benefit of these connections as
sharing ideas and best practice. AdminB works in the Teaching and Learning
office and is involved with many committees and initiatives. Her position
enabled her to invite the researcher to attend an Academic Skills Development
meeting and to discuss JRUL‟s IL work at a HEAR organisational meeting –
“I must say the library isn‟t something that‟s come up in discussions but
I‟ll mention it in our meeting this afternoon because it may be that library
involvement is useful”.
4.6.6 A Strategic Approach
Interviewees were asked if a strategic approach to IL training would be
beneficial: the results were mixed. Administrative and library staff recognised
the benefits unquestioningly. Library staff made the following comments –
63
“Organising a strategy might help people see what training is being
offered by JRUL already because no-one really knows at the moment”
(LibA);
and
“This should be far higher up the agenda….and on a political level
anything that brings us into the mainstream of what the university‟s about,
as a library, is a good thing…” (LibC).
The benefit of elevating the issue was also mentioned by one academic – “I
think that getting it to a higher level would highlight the issue” (AcadE).
AdminB highlighted the recent Review of Undergraduate Education and the
need to enter discussions with senior executives when opportunities for change
emerge –
“I would say to make it work in this institution it needs to be…..in the new
curriculum development design which means that somebody needs to be
talking about it now…”
AdminA agrees that change is imminent –
“I know..... there is work going on at the moment and I think the University
is recognising that does have to happen”.
The remaining academics displayed less enthusiasm for a strategy which
seemed to represent cynical attitudes towards bureaucracy borne out of the
post-merger experience rather than opposition to the development of an IL
strategy. Three academics were fairly dismissive of mission statements, where
strategies are often presented, with AcadB considering them “rather irrelevant to
what goes on on the ground” and AcadD concerned more with the need for
“enough photocopiers so that we can do a handout before the lecture….”.
Adequate resourcing was recognised as fundamental but considered impossible
to provide in the “current financial climate” (AcadC). AcadA agreed –
“I‟d be delighted if the university took these skills seriously and offered
the technological support, offered all the staff involved the time necessary
to develop programmes…..but I very much doubt it will happen”,
64
Looking beyond the resourcing issue AcadC recognised the impact that a
“bottom-up, not…top-down” strategy could have –
“If it‟s approached correctly and if students see why they‟re doing it and if
individual Schools are given sufficient flexibility to implement it in a way
that is appropriate for their needs…(in) partnership with the library…and
indeed with other, you know, with CEEBL9 and the Teaching and
Learning industry outside, with a whole series of things…”
4.7 Summary
The results present a partial picture of IL activity but are considered indicative of
institutional engagement and commitment to skills development. The current
situation, in which the directive on skills development is interpreted and
implemented at a local level, has evolved due to the University structure and
culture. Elements of IL are addressed within the curriculum but there is no
assessment of the development of IL; the successful completion of coursework
is assumed to indicate achievement of IL competencies. Teaching staff
recognise the need to enhance the academic success of their students by
providing skills instruction and by encouraging receptive attitudes to learning.
The extent to which programme designers acknowledge the expertise of
partners across campus currently determines the involvement of librarians in the
teaching process. The factors determining the current level of IL activity at the
university are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 5.
9 The Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning at The University of Manchester
65
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The results do not represent the full range of IL activity at the University but the
investigation has provided a significant insight into the case. Influential factors
accounting for the current situation have emerged and a deeper understanding
has been achieved. This chapter discusses the „critical‟ factors identified, with
reference to the literature.
5.2 IL – The Library Perspective
Previous research has stressed that collaborative partnerships are fundamental
to the expansion of IL education (Andretta, 2005; Rader, 2004; Town, 2003).
Development of such relationships depends on librarians explaining the concept
of IL to potential partners adequately, which is only possible if all librarians fully
understand the term. JRUL has adopted the term „information skills‟ and the
definition provided on library webpages makes it clear that this term is used as
an alternative to IL. Librarians consider this term to be clearer –
“if I said literacy to them they‟d probably wouldn‟t know….but skills they
can understand” (FGLibC)
However, there is confusion among librarians – they do not necessarily perceive
information skills to be the same thing as IL –
“When I use the term „information skills‟……what I mean is the whole
aspect of library use right from the start of how you use the catalogue to
find books and journals and so on…..perhaps I would see IL as being as
subset of information skills” (FGLibD).
66
It is imperative that the term adopted is used consistently to reduce
misunderstanding. Librarians adopt the vocabulary of the people they liaise
with, as Breivik (2000) and others have suggested, but to clarify the intended
learning outcomes of individual teaching sessions rather than using such
opportunities to promote the concept and benefits of IL. The results indicate that
there isn‟t one single term used consistently at Manchester to signify IL. This
would seem to provide an opportunity for the Library to introduce IL, both the
term and the concept, through development and promotion of a strategy.
Results from the questionnaire and discussions with ALLs suggest that the
Library has not attempted to develop IL teaching in a more systematic way or to
seek greater involvement in the teaching and learning process. The failure of
previous Library directors to prioritise IL accounts for this situation; the support
and active involvement of directors is recognised in the literature as a key factor
determining the level of engagement with IL (Corrall, 2007). JRUL‟s current
draft strategy document aligns the work of the Library with the institutional
teaching and learning strategy, a factor considered fundamental in “campus-
wide IL implementation” (Booth & Fabian, 2002:129), and the intention that
library representatives be admitted to faculty teaching and learning committees
signals a new approach, and implies an increasing focus on the teaching role of
librarians. The results suggest, however, that connecting the Library more
directly with the University and with teaching and learning requires a significant
change of attitude across campus, including within the Library.
Organised training sessions are recognised as the most significant teaching
opportunities. ALLs dependent on ad-hoc arrangements could focus instead on
“out-of-class opportunities to promote and support information literacy” (Galvin,
2005:352). The „Training and Guides‟ subject webpages, for example, could
provide more significant learning opportunities than many currently do. JRUL‟s
Information Skills webpage implies a systematic programme of activity –
67
“(t)he Library offers a range of training sessions to help you get the most
out of the resources and to develop your information skills.” (DocC),
and this would be a significant development.
5.3 IL – Teaching or Training?
Boden and Holloway (2005) stressed the need for librarians to refer to their IL
work as teaching rather than training. The results indicate that JRUL ALLs
perceive their role to be that of „trainer‟ rather than „teacher-librarian‟; in
documents and comments they consistently refer to the sessions provided as
„training‟. Ongoing sessions delivered by most ALLs are based around the use
of databases, the main objective being the development of proficiency in the
skills needed to interrogate these resources. In this sense librarians provide
specific training to facilitate learning but it is unclear whether sessions are
presented as stand-alone instruction or related more broadly to IL development.
FGLibB commented that “we want to move (students) away from Google and
Wikipedia” but didn‟t expand further, perhaps assuming fellow librarians would
automatically understand the reasons for this suggestion. None of the
participants described educating students in the limitations of internet search
engines or explaining the Invisible Web in their sessions. Research suggests
that this is a useful way for librarians to demonstrate their expertise and
encourage use of library resources (Devine & Egger-Sider, 2004)
Some comments suggest that librarians may reflect on the teaching and learning
process, and especially the importance of motivating and encouraging a positive
attitude to learning, recognised in previous research (Armstrong et al, 2005).
These include explicit references –
“one of the things we‟re doing with the collection is engendering
enthusiasm” (LibC),
68
and more implicit suggestions, eg, Respondent D aims to develop confidence in
information seeking to “reduce the fear of tackling a „monstrous information
mountain‟”, and FGLibA noted how much “happier” students seem at the end of
small group sessions.
