Abstract
This paper reports a study of information literacy instructional practices in Israeli academic libraries, conducted to understand the methods and approaches used by academic librarians in their instructional work, and to explore whether their practices have been influenced by the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The study used an online survey to gather data, an instrument based on one used successfully in similar surveys in Canada and the United States. The survey was completed by Israeli academic librarians with instructional responsibilities. Findings show that respondents believe that information literacy instruction is a shared responsibility, and that one-on-one instruction is the most-used approach. Results reveal multiple challenges faced by respondents, as well as opportunities for improvement in their instruction.
Introduction
This study focuses on a recent survey of Israeli professional librarians with instructional responsibilities that was conducted in order to explore respondents’ views, practices, and concerns regarding their instructional role in academic libraries. The study uses the ACRL (Association of College & Research Libraries) definition for information literacy articulated in the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2016): “Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning.”
Literature review
It is clear that the instructional role continues to be a key aspect of librarians’ work in academic libraries (Gold and Grotti, 2013). Thus, information literacy instruction has received significant scholarly attention around the globe (Jiyane and Onyancha, 2010; Julien et al., 2018; Lwehabura and Stillwell, 2008; McGuinness, 2009; Pattar and Kanamadi, 2010; Polkinghorne and Julien, 2019). Of particular concern is that research shows that university and college students are not particularly digitally literate. Gross and Latham (2012) found that college students who are called “digital natives” do not enter college with sophisticated information searching or information evaluation skills. Thus, academic librarians have responsibility to help students become information literate. This role is challenging as librarians’ role has shifted from focus on teaching students how to find information in the library to broader goals such as teaching critical thinking skills and information evaluation.
A few studies that focus on information literacy instruction were carried out in different countries. Munazza et al. (2016) investigated this issue in China, revealing that information literacy instruction through library orientations and tours is used successfully, in addition to face-to-face instruction. In another study (Ignacio, 2015) explored science information literacy instruction at French and Spanish libraries, reporting that there is a strong emphasis on library instruction especially for graduate students, recommending that it should be expanded to undergraduate students too. In a further study that was performed in Africa (Emmanuel, Tarela, 2012) findings suggest that university libraries have information literacy instruction, however, there are many barriers such as lack of interest by students, professors and library management, inadequate human resources to teach information literacy, and lack of facilities.
There is not a great deal of literature focused on information literacy instruction in Israel, nor on academic libraries in general. Bronstein (2011) investigated Israeli reference librarians’ perceptions concerning their jobs and academic environment. Findings suggested that the essence of reference work has not changed despite librarians’ expanding roles and the changing nature of the questions asked at the reference desk. Respondents assume that reference librarians should have excellent teaching and communication skills. Further, they reported that they were empowered through the adoption of new technologies, and consider future academic reference librarians as guides that will develop various services to different users. Also focusing on reference services, Greenberg and Bar-Ilan (2015) compared two Web-based virtual reference services at an academic library in Israel, chat and email, revealing that they were used differently by academic library users, and that academic librarians preferred face-to-face reference service. Moreover, librarians noted that the best reference service is the one that suits users’ needs.
A further study (Shacaf et al., 2016) focused on the effects of information overload on reference librarians, noting that reference librarians did not report significant impact of information overload due to their skills, and they felt confident to cope with information environments. Another study (Klain-Gabbay and Shoham 2016) explored researchers’ and academic librarians’ perceptions regarding scholarly communication, indicating that a similar low percentage of researchers and librarians assume librarians can assist with scholarly communication, and that researchers would like to engage librarians in scholarly communication more than the librarians.
Addressing information literacy specifically, Aharony and Bronstein (2014) explored Israeli librarians’ perspectives toward major components of information literacy, revealing that librarians see little or no need to revise the traditional definition of information literacy, even though they expand it to include Web 2.0 and digital-literacy characteristics. Further, respondents suggest that information literacy instruction is more a library role than a faculty role. Other studies that were carried out in Israel focused on students’ information literacy (Aharony and Gur, 2019) and on students’ information literacy self-efficacy (Aharony and Gazit, 2018, 2019).
