Reference Services ReviewAn assessment of academic librarians’ instructional performance in Sri Lanka: A surveyLalith Wickramanayake

Article information:To cite this document:Lalith Wickramanayake , (2014),"An assessment of academic librarians’ instructional performance in SriLanka", Reference Services Review, Vol. 42 Iss 2 pp. 364 - 383Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RSR-03-2013-0018

Downloaded on: 11 October 2014, At: 02:16 (PT)References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Isolde Harpur, (2006),"Relationships between Teaching Faculty and Teaching Librarians20061Susan B.Kraat, . Relationships between Teaching Faculty and Teaching Librarians. Binghampton NY, London andVictoria (AU): The Haworth Information Press 2005. 182 pp. paperback US$24.95, ISBN: 978#0#7890#2572#2 Co#published simultaneously as The Reference Librarian, Vol. 43, Nos. 89/90, 2005.", LibraryReview, Vol. 55 Iss 8 pp. 531-532Irene Doskatsch, (2003),"Perceptions and perplexities of the faculty#librarian partnership: an Australianperspective", Reference Services Review, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 111-121Irene Doskatsch, (2007),"From flying solo to playing as a team: Evolution of academic library servicesteams at the University of South Australia", Library Management, Vol. 28 Iss 8/9 pp. 460-473

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 235655 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

An assessment of academiclibrarians’ instructional

performance in Sri LankaA survey

Lalith WickramanayakeFaculty of Agricultural Sciences, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka,

Belihuloya, Sri Lanka

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this research paper is to look at the overall instructional performance ofacademic librarians in Sri Lanka and shed light on the challenges and potential problems facing theimplementation of quality information literacy (IL) in university libraries.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected by means of a questionnaire, which was sentto all professional academic librarians working in Sri Lankan university libraries. The results wereanalyzed using frequency and percentage distributions.Findings – The results reveal that the organizational structures of academic libraries do not clearlyacknowledge the academic librarians’ role in library instruction. Though most academic libraries hadformal instruction policies, the majority had not appointed instruction coordinators. Academiclibrarians were not satisfied with the assessment of their teaching by library administrators, eventhough most of them had teaching experience. Most of the user education programs which theypracticed were not up-to-date. Academic librarians’ interest and positive attitudes with regard to libraryinstruction, particularly for IL was the other significant factor explored by the study.Research limitations/implications – The study focuses only on academic librarians. Theexclusion of other university stakeholders such as teaching staff, students, administrators and othersfrom the study poses a significant limitation.Originality/value – The results of this study can be generalized to academic libraries in Sri Lankaand to academic libraries in other developing countries.

Keywords Information literacy, Academic librarians, Library instruction, Bibliographic instruction,Instructional performance, Library instruction assessment

Paper type Research Paper

IntroductionTraditional user education methods such as library orientation (LO), library instruction(LI), bibliographic instruction (BI), etc. have been gradually changing as a result of thedevelopment of information literacy (IL) initiatives (Ashoor, 2005; Salleh et al., 2011).Warnken (2004) emphasizes that the traditional role of the academic librarian also asinstructor or teacher has significantly changed because of these developments. Thus,academic librarians today need to act beyond the traditional role of acquiring,organizing, disseminating and preserving information. They are expected to educateusers on effective and efficient ways of information retrieval, evaluation and usage inaddition to fulfilling their traditional roles (Jayatissa, 2008; Seneviratne, 2009) or, inother words, they must act as key educators in the teaching, learning and research

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm

RSR42,2

364

Received 21 March 2013Revised 30 July 201321 August 201320 September 201330 October 201318 December 2013Accepted 31 December 2013

Reference Services ReviewVol. 42 No. 2, 2014pp. 364-383© Emerald Group Publishing Limited0090-7324DOI 10.1108/RSR-03-2013-0018

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

environment of their universities. As well as this, “They require new and refined skillsand conceptual understandings which will enable them to reform with an educationalcompetence and professional confidence equal to that of their academic peers” (Peacock,2001). Bewick and Corrall (2010) stress that newly emerging trends in higher education,new learning and teaching approaches in universities as well as new student-centeredmodels and social, political, financial and management issues have formed new rolesand responsibilities for academic librarians. Even more, with the rapid development ofthe ICT sector and the emergence and proliferation of new IL initiatives, continuingprofessional development activities have expanded and changed dramatically; this has,in turn, directly affected the instructional performance of academic librarians.