Undergraduates from at least 15 subjects have only one session delivered by
their ALL: a 30 minute library induction at the beginning of their course, usually
before teaching begins. Students offered only an induction are unlikely to
recognise the expertise of librarians or connect them to the teaching process.
Inductions provide an introduction to library facilities and basic guidance in the
use of electronic resources but clearly do not represent a significant teaching
opportunity. In cases where ALLs have significant administrative positions at
JRUL inductions for their students are provided by another member of staff,
which further reduces the opportunity of providing anything more than general
information. For librarians limited to this level of involvement the most effective
use of the allotted time may be to increase awareness of the Library and its
resources. This is the approach adopted by FGLibC who talks to students for no
more than 20 minutes and supplements sessions with Blackboard modules –
“so they go away with something that says „you need to be aware of this,
this, this and this, take this away and use it whenever. By the way,
there‟s this Blackboard Information Skills thing which the School‟ll
probably say you‟ve got to do‟, and it‟ll be built into all the courses”
(FGLibC).
Such use of online resources is recommended in the literature (Brown &
Krumholz, 2002).
One factor that may account for the reluctance of ALLs to acknowledge their
work as teaching may be the lack of formal guidance in this role. FGLibA
commented “really you just learn on the job” and LibA described how ALLs tend
to work in isolation –
69
“I noticed after the merger when I took on the academic liaison that
everyone kind of does their own thing, which seemed really weird to me”.
ALLs who have attended courses on Teaching and Learning consider them
beneficial – Respondent F stated how such a course “enthused me about
information skills training” – but attendance is voluntary rather than required as
part of a Continuing Professional Development programme.
There is little evidence to suggest that the IL „movement‟ has had an impact on
the work of JRUL or has altered ALLs‟ perceptions of their teaching role.
Questionnaire results indicate that traditional library skills are still considered a
major part of the role of ALL and for focus group participants practical factors
(eg, VLE, increasing student numbers, time allocation) have a greater impact on
their work than IL. Individual ALLs gave no indication of regular engagement
with the IL community. As practitioners, focus group participants saw little
benefit in attending conferences and courses based on IL –
“It seems sometimes like overcomplicating what should be a fairly
straightforward part of your job” (FGLibA).
The results indicate that most ALLs enjoy their IL role and about two-thirds of
questionnaire respondents would like to be more involved in this kind of work.
The failure to provide extra comments make it unclear what this might entail for
each individual ALL – do they simply want to expand the number of sessions
they already deliver but approach them in the way they do now, or would they
prefer their role to develop into that of a teaching librarian, with input in
curriculum design and the opportunity to assess the IL development of
students? The limited suggestions offered for improving IL at the University may
result from both a lacking awareness of developments at other institutions as
much as the extent to which librarians feel constrained by current resource
problems and the institutional culture. As previous research suggests significant
development is unlikely if ALLs are required to increase their involvement in IL
teaching without being relieved of any other duties (Hepworth, 2000).
70
For collaborative partnerships to succeed librarians must be recognised as
equal partners. Donham & Green (2004: 315) stress that
“(l)ibrarians cannot be perceived as subordinate to faculty if collaboration
is to occur”.
Many librarians do not currently consider themselves to be partners in the
teaching process and their accounts, which imply the reluctance of some
academic staff to build relationships with librarians, suggests that academics
share this view. ALLs described situations in which they do not or would not feel
comfortable making suggestions relating to the library or to teaching sessions.
LibA described the limited input of librarians at faculty committee meetings and
the frustration caused by the general opinion that a librarian is “invited along as
an observer”. The focus group discussed whether they would make
recommendations to academics –
“I suppose…..it is having the confidence to say „no, don‟t do it that way,
it‟s just going to be a waste of everybody‟s hour‟”.(FGLibD)
FGLibB had recommended moving sessions from October to February and this
had improved attendance and increased student engagement. FGLibA
acknowledged that accepting the limitations of current arrangements represent
“the old fashioned approach…. where you‟re given a slot because it‟s in the
timetable”. FGLibC‟s approach differed slightly - although he would “hesitate to
say no to my academics”, worried that “it would send out the wrong message”,
he described having independently re-designed his sessions to improve their
effectiveness. Many librarians have experienced a negative attitude towards
their teaching role within the institution over recent years and this may account
for their preference for focusing on fulfilling requests from academics as
effectively as possible within current constraints rather than considering IL as a
broader concept. Without greater recognition of the teaching role of librarians
the development of collaborative partnerships seems improbable.
71
5.4 IL – The Institutional Perspective
Previous studies have stressed the significance of institutional focus to the level
of engagement with IL (Andretta & Cutting, 2003; Webber & Johnston, 2006)
and the culture of a research institution may represent a significant barrier to IL
development. The results suggest various problems to be overcome but also
include potential developmental opportunities. Changes in HE have increased
the focus on graduate attributes and the creation of a skilled workforce, and this
relates to the emphasis on lifelong learning in the literature (Breivik, 2000;
George et al, 2001). While university administrators recognise this some
academics still see the focus on lifelong learning as
“how lots of new universities present themselves…..very much a practical
training, whereas the old universities trade very much on the opposite”
(AcadD),
and JRUL ALLs similarly do not recognise the lifelong benefits of IL
Devolving the implementation of institutional strategies relating to skills
development allows each faculty, school or discipline to create programmes
appropriate to the needs of their subject and students. This approach means
that modules and sessions can be pitched at the right level. AcadC described
how a school approach to a first year module had created problems “because
the nature of the intake is radically different” between disciplines. Similarly
librarians recognise that “there isn‟t a „one size fits all‟ thing” (FGLibD). Local
level interpretation and implementation can mask problems however, and has
implications for JRUL – six of the 11 questionnaire respondents unaware of or
not involved in all skills teaching provided for their students are Humanities
ALLs10. This approach may be a significant factor in the differing level of ALL
involvement between subjects.
10
The Humanities Faculty is the most complex structure at the University, divided into a variety of Schools and discipline areas.
72
As identified in previous studies (Ivey, 2003; Webber & Johnston, 2006),
participants highlighted adequate resources as fundamental to the successful
implementation of any new policy. Librarians indicated the extent to which their
work is determined by limiting factors, eg, time allocation, group size and room
availability. Academics similarly alluded to resource issues and budget cuts.
Time was mentioned as the factor restricting most people. Librarians aren‟t
allocated sufficient time to teach and can‟t find time to attend training courses or
exchange of experience meetings. Academic staff similarly lack time to attend
meetings but they are also concerned with retaining their contact hours with
students. They accept the importance of providing opportunities relating to IL
competencies and would work in partnership with the library and others
wherever possible. While academics and librarians stressed constraints
administrative staff recognised opportunities. It is clear that to develop an
holistic IL education would require a whole new approach – the planned
restructure of the undergraduate curriculum would seem to provide that
opportunity.
Without a strategic approach there is little possibility of significant development.
Currently JRUL provides support in individual programmes as requested and
ALLs often display the same kind of mentality as academics –
“I think we have a sense of belonging….to a school or a faculty perhaps
before a sense of belonging to the University” (AcadB)
This attitude prevents many ALLs thinking at a strategic level. Concerned with
providing effective training sessions and supporting their students, they display a
commitment and sense of ownership that suggests they will strive to succeed
whenever developmental opportunities present themselves. However, strategic
development “isn‟t going to happen without the director‟s active involvement”
(Breivik, 2000), and practical examples (Doskatsch, 2003; Haugh, 2005) from
the literature suggest that an individual librarian responsible for IL co-ordination
is also key to successful development.