Purpose of the study
The purpose of our study was to explore the information literacy instruction practices of Israeli academic librarians, and to investigate the extent to which the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (ACRL, 2016) is being used by these instructional librarians. The Framework is based on six threshold concepts, with related knowledge practices and dispositions. The threshold concepts are:
Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
Information Creation as a Process
Information Has Value
Research as Inquiry
Scholarship as Conversation
Searching as Strategic Exploration.
The survey findings will be useful to academic librarians to identify best practices, and opportunities for improvement to information literacy instruction. Further, the findings can be compared to previous surveys conducted in the United States and Canada (Julien, Gross and Latham, 2018) and Canada (Julien, 2000, 2005; Julien and Leckie, 1997; Julien et al., 2013; Polkinghorne and Julien, 2019).
Research questions
The following questions motivated this study:
What are the instructional practices of librarians with responsibility for information literacy instruction in academic libraries in Israel?
What are the challenges faced by these librarians in their instructional roles?
What are some of the opportunities for improvement in information literacy instruction practice?
Methods
This research study obtained ethical approval from Bar- Ilan University. Data were collected via an online survey. Respondents were asked for demographic data to identify the context in which they worked, such as the kind of library they worked in, the size of their undergraduate population, and their job title. The survey focused on instruction practices, definition of information literacy, and assessment of instruction. Addressing instruction practices, participants were asked if their instruction focuses on any particular discipline and if their library offers any formal or informal instruction. Further, they were asked if they present written objectives for their instruction, who takes responsibility for instruction, what proportion of staff time is spent on instruction, and what proportion of the student population gets information literacy instruction. They were also asked about the content and methods of instruction, the impact of information technology on instructional methods and content, and about the current and ideal instructional objectives. Issues of information literacy explored what constitutes information literacy, who should take responsibility for developing information literacy skills in students, and to what extent is instruction informed by the ACRL Framework. Participants were also asked about the quality of instruction and how it is assessed. They were asked whether instruction is meeting objectives and about methods of assessing student learning, methods of evaluating instruction, financial and nonfinancial support for instructional work, marketing of instruction, and challenges to instruction. The survey instrument was borrowed from Julien et al. (2018), and was translated from English to Hebrew. The survey is linked below, and the English version is provided as an appendix in Julien et al. (2018).
The survey was intended to take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Participants were recruited from Israeli academic libraries, via email requests sent in May 2018 to the directors of the main Israeli university and college libraries, asking them to address the questionnaire to librarians whose focus is information literacy. The introduction to the survey specified that professional academic librarians (that is, those employed in university or college libraries) who had responsibilities for information literacy instruction were the target sample (see English version of the survey in Julien et al., 2018). Consent to participate in the survey was implied by completion of the survey. The questionnaire appeared in Google Docs: https://forms.gle/1oy1sRijtXxAKUES9 and was open until July 2018. Google Docs provided basic quantitative analyses of data, and responses to open-ended items were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis method (Julien, 2008).
Results
In Israel there are about 100 academic libraries and researchers addressed 22 academic libraries that are located in central universities and colleges in Israel. The total number of respondents was 80. The largest proportion (57.5%, n=46) of respondents work in colleges, while 37.5% (n=30) work in universities, and the rest (5%, n=4) work in special libraries such as the national library. The largest proportion (61.3%, n=49) work in institutions with fewer than 10,000 undergraduate students; 26.2% (n=21) work in institutions with 10,000 to 20,000 students, and 12.5% (n=10) work at institutions with more than 20,000 students. These data are summarized in Table 1.
Respondents’ workplaces.
Total exceeds 100 owing to rounding.
Of the respondents 41% (n=33) provided their job title as “librarian”, 35% (n=28) as “instruction librarian”, and others mentioned concepts such as “information professional”, and “head of the library”. Sixty-five participants indicated that their library focuses on a particular discipline or subject area. The largest proportion (46.15%, n=30) focus on social sciences, 30.75% (n=20) on exact sciences, and 23% (n=15) on humanities. Thus, the data indicate that most respondents worked in libraries with specific academic collections.
When asked who had primary responsibility for instruction (and allowed to “check all that apply”), the majority of respondents put reference service librarians at the top of the list, with 71.3% of all responses (n=57). Full-time instructional librarians were also seen as responsible for instruction, receiving 15% of all responses (n=12). Other librarians were also considered to carry responsibility for instruction by 24 respondents (30%).