In particular, the above factors have had a greater influence in the teaching performanceof academic librarians in developing countries than in industrialized countries. As Ashoor(2005) highlights, when developing user education, developing countries face three majorconcerns – the traditional educational system, the low literacy rate and the low level ofpublishing. According to Lwehabura and Stilwell (2008), many developing countries havenot yet seriously considered their user education – especially regarding IL. As a result, theinstruction activities in these countries are considerably weak due to the ineffectiveness ofknowledge and skills development activities. In addition, the unavailability of dedicatedLI/IL policies for most of the institutions, lack of awareness among students about theinstruction sessions, poor attendance of students (for non-credit/optional courses), timeconstraints among academic timetables, shortage of well-trained human resources andunavailability of adequate physical resources alike negatively affect the development ofinstruction activities in academic libraries. Moreover, as Lwehabura and Stilwell (2008)clarify, the lack of proactivity by librarians in instruction, poor faculty librarycollaboration and the un obtainability of necessary support from universityadministrators, teaching faculty, non-academic staff, students and the externalcommunity also present barriers for the development of IL.

However, university libraries in Sri Lanka have understood their role in usereducation for several decades (Jayatissa, 2008, 2009). Contemporary Sri Lankanacademic librarians have been playing traditional professional and managerial rolesalong with the teacher’s/instructor’s role concurrently (Jayatissa, 2009). In fact, mostwell-established universities in the country began their user education programs earlyin the 1970s (Seneviratne, 2009) and eighties (Jayatissa, 2009; Hindagolla, 2012).Although such programs have been in place for several decades, the availability ofpublications on the development of LI and IL is very rare (Wijetunge and Willson, 1998;Wijetunge, 1998). Though this statement is somewhat outdated, the situation remainsunchanged. This may be due to the fact that the formal and well-defined user educationprograms in academic libraries are not widely practiced. “Although librarians acceptthat user education is beneficial, no substantial efforts have been made for initiating andstrengthening of library user education programs in universities in Sri Lanka”(Rathnayake, 2004). Most university libraries conduct their own LI programs which donot align with any national or international standard or model. In other words, theypractice their own instructional methods to educate their users to be well suited withtheir own library environment. Some of their instructional practices have a directrelationship with IL, while some of them are merely traditional LI practices.

During recent years, there has been significant interest in IL in Sri Lanka as well.This may be due to several facts, including the introduction of “Empowering 8” IL model

365

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

in 2004 – a model which targets the school sector in the country (Wijetunge andAlahakoon, 2005) and the availability of several IL workshops and training programslocally during the past few years. This new awakening has had an impact on thehigher-education sector as well, especially the country’s university libraries. This isillustrated by the number of IL programs which have been introduced by someuniversities through their Web sites (Wickramanayake, 2012) and several paperspublished and presented in academic journals and in symposiums.

Studying current user education activities of university libraries in Sri Lanka enablesacademic librarians to better distinguish their changing roles and responsibilities asteachers or instructors. Even more, such a study helps the wider community to reviewthe instructional performance of academic librarians in an effort to better understandthe challenges in and potentials for the implementation of IL for universities in SriLanka. This study collects data from academic librarians by means of a questionnairesurvey. Limitations notwithstanding, the results of this study are useful not only foracademic librarians in Sri Lanka but also for academic librarians in developingcountries to understand their current position as instructors. The results will positionthem to reconsider their role in user education, which will, in turn, help them to enhancetheir instructional skills.