73
5.5 Summary
The institutional culture of the University has determined the current level of IL
activity. The relative autonomy of Faculties and Schools allows programme
directors to design modules according to their own requirements and the
involvement of librarians is not guaranteed as there is not a campus-wide culture
of collaboration. In recent years IL has not been a high priority for library
directors and consequently librarians seem unfamiliar with the conceptual view
of IL. Without active promotion carried out by the Library, and including an IL
strategy and adequate resourcing, there will be little significant development.
The University of Manchester is and will remain firmly in the embryonic stage of
Webber and Johnston‟s ILU (2006).
74
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
This chapter concludes the research, considering the original aim and
objectives, the findings, and the limitations of the study.
6.2 Conclusions
The study aimed to discover the extent of IL activity at The University of
Manchester. A literature review and five different research techniques were
carried out to obtain firstly the background knowledge and then the data
necessary to fulfil the aim. Information was collected from a range of university
staff involved with skills development. These included librarians, academics and
administrative staff.
Identifying the current level of IL activity proved difficult in reality. The
problematic factors were the scale and organisation of the University, the policy
of devolving implementation decisions to a local level and closed-access faculty
portals which prevented the researcher accessing information. The results
provide a partial picture but the indications are that this is representative of
activity across campus.
The responsibility for providing undergraduate and taught postgraduates with
opportunities for skills development is devolved to the Faculties, and may then
be devolved further to School or Discipline level. The results indicate that
programme directors are often responsible for the skills elements of their
75
courses but that there are other influential stakeholders within different areas.
Skills development opportunities, particularly relating to „intellectual‟ or
„transferable‟ skills, are generally embedded within the curriculum but these are
supplemented by other options – the Careers Service provides a range of
training activity relating to practical skills and graduate attributes, and a similar
smaller scale programme is offered by the Student Union. Training is also
arranged as part of the WP Scheme for students who may need extra support.
Development programmes arranged for PGRs are co-ordinated within each
faculty by a specially appointed administrator. Such posts are funded by
Roberts Money. Staff in the central and faculty Teaching and Learning Offices
are responsible for advising on the incorporation of „value enhancement‟
activities within courses. PDP aims to encourage students to reflect on their
skills development. The trial adoption of the HEAR will increase the emphasis
on non-credit bearing achievement, possibly providing a means of recording
achievement in librarian-led sessions. Successful implementation of an IL
strategy may involve librarians working collaboratively with all these people.
Currently the Library isn‟t responsible for skills development but individual ALLs
are involved, to varying degrees, in the programmes organised by Schools.
Some teams of ALLs offer regular training sessions or drop-ins but these
represent local initiatives rather than significant responsibility.
Although few of the non-library staff interviewed were aware of the term „IL‟
when shown the CILIP definition they recognised the elements contributing to an
information literate individual, and they described addressing such elements
within their teaching. In most cases they refer to the elements as „skills‟ but in
further discussion three academics alluded to attitudes to learning and the
importance of process over content. Therefore, presenting a list of skills to the
University in a strategy may not be sufficient. For AcadD the CILIP definition
didn‟t relate to his aim –
76
“we‟re trying to focus students on the things that they do in which the
information is almost a by-product of what they‟re doing, and it‟s the doing
that interests us”.
It is possible that the holistic view of IL would be understood more by academics
than a skills list. Administrative staff also made fairly accurate attempts at
defining IL but they referred to the need to engage students with skills training
rather than motivating an interest in or developing a capacity for learning. One
of the most puzzling results relates to librarians‟ perceptions of IL. The
researcher only discussed the concept with librarians participating in the focus
group and the interviews. While JRUL uses the term „information skills‟ instead
of IL most librarians indicated that they felt the terms had different meanings.
Furthermore there is little to suggest that ALLs consider IL in its broadest sense
and an actual disclaimer rejecting the idea that the input of librarians is
connected with lifelong learning.
Librarians see the benefit of developing an IL strategy in terms of co-ordinating
approaches and promoting the work of the Library. They were less comfortable
with the idea of an individual librarian responsible for IL development and didn‟t
readily offer suggestions for how a strategy could be accepted at an institutional
level. With some encouragement there was acknowledgment that library
directors should present the strategy. Administrative staff see similar benefits in
a strategy and recognise the opportunities necessary for the adoption of new
policies. Two such interviewees commented on restructuring at the University
as providing an opportunity to incorporate a strategy into new plans. Academic
staff didn‟t object to the idea of a strategy but four of them expressed
exasperation with the bureaucracy of the University and institutional mission
statements. Although librarians need the support of executive committees to
endorse an IL strategy they need to remain close to the grass-roots level in
order for real acceptance.
77
The original objectives sought to discover the role of the Library in decision
making relating to IL. Since the beginning of this study the position of the
Library has changed due to the appointment of a new University Librarian. The
subsequent restructure of senior staff and the development of a library strategy
has signalled a shift in the role of the Library. This is a crucial time for the
Library in the development of an IL strategy. The impact of new management is
recognised as a critical factor implementing change. For individual ALLs their
influence in IL teaching depends very much on their relationships with
academics. The results identified some well established relationships in which
ALLs are seen as teaching partners but there are many ALLs for whom
involvement is much more ad-hoc.
Improving the current level of IL engagement requires the Library to take an
active role. Library directors should take every opportunity to discuss IL with
university colleagues and must approve the development of both a strategy and
a framework detailing plans for implementation. To ensure that the University
recognises the importance of IL it should be related to the institutional mission or
as a solution to various institutional problems. This would require library
acknowledgement that IL is more than a library issue and, since few librarians
actively engage with the IL community or read the literature, to achieve this may
require staff awareness sessions. All librarians need to be prepared to build and
maintain collaborative partnerships with academics and with other influential
non-teaching staff – developing IL will not happen if librarians insist on working
in isolation. Perhaps the first step towards improving current provision must be
to engender enthusiasm within the Library.
6.3 Reflection on the Research Process
The effectiveness of the study has been constrained by the limitations of the
research. The case proved to be much larger and more complex than originally
78
anticipated. The time spent developing an understanding and collecting data
were disproportionate to the limited content that could be included in the final
report and this may have affected the focus. The data collected from the
questionnaire proved difficult to quantify and statistics suggested significance
rather than enhanced understanding. The qualitiative techniques produced
illuminating evidence but, on reflection, the researcher would have asked
different questions and sought greater clarification. Had time allowed it would
have been beneficial to carry out more interviews, following up the suggestions
made by interviewees. Nevertheless the study has produced an understanding
of the current ways in which opportunities for IL development are provided and
highlighted the range of stakeholders across campus who, working together in
collaborative partnerships, could make a significant contribution to furthering IL
engagement at the University.
6.4 Further Work
As the study has produced only a partial understanding of the extent of IL
activity at the University of Manchester there is still much to be done.
Expanding the study to include key stakeholders within each discipline area
would produce a clearer picture of the current situation.
6.5 Final Thoughts
The study has identified pockets of IL activity across campus and a range of
stakeholders involved in skills development work. It has also gained an
understanding of the ways in which skills development opportunities are
provided for all students. There is engagement with IL but not in a systematic
way, and there is no guarantee that the opportunities are fair or consistent
across all subjects. Considering the current arrangements and the language
79
participants use to talk about this element of their work it is distinctly clear from
the results that the University of Manchester is firmly within the embryonic stage
of the ILU (See Appendix I).