Instructional practices
In terms of time spent on instruction by staff other than full-time instructional staff, the survey differentiated between time spent at the start of academic terms versus the rest of the year. Respondents estimated that staff spend significant time on instruction at the start of the academic term. Of the total respondents, 41 (51.2%) said staff spend up to 25% of their time on instruction, 31 (38.7%) said staff spend 26–50% of their time on instruction, 5 (6.3%) said staff spend 51–75% of their time on instruction, and three (3.7%) said staff spend more than 75% of their time on instruction. In contrast, respondents estimated that, during the remainder of the academic year, non-full-time instructional staff continue to spend time on instruction. Among respondents 49 (61.3%) said staff spend up to 25% of their time on instruction, 24 (30%) said staff spend 26–50% of their time on instruction, 6 (7.5%) estimated staff spend 51–75% of their time on instruction, and 1 (1.2%) estimated that staff spend more than 75% of their time on instruction during the remainder of the academic year. These data are displayed in Table 2.
Instruction staffing.
Total exceeds 100 because respondents could choose more than one answer.
Most respondents reported that teaching information literacy is a shared responsibility with teaching faculty and with the students, themselves (see Table 3).
Respondents’ views on academic librarians’ level of responsibility for various aspects of information literacy.
Totals do not equal 100 because another category “who else should be responsible” accounted for some responses. The “others” listed were primarily teaching and students themselves.
First-year students are the focus of 74% (n=59) of respondents, and 61.3% (n=49) of respondents focus on undergraduates in particular disciplines; 57% (n=46) focus on graduate students, 23% (n=16) focus on PhD students, and 3.1% (n=25) of respondents offer instruction to teaching faculty. The largest proportion of respondents (33.8%, n=27) estimated that they reach fewer than 50% of their undergraduates with their instruction; 26.3% (n=21) reach 76–100% of their undergraduates, 21.2% (n=17) reach 50–75% of their undergraduates, and 11.3% (n=9) could not decide. The vast majority (81.3%, n=65) offer formal instructional opportunities in their libraries (that is, scheduled in advance). Participants who work in libraries that do not offer formal instruction provided reasons such as: “there were formal instruction in the past, however, now it was changed into an online one” and “it is not efficient”. We offer instructions to those who request it”. Sixty-five respondents (81.3%) offer formal instruction, and 71.3% (n=57) have a written statement of objectives for their instruction. The most widely reported foci for instruction are databases (98.8%, n=78), library use in general (90%, n=72), library catalogue (80%, n=64), search strategies (79%, n=63), and bibliographic management tools (57.5%, n=45). The data on instruction foci are provided in Table 4.
Instruction topics.
Respondents primarily use one-on-one instruction (80%, n=64), group instruction courses/subjects in the library (67.5%, n=54), lectures, demonstrations in subject classes (63.7%, n=51), hands on instruction in computer labs (61.3%, n=49), self-paced library tours (61.3%, n=49), group library tours (56.3%, n=45), and credit courses (28.7%, n=23). The data on methods of instruction are provided in Table 5.
Methods of instruction.
Respondents noted that technology has affected instructional delivery and content in the past few years; 62.6% (n=50) believe that IT has affected instructional delivery “quite a bit” or “a great deal,” While 77.5% believe that IT has affected content: “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” In addition, 46.1% (n=35) of respondents believe that use of IT has improved students’ interest or participation in instructional opportunities, while 17.1% (n=13) disagree. Those who reported positive changes indicated that using IT has made information literacy instruction more attractive, presents familiar tools to students, makes students more active, and made library searching more pleasant. Most respondents (71%, n=51) also reported that using IT has improved instruction. One commented, “technology has changed databases interface into a pleasant, convenient one”. Other wrote, “IT enables students to be active and it is more interesting than a traditional frontal lesson”. Another noted: “it is easier to explain the material to students”. Another stated: “when students understand one platform they can easily adapt [to] another platform”.
Respondents reported that their primary instructional objective is to teach students how to locate materials in the library, followed by teaching students general research strategies, and by teaching students to critically evaluate the quality and usefulness of information. Findings are presented in Table 6.
Instructional objectives.