Literature reviewDespite the very limited availability of published materials on user education in highereducation institutes in Sri Lanka, an attempt taken by Rathnayake (2004) to survey usereducation programs in university libraries in Sri Lanka notes a significant landmarkwithin available literature. This study shows that out of the 11 universities selected, 10have conducted 1-2 hours user education programs for first year undergraduates on aregular basis, while one university has conducted student or faculty requested usereducation programs. The composition of identified LI programs varies. Among them,the most widely used methods of instruction were the distribution of library hand books(100 per cent) and class room lecture method (90 per cent). Other instructional methodswere given less priority. Almost all the respondents (100 per cent) agreed that usereducation programs are important for undergraduates, and the majority (54 per cent)strongly agreed that such programs should be incorporated into the curricula in eachuniversity in the study. The lack of audio-visual material, poor cooperation of facultyand administration, insufficient lecture theaters, inadequate time for preparation, poorplanning and students’ poor attendance comprise the major constraints which thisstudy identified as drawbacks for conducting instruction programs.

Hindagolla (2012) discloses the effectiveness of user education programs offered bythe main library of University of Peradeniya. The responses for the instrument werecollected from 263 undergraduates studying in all four years in the Faculty of Arts.These students were asked to answer some questions about the first year LO sessionwhich was integrated with a one-hour library introductory lecture, library tour anddistribution of library guides and handbooks to measure the effectiveness of each usereducational methods. Although the library provides a number of services and facilitiesfor its users, the majority of students are not aware of the interlibrary loan service, newbook reserving facility, check slips facility, searching facility and the audio and CDROM services, owing to the limited coverage of the aforementioned educationalmethods. More than 70 per cent of students were of the opinion that attending user

RSR42,2

366

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

education programs conducted by the library was very useful for the improvement oftheir studies and research. However, the majority was not satisfied with the existinguser education programs due to different factors such as unsuitable time slots,insufficient awareness on e-resources, insufficient coverage of study areas, too manystudents for one group, insufficient information of the program and the limited durationof the program. As suggested by the majority (83.6 per cent), the existing user educationprogram should be modified with the application of new user education methods such asIL to promote resource-based student-centered learning and to promote competencies inlearning to learn.

Reporting findings of two studies, Jayatissa (2008 and 2009) illuminates IL initiativesof the University of Kelaniya. In the first phase of the study, the researcher did two usersurveys of new entrants in 2007 and 2008 to determine their library and informationskills such as reading habits, library use and ICT skills while they were in schools. Fromaround 2,000 new students in each year, 1,000 students were selected randomly for thestudies. The results from these surveys helped the university to identify the extent towhich students had acquired library and information skills and their future requirementof developing such skills. Based on these studies, the library developed an IL programfor 190 new students of the Biological Science Study Program. The library faced severalpractical problems while initiating this program. The main concerns wereunavailability of resource persons, followed by the challenge of logistical issues toconduct this type of program. However, with the help of the Department of Library andInformation Science of the University of Kelaniya, the library staff introduced thiscourse to be completed within 15 hours. The course syllabus included several IL-relatedelements to educate students as well.

The course designers could successfully implement this program with a goodparticipation of students. But, the students increasingly abandoned the course. This isdue to the fact that this program was not aligned with other modules. On the other hand,it was an optional and noncredit course. Consequently, this course had to be cancelledwithout completing due to poor attendance of students.

Another study has been reported by Mashroofa (2009) based on a special workshopconducted for 56 students in the special degree program in social sciences of the SouthEastern University of Sri Lanka. The main objective of this workshop was to developstudents’ IL skills, including information evaluation skills, usage and effectiveapplication of information for learning and research activities.

This workshop was conducted over the course of two days covering eightpre-prepared modules to educate students on IL. These modules included both ILelements and basic LI skills. At the end of the workshop, the students reported that theywere able to formulate research questions, use the library catalog effectively, use printresources effectively, use existing electronic databases and electronic journals, identifyuseful Web sites/search engines/directories, evaluate the quality of informationobtained, avoid plagiarism and use accepted citation styles for both print and onlineresources. Further, the majority of participants (87.03 per cent) responded that theworkshop was very much useful/helpful for their learning and academic activities. Theyresponded that the most important module they were taught was “developing a searchstrategy” (60.7 per cent).