Word Count – 19,973
80
Citation List
Abson, C. (2003). “The changing picture of higher education”. In: Oyston, E.
(ed.). Centred on Learning: academic case studies on learning centre
development. Aldershot: Ashgate. 1-18
Andretta, S. (2005). “From prescribed reading to the excitement or the burden of
choice: information literacy: foundation of e-learning”, ASLIB Proceedings: New
Information Perspectives, 57 (2), 181-190.
Andretta, S. (2006). “Information literacy: the new „pedagogy of the question‟”.
In: Walton, G. & Pope, A. (eds.). Information Literacy: Recognising the Need.
Oxford: Chandos Publishing. 13-20.
Andretta, S. & Cutting, A. (2003). “Information literacy: a plug and play
approach”. Libri, 53, 202-209.
Armstrong, J. & Norton, B. (2006). Use of Research Content in Undergraduate
Teaching. [Online]. Liverpool: Liverpool Hope University.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/researchcontent.
doc [Accessed 14 June 2008].
Armstrong, C., Abell, A., Boden, D., Town, S., Webber, S. & Woolley, M. (2005).
“CILIP defines information literacy for the UK”. Library and Information Update, 4
(1), 22-25.
Australia Library and Information Association. (2001). Statement on Information
Literacy for the Nation. [Online]. Canberra: ALIA.
http://www.alia.org.au/policies/information.literacy.html [Accessed 20 May 2008].
81
Big Blue (2002). Big Blue Final Report. [Online]
http://www.library.mmu.ac.uk/bigblue/pdf/finalreportful.pdf [Accessed 29 June
2008]
Boden, D. & Holloway, S. (2005). “What‟s in a name?” Library and Information
Update, 4 (1-2), 26-27.
Booth, A, & Fabian, C.A. (2002). “Collaborating to advance curriculum-based
information literacy initiatives”. Journal of Library Administration, 36 (1/2), 123-
142.
Breivik, P.S. (2000). “Information literacy for the skeptical library director”. In:
Virtual Libraries, Virtual Communities. Twenty First Annual IATUL Conference
2000, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,
3-7 July 2000. IATUL Proceedings (New Series), 10. [Online].
http://www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/2000/Breivik.rtf
[Accessed 31 May 2008]
Breivik, P.S. & Gee, E.G. (2006). Higher Education in the Internet Age: Libraries
Creating a Strategic Edge. London: Praeger.
Brown, C. & Krumholz, L.R. (2002). “Integrating information literacy into the
science curriculum”. College and Research Libraries, 63 (2), 111-123.
Brown, C., Murphy, T.J. & Nanny, M. (2003). “Turning techno-savvy into info-
savvy: authentically integrating information literacy into the college curriculum”.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29 (6), 386-398.
Bruce, C. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib
Press.
82
Bruce, C. (2001). “Faculty-librarian partnerships in Australian higher education:
critical dimensions”. Reference Services Review, 29 (2), 106-115.
Bundy, A. (2003). “A window of opportunity: libraries in higher education”.
Library Management, 24 (8/9), 393-400.
Bundy, A. (ed.). (2004). Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy
Framework. [Online]. Canberra: CAUL. http://www.caul.edu.au/info-
literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf [Accessed 20 May 2008].
Burkhardt, J. M. et al. (2005). Creating a Comprehensive Information Literacy
Plan. London: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Carbo, T. (1997). “Mediacy: Knowledge and skills to navigate the information
highway”. International Information and Library Review, 29, 393-401.
Corrall, S. (2007). “Benchmarking strategic engagement with information literacy
in higher education: towards a working model”, Information Research [Online],
12 (4), paper 328 http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper328.html [Accessed 21 May
2008].
Corrall, S. (2008). “Information literacy strategy development in higher
education: An exploratory study”. International Journal of Information
Management, 28, 26-37.
Department for Education and Skills. (2003). The Future of Higher Education.
Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Devine, J. & Egger-Sider, F. (2004). “Beyond Google: The invisible web in the
academic library”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (4), 265-269.
83
Donham, J. & Green, C. W. (2004). “Perspectives on…developing a culture of
collaboration: librarian as consultant”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (4),
314-321.
Doskatsch, I. (2003). “Perceptions and perplexities of the faculty-librarian
partnership: an Australian perspective”. Reference Services Review, 31 (2),
111-121.
Galvin, J. (2005). “Alternative strategies for promoting information literacy”.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (4), 352-357.
Garner, S.D. (2006). High-level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong
learning, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Alexandria, Egypt, November 6-9, 2005:
report of a meeting sponsored by the United Nations Education, Scientific, and
Cultural organization (UNESCO), National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL)
and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA).
The Hague: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.
[Online] http://www.ifla.org/III/wsis/High-Level-Colloquium.pdf [Accessed 9
August 2008]
George, R., McCausland, H., Wache D. & Doskatsch, I. (2001). “Information
literacy – an institution-wide strategy”. Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, 32 (4).
Godwin, P. (2006). “Information literacy in the age of amateurs: How Google and
Web 2.0 affect librarians‟ support of information literacy”, ITALICS [Online], 5
(4), 268-287. http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss4/godwin.pdf
[Accessed 1 July 2008].
84
Grafstein, A. (2002). “A discipline-based approach to information literacy”.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28 (4), 197-204.
Gross, M. & Latham, D. (2007). “Attaining information literacy: An investigation
of the relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety”.
Library and Information Science Research, 29, 332-353.
Gullikson, S. (2006). “Faculty perceptions of ACRL‟s information literacy
competency standards for higher education”. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
32 (6), 583-592.
Haugh, H. (2005). “Making generic information literacy training work”.
Assignation, 22 (4), 43-46.
Hepworth, M. (2000). “Approaches to providing information literacy training in
higher education: challenges for librarians”. The New Review of Academic
Librarianship, 6, 21-34.
Higginbottom, K. (2008). “Customers‟ demands dictate pace of change”. The
Guardian Education Supplement – Libraries Unleashed, 22 April, 6.
Hightower, B., Rawl, C. & Schutt, M. (2008). “Collaborations for delivering the
library to students through WebCT”. Reference Services Review, 35 (4), 541-
551.
HM Treasury. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills.
[Online]. Norwich: HMSO. http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/media/6/4/leitch_finalreport051206.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2008].
Howard, H. & Newton, A. (2005). “How to win hearts and minds”. Library and
Information Update, 4 (1-2), 27-28.
85
Ivey, R. (2003). “Information literacy: how do librarians and academics work in
partnership to deliver effective learning programs?” Australian Academic &
Research Libraries, 34 (2), 100-113.
Johnson, H. (2000). “Introduction”. In: Corrall, S. & Hathaway, H. (eds.). (2000).
Seven pillars of wisdom? Good practice in information skills development.
London: SCONUL. 3-4.
Johnston, B. & Webber, S. (2003). “Information literacy in higher education: a
review and case study”. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (3), 335-352.
Johnston, B. & Webber, S. (2006). “As we may think: Information literacy as a
discipline for the information age”. Research Strategies, 20, 108-121.
Joint, N. (2005). “Evaluating the quality of library portals”. Library Review, 54 (6),
337-341.
Jones, R. et al. (2006). “Providing for the next generation: adopting interactive
whiteboards in information literacy training”. In: Walton, G. & Pope, A. (eds.).
Information Literacy: Recognising the Need. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. 27-31.
Kezar, A. (2006). “Librarians Enhancing Student Engagement: Partners in
Learning that Build Bridges”. In: Gibson, C. (ed.). Student Engagement and
Information Literacy. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
16-32.