Responses to other survey items reveal that more than half (56.3%, n=45) believe that they are meeting their current instructional objectives, 16.2% (n=13) do not believe they are meeting these objectives, and 27.5% (n=22) do not know. Student learning is primarily not assessed (45%, n=36), or performed through: student self-assessment (26.3%, n=21), questions and activities that are part of the instruction (25%, n=20), and faculty feedback (24%, n=19). Evaluation of the library’s instructional program is informal via informal student feedback (50%, n=40), by informal faculty feedback (44%, n=35), through self- assessment by the librarians themselves (35%, n=28), or not assessed at all (32.5%, n=26).
Publicity is also relatively informal. Most respondents (67.5%, n =64) use personal faculty contact, 58.8% (n=47) send mails to faculty, and 56.3% (n=45) publicize on the library website. Respondents also noted that their instruction is only partly informed by the new Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The largest proportion of respondents (77.5%, n=62) report that the Framework has had no influence or only a minor influence on their practice, while 6.3% (n=5) indicated that it has had a significant influence. Only 1.2% (n=1) has budgeted funds for instruction.
Challenges
A wide range of challenges to instruction were reported. These included difficulties encountered when trying to motivate students to pay more attention to instruction by offering more interesting and attractive instructional experiences (11, 13.75%). As one of the librarians mentioned, “we should attract their attention and create interest among the students”. Another one added, “we should explain to them the importance of information literacy instruction”. A further librarian noted, “we should convince students to use library sources and not only Google”. Other challenges that were presented are: managing heterogeneous student groups (5, 6.25%) (i.e. with different levels of computer, technology and information literacies), needing more time for instruction (10, 12.5%), needing more cooperation from academic staff (9, 11.25%), needing to overcome discipline problems (12, 15%)and students’ outdated perceptions of the library (5, 6.25%) needing to constantly update instructional materials (12, 15%). One of the librarians added: “we also need to expose students to different databases”.
In addition, respondents were given an opportunity to make final open-ended comments. These included a comment that more formal assessment of instruction is needed, and that there should be more instruction overall. One respondent noted that most of the academic staff do not encourage students to use the library. Another expressed concern that since many students work from home, there is little understanding of how they work and whether any information literacy instruction they have received is helpful. Another respondent noted that academic staff should also receive instruction, so they can assist their students in selecting appropriate information sources.
Discussion and conclusions
Opportunities for improvement
Findings present a great commitment to information literacy instruction, as well as some challenges. The data also propose different opportunities for improvement in instructional practice. Although a high percentage of respondents articulate formal and written objectives for the instruction, findings reveal that assessment and evaluation remain largely informal. We think that the absence of systematic assessment of learning outcomes associated with information literacy instruction provides a significant opportunity to improve information literacy instruction. Further, the marketing of instructional opportunities was relatively informal, proposing an area that might be enhanced.
The picture of instructional practices of librarians responsible for information literacy instruction in Israel is that the undergraduate students are the main target population, and this audience is reached mainly through formal, instructional opportunities in libraries. Most of the librarians offer formal instruction and have a written statement of objectives for their instruction. These findings provide librarians with the possibility of presenting the impact the library has in ensuring that students reach competency in information literacy.
The focus of the library instruction is the use of databases, library use in general, library catalogue and search strategies. These findings reflect the needed skills, as well as the pillars of instructional efforts. Some respondents report including topics such as open access, fair use and citation metrics, yet the focus of the instruction is skills-based. However, Israeli librarians still focus their instruction on local searching skills, while there should be a shift towards critical thinking skills instruction and information evaluation.
Furthermore, most of respondents integrate information technology in their instruction. However, the majority of respondents noted that the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education has no influence or only a minor influence on their practice. We may assume that the Framework has not been yet implemented due to its newness, as changes in practice may take time. We recommend Israeli librarians become more familiar with the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education as it can influence their future instruction in positive ways. Librarians in the United States report that using the Framework improves teaching, helps to articulate the value of information literacy and of librarians, encourages and supports collaboration, and presents opportunities for research (Gross et al., 2018).
Regarding libraries’ instructional program evaluation, it seems that the main sources for this evaluation are based heavily on student self-assessments and faculty feedback. Hence, the topics of assessing the quality of instruction and programs are still issues that academic librarians continue to struggle with.