Seneviratne (2009) reports how the LI activities in the University of Moratuwa aregradually changing to IL courses. From 2000, the library of the University of Moratuwa

367

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

introduced different activities such as producing user guides, developing and modifyingtheir Web site to integrate IL tutorials/user guides/instructional documents/virtualtours and frequently asked questions, etc. In addition, from 2002, the library includedaudio-visual aids for user orientation programs and regular user education programs tomake students aware of the development of the library Web site, online public accesscatalog and electronic journals. Another milestone of user education in University ofMoratuwa was the establishment of the “User education Unit” in 2006. With theestablishment of this unit, the library has conducted a variety of workshops andseminars through this center for the student community. These programs educatestudents on special topics such as effective online searching techniques, online publicaccess catalog, literature searching, electronic information sources, managingreferences, etc.

Further evidence of IL education in University of Moratuwa was the establishment of“Communication Skills Development Program”. The main objective of this programwas to make newly enrolled students familiar with the university system beforeattending formal course programs. While this program was working with varioussubject and service areas of the university, it was allocated twenty-four hours per weekthroughout the nine weeks of the IL program. At the end of the program, thecoordinators of each activity evaluated the program based on the students’ log bookswhich were provided to them at the beginning of the program. Due to the absence of awell-defined post-test, the program designers were not able to make suitableamendments and recommendations for the future programs.

Another prominent study has been done by Ranaweera (2010) based on fiveuniversities and one institution in Sri Lanka. As reported, the author categorized mainareas of IL programs and courses such as how to locate resources, information resourceselection, searching electronic databases, search strategies, database searching, Internetsearching and source evaluation, critical evaluation of information, how to avoidplagiarism, academic integrity, academic writing and preparing research proposalsconducted by the selected libraries and institutions. However, Ranaweera reports that ILprograms in Sri Lankan university libraries have only covered some topics such asinformation sources, information technology and information process. The mostimportant topics such as information control, knowledge construction, knowledgeextension and wisdom conceptions have not been covered by the most evaluatedprograms. This study also found that though information skills courses were taught bythe studied universities, the usage of information in problem solving and decisionmaking was not satisfactorily practiced.

As highlighted in the above studies, Sri Lankan academic libraries are still in theinitial stages of development of IL programs. The lack of proper IL programs inuniversity libraries greatly influence students’ information and library skillsdevelopment in Sri Lanka (Jayasundara, 2007). As Ranaweera (2010) emphasizes, therewere no collaborative ventures or programs which incorporated IL with undergraduatecurriculum in Sri Lankan universities until the middle of 2009. This situation stillremains unchanged in most universities. The author suggests that the above reviewedstudies can serve as guidelines for the present study to understand first, how theexisting traditional user education methods are changing to IL programs, and second, tounderstand new development of IL programs in university libraries in Sri Lanka.

RSR42,2

368

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Librarianship in Sri Lankan universitiesThe University Grant Commission (UGC) in Sri Lanka is the apex body of the universitysystem. This commission was set up under an act of parliament (Universities Act no. 16of 1978) to administer and monitor universities belonging to the Ministry of HigherEducation. There are 15 degree awarding public universities belonging to the UGC, andthese are considered as semi-governmental organizations.

In general, the aforementioned universities have been established in the traditionalBritish pattern. The academic positions including library professionals have beenranked based on the above pattern (Wijetunge, 2001; Jayatissa, 2008). According to themanagement hierarchy of academic libraries in Sri Lankan universities, the chiefexecutive officer of the library is the Librarian. “In the Sri Lankan universities, theLibrarian has the same status as a Dean of a faculty and academically enjoys theequivalent position of a Professor” (Wijetunge, 2002). As a provision of the UniversitiesAct (Universities Act no. 16 of 1978), university librarians should be necessarily amember of the Senate and the secretary to the Library Committee on ex officio. Inaddition to the Librarian, there may be Deputy Librarians (equivalent to AssociateProfessor), Senior Assistant Librarians (Grade I and II) and Assistant Librariansconfirmed/probationary. These positions should directly report to the UniversityLibrarian; all these positions are regarded as academic positions, equivalent to faculty ofuniversities, and are afforded the same salaries and other privileges. The professionalstaff is recruited in accordance with the rules and regulations implemented to recruitteaching staff of the universities. According to the Establishment Code of the UGC,junior professional staff members (Assistant Librarian) must have acquired a first orsecond class honors degree in any discipline and necessarily should complete apostgraduate degree (MA, MSc or MPhil degrees) in Library and Information Science(LIS) to be promoted to the next grade within six years of recruitment.