Lloyd, A. & Williamson, K. (2008). “Towards an understanding of information
literacy in context: Implications for research”. Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science, 40 (1), 3-12.
86
Lupton, M. (2004). The Learning Connection: Information Literacy and the
Student Experience. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
McGuinness, C. (2003). “Attitudes of academics to the library‟s role in
information literacy education”. In: Martin, A. & Rader, H. (eds.). Information and
IT Literacy: Enabling learning in the 21st century. London: Facet Publishing. 244-
254.
McGuinness, C. (2006). “What faculty think – Exploring the barriers to
information literacy development in undergraduate education”. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 32 (6), 573-582.
McKinney, P. & Levy, P. (2006). “Inquiry-based learning and information literacy
development: a CETL approach”. ITALICS, 5 (2) [Online]
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss2/strategic%20IL%20(4).htm
[Accessed 29 June 2008]
Markless, S. & Streatfield, D. (2007), “Three decades of information literacy:
redefining the parameters”. In: Andretta, S. (ed.), Change and Challenge:
Information literacy for the 21st century, Adelaide: Auslib Press. 15-36.
Moore, K. (ed.) (2003). “Building new partnerships: changing institutional
relations”. In: Oyston, E. (ed.). Centred on Learning; academic case studies on
learning centre development. Aldershot: Ashgate. 127-152.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Higher education in
the learning society [The Dearing Report]. London: HMSO.
Nimon, M. (2001). “The role of academic libraries in the development of the
information literate student: The interface between librarian, academic and other
stakeholders”. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 32 (1), 43-50.
87
Nimon, M. (2002). “Developing lifelong learners: Controversy and the educative
role of the academic librarian”. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 33
(1), 14-24.
O‟Sullivan, C. (2002). “Is information literacy relevant in the real world?”
Reference Services Review, 30 (1), 7-14.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2003). “Information literacy and the academic library: A
critical look at a concept and the controversies surrounding it”. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 29 (4), 219-230.
Parker, J. (2003). “Putting the pieces together: Information literacy at the Open
University”. Library Management, 24 (4/5), 223-228.
Peters, J., Hathaway, H. & Bragan-Turner, D. (2003). “Does discipline matter?”.
In: Martin, A. & Rader, H. (eds.). Information and IT Literacy: Enabling learning
in the 21st century. London: Facet Publishing. 77-87.
Powis, C. (2004). “Developing the academic librarian as learning facilitator”. In:
Oldroyd, M. (ed.). Developing Academic Library Staff for Future Success.
London: Facet Publishing. 83-93.
Rader, H. B. (1995). “Information literacy and the undergraduate curriculum”.
Library Trends, 44 (2), 270-278.
Rader, H. (2003). “Information literacy – a global perspective”. In: Martin, A. &
Rader, H. (eds.). Information and IT Literacy: Enabling learning in the 21st
century. London: Facet Publishing. 24-42.
88
Rader, H. (2004). “Building faculty-librarian partnerships to prepare students for
information fluency”, College and Research Libraries News, 65 (2), 74-83.
Rose, S. & Reading, J. (2006). “User education: the development and
implementation of a policy for Oxford University Library Services (OULS)”.
SCONUL Focus, 37 (Spring), 30-33.
Sanborn, L. (2005). “Perspectives on…improving library instruction: faculty
collaboration”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (5), 477-481.
Seamans, N.H. (2002). “Student perceptions of information literacy: insights for
librarians”. Reference Services Review, 30 (2), 112-123.
Society of College, National and University Libraries. (1999). Information Skills
in Higher Education: A SCONUL Position Paper. [Online] London: SCONUL.
http://www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/papers/Seven_pillars.html
[Accessed 20 May 2008].
Stubbings, R. & Franklin, G. (2006). “Does advocacy help to embed information
literacy into the curriculum? A case study”. ITALICS [Online], 5 (1).
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5-1/pdf/stubbings-franklin-final.pdf
[Accessed 14 June 2008]
Town, S. (2003). “Information literacy: definition, measurement, impact”. In:
Martin, A. & Rader, H. (eds.). Information and IT Literacy: Enabling learning in
the 21st century. London: Facet Publishing. 53-65.
Wallace, D. P. (2007). “Academic library and research in the twenty-first century:
Linking practice and research”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33 (5), 529-
531.
89
Wallace, W. (2008). “Information alert”. The Guardian Education Supplement –
Libraries Unleashed, 22 April, 1.
Ward, D. (2006). “Revisioning information literacy for lifelong meaning”. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 32 (4), 396-402.
Webber, S. & Johnston, B. (2006). “Working towards the information literate
university”. In: Walton, G. & Pope, A. (eds.). Information Literacy: Recognising
the Need. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. 47-58.
Webber, S. & Johnston, B. (2003). “Assessment for information literacy: vision
and reality”. In: Martin, A. & Rader, H. (eds.). Information and IT Literacy:
Enabling learning in the 21st century. London: Facet Publishing.101-111.
Wallace, W. (2008). “Information alert”. The Guardian Education Supplement –
Libraries Unleashed, 22 April, 1.
Weetman, J. (2005). “Osmosis – Does it work for the development of information
literacy?” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31 (5), 456-460.
Zabel, D. (2004). “A reaction to „Information literacy and higher education‟”.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (1), 17-21.
90
Other Sources Consulted
Bell, J. (2006). Doing your Research Project. A guide for first-time researchers in
education, health and social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bloor, M. et al. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.
Brophy, P. (2007). “Communicating the library: librarians and faculty in
dialogue”, Library Management, 28 (8/9), 515-523.
Burton, P. (1990). “Asking questions: Questionnaire design and question
phrasing”. In: Slater, M. (ed.). Research Methods in Library and Information
Studies. London: The Library Association. 62-76.
Carbo, T. (1997). “Mediacy: Knowledge and Skills to Navigate the Information
Highway”, International Information and Library Review, 29, 393-401.
.Corrall, S. (2000). Strategic Management of Information Services: a Planning
Handbook.
Corrall, S. (1998). “Key skills for students in higher education”, SCONUL
Newsletter, 15, 25-28.
Corrall, S. & Hathaway, H. (eds.). (2000). Seven pillars of wisdom? Good
practice in information skills development. London: SCONUL.
Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide for small-scale social
research projects. Maidenhead & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
91
Fallows, S. & Steven, C. (eds.). (2000). Integrating key skills in higher education:
employability, transferable skills and learning for life. London: Kogan Page.
Fink, A. (1995). How to report on surveys. London: Sage.
Gibson, C. (2006). “Introduction”. In: Gibson, C. (ed.). Student Engagement and
Information Literacy. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
vii-xiv.
Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing. The Range of Techniques.
Maidenhead & New York: Open University Press.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London & New York:
Continuum.
Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London & New York: Continuum.
Gorman, G. E. & Clayton, P.. (2005). Qualitative research for the information
professional: A practical handbook. London: Facet publishing.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review. London:Sage.
Hunn, R. A. & Rossiter, D. (2006). “Design and development of an online
information literacy tutorial: evaluation and lessons learn (so far)”, ITALICS, 5
(4), 184-209.
Jackson, C. & Mogg, R. (2005). “Embedding IL into the curriculum”, Library and
Information Update, 4 (1-2), 32-33.
92
Joint Funding Councils‟ Libraries Review Group (1993). Report (The Follett
Report) [Online]. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/follett/report/ [Accessed
29 June 2008].
Leitch, D.M. (2008). Personal Conversation with Author.