Librarians in Israel face many challenges. The main issues are explaining the importance of information literacy instruction to students and increasing their motivation to take part in these learning opportunities. Other major issues are time and insufficient support. Librarians are frustrated by the notion that they have to teach students who come from different backgrounds together in the course of a one-hour demonstration. Further, they mentioned a lack of cooperation with the academic staff. It seems that librarians need recognition and support from administrators and non- librarians. Moreover, findings reveal that librarians work to educate these stakeholders in the importance of information literacy and the usefulness of instructional partnerships with librarians.
Comparison with international data
The survey findings are largely echoed in data from a recent survey of information literacy instruction in academic libraries in the US (Julien et al., 2018), which is based on a number of surveys conducted in Canada (Julien, 2000, 2005; Julien and Leckie, 1997; Julien et al., 2013; Polkinghorne and Julien, 2019). The American and Israeli surveys were distributed via an online survey, and the instrument used was identical (the only difference was that the language was translated from English to Hebrew), so data are analogous. Yet, there are some differences between the US and Israeli studies. The first is the sample number. The US sample included 622 academic librarians, while the Israeli sample included 80 librarians. This difference stems from the population size in both countries. Further, the Israeli data indicate that most respondents worked in libraries with specific academic collections, whereas the US data indicate that most respondents worked in libraries with general academic collections.
Another main difference addresses librarians’ primary instructional objective. The US librarians noted that their primary instructional objective is to teach students how to critically evaluate the quality and usefulness of information, while the Israeli librarians noted that their primary instructional objective is to teach students how to locate materials in the library. This difference may indicate a distinct approach towards primary instructional objectives. According to Julien et al. (2018), the academic teaching role has changed from a focus on teaching students how to find materials in the library to broader goals that address critical thinking and information evaluation. Hence, we see that the US librarians focus on information evaluation and developing critical thinking skills that reflect higher level thinking levels, while the Israeli librarians still focus on local search skills. A further difference deals with librarians’ policy addressing written statement of objectives for their instruction. More Israeli librarians than US librarians reported that they have a written statement of objectives for their instruction. This may reflect a more systematic approach to instruction in the Israeli context.
The survey results regarding marketing are similar in both countries, suggesting that this could be strengthened in the US as well as in Israel. In the US and in Israel the undergraduate students are the main target population of information literacy instruction, a fact that may reflect the greatest need of this population for information literacy instruction. Further, in both countries it was found out that the focus of the instruction is use of databases, search strategies, library use in general and the library catalogue. This finding implies that librarians in both countries assume that these are the basic, needed skills of their instructional efforts. Another similarity between the two countries is that the majority of respondents noted that the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education has a minor influence on their practice. Hence, as this Framework is relatively new, we assume it will take time until it will be implemented in both countries. The survey results regarding informal assessment and evaluation are similar in the American data. Hence, we see that there are similar opportunities to improve instruction in both countries. In conclusion, respondents in both countries present identical issues and concerns.
Implications
Data from the current survey can inform the preparation of librarians for instructional work. Furthermore, it provides basic understanding of the scope of librarians’ daily practice. It presents areas where opportunities for improvement to practice exist (such as formalizing assessment of student learning, evaluation of instructional programs, and developing marketing expertise). These issues can provide LIS educators content for their courses in their future instruction programs. In addition, these data help to put Israeli librarians’ instructional practices into context. Having a more thorough understanding of their peers’ practices and challenges can help to motivate improvements to those practices and amelioration of the challenges.
Conclusions
Information literacy instruction is an essential professional practice in academic libraries, and academic librarians are those who are supposed to provide information literacy instruction. In order to improve this practice, one should understand the current practices of the field. To date there have been no descriptive published data on those practices for Israeli academic librarians, a gap that this study sought to fill. As information literacy is perceived as a fundamental basic for success in daily life, the workplace and in civic engagement, it is important to advocate best practices for information literacy instruction. The data presented in this study have the potential to identify and promote those best practices. We suggest that a future study use qualitative methods, such as focus groups or interviews to explore and enrich the findings from the current study. Further, we recommend that the current study will be carried out in other countries too, in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of information literacy instruction globally.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