In addition to the aforementioned 15 universities, there are 3 other degree awardingpublic universities in Sri Lanka, 2 of which are governed by the Ministry of HigherEducation and the other by the Ministry of Defense. These institutions differ from eachother in terms of student enrollment levels, selection for certain courses taught and theirduration. However, the overall status (recruitment, promotion, salaries, other privileges,etc.) of academic librarians in these universities is equivalent to the aforementioneduniversities because they too also usually adhere to UGC’s Establishment Code, rules,regulations and circulars, despite the fact that they are not included in the UGC.

Research questions and objectivesLI is still a core service in Sri Lankan university libraries, and it has also been consideredas an important competency of academic librarians. The enthusiasm of the academiclibrarians in LI increases the quality of university library in LI. But, where are we now?Have Sri Lankan university librarians acquired enough professional qualifications andtraining to conduct and provide meaningful LI programs? Do they engage in educationwithout having the required experience in teaching/instruction and pedagogical skillsthat can be applied to LI? How does the present situation in instruction affect theimplementation of IL? In addition to these questions, this study measures whetherinadequate resources (physical and human), unavailability of nationally acceptablepolicy or poor faculty – librarian collaboration have an effect on current LI programs.

369

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Finally, the study also measures the types of challenges that have negatively affectedthe implementation of IL programs.

To explore the above questions, the following objectives were formulated for thestudy:

• to investigate and analyze existing LI activities and strategies in universitylibraries;

• to identify academic librarians’ teaching/instruction methodologies;• to identify burdens or negative factors (attitudinal, personal, administrative,

financial, technological, etc.) which affect LI;• to identify faculty – library collaboration which is currently in practice in LI; and• to identify the challenges and potentials which may impact the implementation of

IL programs.

MethodologyThe present study addresses all academic librarians (Chief Librarians, DeputyLibrarians and Senior Assistant Librarians Grades I and II and Assistant Librariansconfirmed and probationary), with the exception of Temporary Assistant Librariansbecause they are not assigned responsibilities for LI and are regarded as lessexperienced. When the research was conducted, the overall population of the universitylibrarians in Sri Lanka was 132. Their personal information such as e-mails, postaladdresses and telephone numbers were collected from a “Directory of UniversityLibrarians’ in Sri Lanka” and from academic librarians’ personal information availablefrom the Web sites of selected universities.

Data collection was done by means of questionnaire sent to each librarian. Thequestionnaire was peer-reviewed and tested before being used for data collection. It wasmainly developed based on the Likert scale providing multiple choices tick-boxquestions of varying types to be selected, as well as some open-ended questions toexplain respondents’ ideas, opinions suggestions, etc., in relation to the direct questions.Additionally, some core questions in the questionnaire had optional follow-upsub-questions to answer depending on the responses to the main questions. Thequestionnaire was e-mailed to the overall population – 132 academic librarians. Toincrease the response rate, follow-up reminders were sent several times via e-mail inaddition to telephone reminders. As a result of these processes, the final response rateincreased to 104 (78.78 per cent). The university-wide distribution of academic librariansis included in Table I.

ResultsDescriptive statistics indicate that out of 104 academic librarians, 40 (38.46 per cent)responses were male, whereas 64 (61.54 per cent) were female.

Demographic and background information of respondentsThe first section of the questionnaire was designed to assess the demographic andbackground information of the respondents. In this regard, academic librarians wereasked to state their academic qualifications. Of the 104 academic librarians, 84 (80.77 percent) had earned at least master’s degrees in LIS. They had very rarely engaged withstudies leading to doctoral degrees in LIS because only 4 (3.85 per cent) respondents had

RSR42,2

370

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

acquired PhDs when the research was in operation. Figure 1 shows the results achievedfor the question.