Lloyd, A. (2003). “Information Literacy: The Meta-Competency of the Knowledge
Economy? An Exploratory Paper”, Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 35 (2), 87-92.
Markless, S., Streatfield, D. & Baker, L. (1992). Cultivating Information Skills in
Further Education: Eleven Case Studies. London: British Library Research and
Development Department. Library and Information Research Report 86.
Noon, P. (1994). “Finding a strategic role for information skills in academic
libraries”. In: Bluck, R. et al. Information Skills in Academic Libraries.
Birmingham: SEDA Publications. SEDA Paper 82. 9-23.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Richards, L. & Morse, J.M. (2007). Readme First for a User’s Guide to
Qualitative Methods. London: Sage.
Robinson, C. & Reid, P. (2007). “Do academic enquiry services scare
students?”, Reference Services Review, 35 (3), 405-424.
Secker, J., Boden, D. & Price, G. (eds.). (2007). The Information Literacy
Cookbook: Ingredients, recipes and tips for success. Oxford: Chandos
Publishing.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
93
Slater, M. (1990). “Qualitative research”. In: Slater, M. (ed.).Research Methods
in Library and Information Studies. London: The Library Association. 107-127.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage.
Stubbings, R. & Brine, A. (2003). “Reviewing electronic information literacy
training packages”. ITALICS, 2 (1) [Online]
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/issue1/stubbings/stubabrev.pdf
[Accessed 17 June 2008]
Swanson, T. (2007). “Teaching students about information: Information literacy
and cognitive authority”, Research Strategies, 20, 322-333.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). The
Prague Declaration - "Towards an Information Literate Society". [Online]
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/19636/11228863531PragueDeclaration.pdf/Pr
agueDeclaration.pdf [Accessed 20 May 2008]
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
94
Appendix A: The University of Manchester
Background Information
The University of Manchester is a traditional Red Brick, research-led institution.
Although in existence for over 120 years, the institution of the present day was
created in 2004 by the merger of The Victoria University of Manchester and
UMIST. Today it is “the largest single-site higher education institution in the
UK”, offering 500 different degree programmes and with a student population
currently in excess of 34,000 (25,656 undergraduates and 8,802 postgraduates).
Governance and Administration
Institutional objectives and policies are determined by the President and the
senior executive committee. The university administration, a tripartite structure
sharing responsibility between central offices and those within the faculties and
schools, is responsible for realising the executive vision. The central
administration offices provide advice and guidance on institutional strategies but
each of the faculties has a dedicated administration team, including Teaching
and Learning, and Quality Assurance staff, which provides a local level of advice
and support. The interpretation and implementation of institutional policies may
be determined at the faculty level or decisions may be devolved further, to
school or discipline level.
Faculty Structure
The four faculties,
Humanities,
Life Sciences,
Engineering and Physical Sciences,
Medical and Human Sciences,
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/generalinterest/factsandfigures.pdf
95
comprise 54 academic schools. Schools may be single subject, eg, Law, or
multi-discipline, eg, the School of Arts, Histories and Culture, which includes
disciplines such as History, Classics, English and American Studies, and Music.
The John Rylands University Library
The university library (JRUL) is situated on various sites across campus and
includes a renowned Special Collections library. Subject support is organised
by faculty teams made up of faculty librarians, academic liaison librarians and
reference and information assistants. Some academic liaison librarians have
administrative responsibilities which are the dominant element of their role.
Although JRUL was omitted from the university committee structure for many
years the new university librarian, appointed at the end of 2007, is a member of
the senior executive committee and subsequently involved in institutional
reviews. She presented her own vision for JRUL in January 2008 and strategic
plans are currently in development.
96
Appendix B: Documentary Evidence
Webpages
DocA
The University of Manchester, Towards Manchester 2015: The Strategic Plan of
The University of Manchester. (2007/2008 Edition).
(http://www.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/2015/2015strategy.pdf)
DocB
The University of Manchester Faculty of Humanities, Education Strategy and
Operational Plans. (2007).
(http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/humnet/tandl/strategydocuments/thefil
e,100741,en.doc)
DocC
The John Rylands University Library, Information Skills. (2008)
(http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/usingthelibrary/informationskills/)
DocD
The John Rylands University Library, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American
Studies: User Education and Training. (2008).
(http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/humanities/languages/spanishportu
guese/training/)
DocE
The University of Manchester, Widening Participation Prospectus. (2007).
(http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/publications/wp-
prospectus.pdf)
97
DocF
The University of Manchester School of Physics and Astronomy, Physics
Undergraduate Handbook. (2007).
(http://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/course-
handbook/2_aims_objectives.html)
DocG
The University of Manchester Faculty of Humanities, English Literature (BA)
Course Aims (2008).
(http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/course/?code
=00060&pg=2)
DocH
The University of Manchester School of Languages, Linguistics and Culture,
Linguistics and English Language Handbook. (2007).
(http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/intranet/ug/handbooks/documents/Fileuploadm
ax10Mb,138089,en.pdf)
DocI
The University of Manchester Teaching and Learning Support Office, Personal
Development Planning. (2008).
(http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/personaldevelopmentplanning/)
DocJ
The University of Manchester Careers Service, Improve your job prospects.
(2008).
(http://www.studentnet.manchester.ac.uk/careers/improveyourjobprospects/)
DocK
The University of Manchester Faculty of Humanities, Study Skills. (2008).
(http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/studyskills/)
98
DocL
The University of Manchester Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
Really Useful Information for Students. (2007).
(http://www.eps.manchester.ac.uk/tlc/student_support/documents/really-useful-
information-for-students.pdf)
DocM
The University of Manchester Research Office, Postgraduate Research Skills
Training Strategy. (2005).
(http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/researchoffice/graduateeduc
ation/p-skills-training-strat-pgr.pdf)
Internal Documents
DocN
The John Rylands University Library, Draft Strategy Document. (May 13th 2008)
DocO
The John Rylands University Library, Information Skills Group Objectives.
(2007)
DocP
The University of Manchester School of History, State, Nation and Nationalism,
1750-1920 (Module Handbook). 2007.
99
Appendix C: Questionnaire
EVALUATING INFORMATION LITERACY ACTIVITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER : A CASE STUDY
The aim of this questionnaire is to determine the current level of Information Literacy related work at The John Rylands University Library. Part one will allow the researcher to collect statistical information that will show the extent of work currently being carried out. Part two will seek further information and opinions about the nature of this work. To gain the fullest possible picture it will be necessary to gather statistical information relating to all subjects. All Academic Liaison Librarians are being asked to submit responses to this questionnaire. Responses will be confidential and used in research being carried out as part of an MA at the University of Sheffield. I understand the purpose of this questionnaire and consent to my responses being used for this research.
Please complete the questionnaire in as much detail as possible.
Part 1: Data collection exercise
1) Do you provide training sessions for : - (please tick only one option for each student group)
Undergraduates – First year only?
(Please answer Q2a only)
Undergraduates – At progressive stages of study?
(Please answer both parts of Q2)
PGTs – Initial induction only?
(Please answer Q2a only)
PGTs – Subsequent provision throughout
academic year?
(Please answer both parts of Q2)
PGRs – Initial induction only?
(Please answer Q2a only)
PGRs – Subsequent provision throughout
study programme?
(Please answer both parts of Q2)
100
2a) Please indicate which of the following are covered in your introductory training sessions. (please tick all that apply)
In brief In depth
Introduction to library buildings & services
Introduction to/guidance in use of databases, e-journals, etc
Information about citation styles/reference management tools (Endnote)
Information about plagiarism/copyright
2b) Are your ongoing sessions organised to : - (please tick all that apply)
Teach increasingly in-depth information skills at different stages in study programmes?
Provide refresher sessions usually covering similar resources each year of a study programme?
Offer specific training for particular coursework assignments?
Fit in with The University‟s Research Training Programme for PGRs?
101
3) How are the sessions you provide delivered?
UG Induction only
UG subsequent provision
PGT induction only
PGT subsequent provision
PGR induction only
PGR subsequent provision
All student groups
Lecture style/PPT presentation (passive)
Lecture style/PPT presentation (active, eg, Cephalonian Method*)
Practical/hands-on (demo + unassessed tasks)
Practical/hands-on (demo + assessed coursework tasks)
Online resource, delivered via web-based tutorial (passive, ie, static web pages)
Online resource, delivered via web-based tutorial (active, ie, interactive tutorial)
One-to-one (by appointment)
One-to-one (drop-in sessions)
* See Appendix for further information about the Cephalonian Method
102
Please give details of any other information skills training/resources you provide & indicate your target user group
103
Part 2: Further Detail
Having gauged the extent of Information Skills activity I am now interested in learning more about the work you do. It is useful for me to know which subjects the following information relates to but if you prefer to answer the following questions anonymously please complete and return this section of the questionnaire separately.
4a) What determines the delivery style of your sessions? (Please tick all factors that apply)
Time limitation
Type of room available
Size of group
Session content
Consideration of the effectiveness of different teaching styles**
Consideration of methods appropriate to students with differing learning styles**
Student feedback/evaluation of previous sessions
**See Appendix for further details
Please give details of any other factors. 4b) Which of the above options do you feel is the most important in
determining your delivery style?
104
5) Who determines the content of your sessions? (Please indicate all that apply & for which student groups, egs, UG Induction, UG Subsequent, PGT Induction, PGT Subsequent, PGR Induction, PGR Subsequent)
UG Induction only
UG subsequent provision
PGT induction only
PGT subsequent provision
PGR induction only
PGR subsequent provision
All student groups
You alone
Faculty/School academics alone
You + Library Faculty Team Colleagues
You + Faculty/School academics
You + User Ed Librarian (by using generic resources prepared by User Ed Librarian)
You + User Ed Librarian (in other ways)
Please give details of any other factors.
105
6) Are the sessions you provide a set part of the course curriculum (eg, is attendance mandatory, are sessions
delivered in a timetabled teaching slot, is coursework assessed)? (Please indicate all that apply & for which student groups, eg, UG Induction, UG Subsequent, PGT Induction, PGT Subsequent, PGR Induction, PGR Subsequent)
UG Induction only
UG subsequent provision
PGT induction only
PGT subsequent provision
PGR induction only
PGR subsequent provision
All student groups
All sessions
Some sessions
No sessions
7) Where tasks/assignments are assessed, do you a) Set the tasks? b) Mark the tasks?
Please use √ for ‘yes’ & x for ‘no’ in table, or indicate ‘NA’ here if you do neither
UG Induction only
UG subsequent provision
PGT induction only
PGT subsequent provision
PGR induction only
PGR subsequent provision
All student groups
Set Task
Mark Assignment
106
8) Does the School/Faculty require details of student attendance at your
sessions?
Yes
No
9) Does your School/Faculty provide „in-house‟ training in information
skills that you are not involved with?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
If yes, is this:
a) For new students? (Please indicate student group)
UG
PGT
PGR
b) At other points during programmes of study?
(Please indicate student group – UG, PGT, PGR)
UG
PGT
PGR
c)
Don‟t know
107
10) What do you consider the purpose of your training sessions to be: (please tick all that apply)
To introduce students to the library buildings, services & resources?
To teach students information skills, ie, those which enable students to locate information then to use it effectively & responsibly?
To help students understand good academic practice?
Other (please state)?
Please give an idea of the weighting of the content of your sessions according to these options.
Session Content
Weighting
Library induction (buildings, services, resources)
%
Information skills (as described above)
%
Reinforcing good practice
%
Other (as stated & described above)
%
108
11) Do you think that The University of Manchester currently meets the information skills needs of students?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
(Please expand on your answer if you wish)
12) Would you like to be more involved with teaching information skills within your ALL role?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
(Please expand on your answer if you wish)
109
13) Do you think that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to information skills teaching across The University of Manchester?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
(Please give reasons for your answer below if you wish)
14) Do you think that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to information skills teaching within the Library?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
If yes, who should co-ordinate information skills teaching within the Library?
15) Any other comments?
*Thank you for completing this questionnaire*
110
Appendix
* Developed by Nigel Morgan and Linda Davies, librarians working at Cardiff University, the Cephalonian Method introduces an interactive element to library induction sessions. Questions printed on coloured cards are distributed to a number of students as they arrive for the session. These students are then required to ask the question on their card as the session progresses and answers are displayed on screen as PowerPoint slides. The 4 different colours of cards used represent distinct areas of information relating to the library (basic introductory information; using the catalogue; services and facilities) as well as a „miscellaneous‟ section. The aim of Morgan and Davies was to provide stimulating sessions to engage and interest students, the delivery of which library staff could also enjoy. For further information see
Morgan, N. & Davies, L. 2004. “Innovative induction: introducing the Cephalonian Method”. SCONUL Focus, 32, 4-8.
http://www.sconul.ac.uk/publications/newsletter/32/2.pdf
** “Different teaching styles” could include
passive lectures (to transmit knowledge to students)
lectures with an interactive element (to encourage student participation in the learning process)
practical/hands-on sessions (where students complete exercises in workbooks or via online tutorials)
“Differing learning styles”*** include
Activist (preference is for hands-on activities & generally being involved in the learning process)
Reflector (preference is to observe before engaging in learning; often needing further guidance)
Theorist (preference is a structured, step-by-step approach to activities)
Pragmatist (preference is for practical activities which can be used outside classroom) ***As described in: Jones, R., Peters, K. & Shields, E. 2007. “Transform your training: practical approaches to interactive Information Literacy teaching”. Journal of Information Literacy, 1(1), 35-42.
111
Appendix D: Information Desk Statistics Sheet
ENQUIRY TYPE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER STUDENT
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER STAFF
OTHER LIBRARY USERS
How to use JRUL library catalogue (inc. understanding references)
How to locate printed material in JRUL (eg, explain classification)
How to use printed reference material
How to use other library catalogues
How to access e-journal articles
How to access e-books
How to use library databases
How to use material in other formats (eg, microform, CD-ROM)
How to use JRUL webpages (inc. subject information pages)
How to use internet search engines
How to plan a literature search
How to cite references (non-Endnote queries)
112
How to use Endnote
Instructional enquiries passed on to ALL
OTHER (PLEASE GIVE DETAILS BELOW)
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER STUDENT
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER STAFF
OTHER LIBRARY USERS
113
Appendix E: Interview Questions
1) This question is about terminology
Does the term „information literacy‟ mean anything to you?
(Provide CILIP definition if respondent not familiar with concept)
Is there a term you more commonly use within your School or
Faculty to mean the same thing?
Is there more than one term in use within your School and your
Faculty?
Do you think where different terms are used that people (staff) are
talking essentially about the same thing?
Do you think it matters that there isn‟t one term adopted across the
whole of the University?
Will students understand?
2) This question is about the current situation re IL teaching at
the University
How does your School ensure that students develop their
IL/information/research/study skills?
Is the issue addressed and/or coordinated at Faculty or School
level?
Is there a different approach for UG & PG students (PGT & PGR)?
Are individual initiatives in Schools common? (If yes ask also, Do
School colleagues discuss and share their plans or is each tutor
providing an individual response to meet the needs of their own
students?)
Is it likely that students following inter-disciplinary courses are
perhaps seeing very different skills training initiatives from different
Schools/Faculties? (And if so, does that matter?)
114
Are any non-academic University colleagues involved in assisting
with the development/delivery of this work (eg T&L office, library)?
How has the situation in your School evolved?
3) This question is about the effectiveness of current IL work &
engagement
How does your School measure the success of the current skills
training provision?
Are students assessed on the work they do?
Are they given feedback?
Do they give feedback through evaluation forms?
Is the process of skills development ongoing throughout the course
of study or is it dealt with at the very beginning of the course?
How do you „promote‟ this kind of work?
What benefits do you think there are for students in attending skills
sessions?
Is attendance at sessions recorded (even when librarians run
sessions?)?
4) This question is about the purpose of IL teaching & the
connection between what might be perceived as ‘study skills’
and lifelong learning skills, ie creating IL individuals
Do you think that the benefits of skills training are limited to the
students course of study?
Is your concern with developing good academic practice in your
students or with developing employable graduates/lifelong
learners? (or is there no distinction? Is the second a given having
developed the first?)
115
5) This question is about the current and potential role of the
library in IL work
Could the library assist your School with this work more than it
does now?
Would such assistance be welcomed/encouraged? (And if so how
can this be achieved?)
Do you encourage students to seek assistance from library staff
throughout their study?
6) This question is about potential developments, especially
development of an IL strategy
Are you satisfied with the current situation in your School?
Are there any changes you would like to see in the development or
provision of IL skills teaching?
Would there be any benefit in developing an overarching strategy
for the U of M?
116
Appendix F: Focus Group Questions Terminology
What does the term 'information literacy' mean to you?
How would you define it (in 10 words!)?
What term do you adopt when discussing information literacy with
academics, administrators, etc on campus?
What effect has the development of the information literacy agenda had
on the work you do as an academic liaison librarian?
Engagement
How do you keep up to date with developments in the information literacy
movement?
What impact does this have on your information literacy work?
Are there professional development implications?
Is the extent of your engagement constant throughout the academic year
or is information literacy a 'seasonal' issue?
Is there a collaborative approach to information literacy within JRUL?
Development & Barriers
How should the issue of information literacy be addressed and/or
developed at the University of Manchester?
What are the barriers that might prevent further development?
How might these barriers be overcome?
117
Appendix G: Participant Information Sheet
Evaluating Information Literacy Activity at The University of Manchester: a case study
You are being invited to participate in a dissertation research project. The following information
will explain the purpose of the project and how it will be carried out. Please read this information
carefully before deciding whether you wish to participate in this study. If you require further
information please do not hesitate to ask.
This research is being carried out as a requirement of The University of Sheffield‟s MA in
Librarianship. The work will be carried out during the 2007/08 academic year and will be
completed by August 2008. The aim of the project is to investigate the ways in which
information literacy needs are currently being met at The University of Manchester. You have
been identified as someone with an involvement or interest in developing students‟ information
skills. Your participation is entirely voluntary and you will be able to withdraw from the research
at any time without giving a reason for doing so. If you agree to take part you will be asked to
sign a consent form and will be given copies of this information sheet and the consent form to
keep. You will be interviewed by me at a mutually convenient time; this should not take up more
than one hour of your time. Data collected from interviews will be analysed and the conclusions
reached will hopefully inform and improve information literacy practice at The University of
Manchester. All the information you provide in the course of the research will be kept strictly
confidential and you will not be identified in the dissertation. This project has been ethically
approved by the Department of Information Studies at The University of Sheffield. Should you
require any further information please contact me or my dissertation supervisor.
Helen Dobson Professor Sheila Corrall
The John Rylands University Library Department of Information Studies
The University of Manchester The University of Sheffield
Oxford Road Regent Court
Manchester 211 Portobello Street
M13 9PP Sheffield
S1 4DP
0161 306 1532 0114 222 2632
[email protected] [email protected]
Many thanks for assisting with my research and taking part in this project
118
Appendix H
Research Schedule (August 2007-August 2008)
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug
Document Analysis
Literature Review
Questionnaire
Information Desk Survey
Interviews
Focus Group
Transcription & Analysis
Synthesis & Writing up
119
Appendix I: The Embryonic Stage of the ILU
Students
The majority of students would not recognise the concept of information
literacy, and if they are information literate when they graduate, it is not
something they are really aware of.
If interviewed on the subject in their final year, they might see that
information literacy is useful, but would agree with their lecturers that it
would be difficult to fit into the busy subject curriculum.
Management
People talk mostly about information literacy “training” and about “giving
people information skills”.
Information literacy is not mentioned as such in strategic documents,
although some documents may contain statements which could imply
interest in information literacy.
Information literacy is not considered something which is of relevance in
marketing the university.
Senior managers confuse IT literacy and information literacy, and are
most interested in the former.
The management view of the library is focused on the resources it
provides and on quantification of use (number of books borrowed, e-
articles read, etc).
None of the key committees consider fostering information literacy as a
key part of their remit.
120
Academics
Most could not define “information literacy”.
Most are unwilling to give more than an hour of their class time to
information literacy, and many will not even give that much.
They assume that students will have certain information literacy
knowledge/skills (eg, the ability to find relevant articles, or to cite material
properly) but most do not discuss these knowledge/skills with students.
They may think that librarians are giving support or training in these
areas, but if questioned they would admit that they do not have a good
idea of what the librarians are actually doing.
Most academics would be unwilling to involve librarians in curriculum
design eg, feeling that it was a waste of time or inappropriate.
Librarians are chiefly perceived by them as service providers concerned
with specific resources, such as books or e-journals.
Librarians
Librarians are doing their own thing: there is wide diversity of approach
and attempts to coordinate are rather resented.
The majority of librarians do not see education as a key role, and some of
them positively dislike the idea of being educators. There is little
discussion of learning, teaching and assessment: it is the interest of a
dedicated few. Most librarians do not have teaching qualifications.
There is a variety of conceptions of information literacy. Many librarians
focus on a few aspects of information literacy (eg, searching), and may
talk about “library skills”.
Librarians are concerned with efficiency, constraints, their low status,
proving the cost-effectiveness of what they are doing.
121
Most librarians either do not work with academics, or have limited contact
(eg, being asked to give a short introductory session to the library each
year) and feel that they are not treated as peers.
The person in charge of the library and information services does not
have a holistic conception of information literacy and/or does not see
information literacy as a strategic issue that he/she needs to push
forward.
Approach to Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Information literacy training has not been embedded in most courses.
In training sessions, the dominant approach is behaviourist (eg, a
presentation; a demonstration followed by a task following set steps).
There is no clear distinction between assessment of student learning and
evaluation of teaching: evaluation instruments cover both together.
Assessment of information literacy is mostly not credit bearing, and in
those few cases where it is, the percentage of marks awarded is very
small (eg, 5% of a class mark).
Information literacy is taught mostly in short stand-alone sessions, or in
very brief sessions within curricula.
An online tutorial is seen as a good and sufficient solution to the
“problem” of information literacy.
Where assessment of students is considered, there is an emphasis on
multiple choice questions, diagnostic tests, and compilation of
bibliographies.
There is little tailoring of information literacy training to specific
level/discipline, except in terms of providing training on different subject
databases.
(Webber & Johnston, 2006)