The respondents were asked to explain whether they had earned professionalqualifications (other than university degrees) in relation to their career. Of all the 104respondents, only 46 (44.23 per cent) responded positively.

The results further reveal that academic library administrators employ only 7 (6.73per cent) academic librarians as “head of library instruction/instruction coordinator orinstruction librarian”. The others belonged to a variety of job categories which were notrelevant to LI. Table II shows the overall results received for the question.

Bachelordegree

Postgraduatediploma

Masterdegree

Doctoraldegree

Total 10.58% 4.81% 80.77% 3.85%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

perc

enta

ges o

f res

pons

es

Figure 1.Highest qualifications

achieved in LIS (N � 104)

Table I.University-wise

distribution of academiclibrarians

Names of the universities Male Female Total

University of Colombo 3 14 17University of Peradeniya 3 15 18University of Sri Jayewardenepura 2 5 7University of Kelaniya 5 10 15University of Moratuwa 4 4 8University of Jaffna 2 7 9University of Ruhuna 7 3 10The Open University of Sri Lanka 2 7 9Eastern University of Sri Lanka 5 2 7South Eastern University of Sri Lanka 3 1 4Rajarata University of Sri Lanka 2 4 6Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka 4 1 5Wayamba University of Sri Lanka 3 2 5Uva Wellassa University 1 2 3University of the Visual & Performing Arts 2 1 3Buddhasravaka Bhiksu University 1 0 1Buddhist and Pali University 1 1 2General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University 1 2 3Total 51 81 132

371

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

As highlighted in Table II, very few academic librarians had been assigned duties inrelation to instructional activities. Interestingly, for the next question, of all therespondents (104), around 50 per cent of academic librarians responded, as they hadsubstantial (more than 5 years) experience as teachers/instructors in a library classroomsetting. This may be due to the fact that some of them might have held instructionalpositions prior to the operation of present study, or some might have taught in thelibrary setting, even though their job was not related to teaching. The results achievedfor the question is shown in Figure 2.

Application of a variety of activities and concepts with relation to LIThe respondents were asked whether they “practiced any formal library instructionpolicies of conducting library instruction”. Out of the 104 academic librarians, 57 (54.81per cent) answered positively. For the next question, the respondents were askedwhether their libraries had measured “issues related to the improvement or assessmentof librarians’ teaching skills within the past five years”. The majority (56.73 per cent)responded negatively for this question.

As confirmed above, the majority of respondents practiced formal LI policies inconducting LI. Thus, all respondents (104) were asked to explain “what type ofinstruction methods that they used for educating users”. Respondents were advised to

Table II.Duties assigned toacademic librarians(N � 104)

Duties assigned Frequency Percentage

Chief librarian 16 15.38Head of Library Instruction/Instruction Coordinator or InstructionLibrarian 7 6.73Head of Reference Services/Information Services/Reference Librarian/Information Desk Librarian 7 6.73Head Client Services 10 9.62Subject Librarian/Subject Reference Librarian 11 10.58Head of Technical Services/Librarian in Cataloguing/Classification 22 21.15Librarian in IT/Web Developer 6 5.77Others (merely Senior or Assistant Librarians) 25 24.04Total 104 100

30.77%

22.12%

33.65%

5.77%

7.69%

No experience01 - 05 years06 - 10 years11 - 15 years16 - 20 yearsFigure 2.

Duration of experience asteachers/instructors(N � 104)

RSR42,2

372

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

check all the relevant instruction methods given in the question. Table III illustrates howthe academic librarians conducted user awareness programs for their library members.The results demonstrate that most of the academic librarians were interested inconducting LO programs rather than conducting formal BI/LI programs.

The above situation can be further verified by the results achieved for the nextquestion. At this point, all respondents (104) were asked to check each and everyrelevant concept given in the question. The results archived for the question areincluded in Table IV. As these results confirm, the academic librarians in universitiescovered certain important LI concepts such as “problem-based learning and critical

Table III.Instruction methods

practiced in the universitylibraries (N � 104)

Instruction methods Positive responses Percentage

Group library tours 92 88.46Library guides/handbooks 89 85.58Hands-on instruction in the library 72 69.23Group instruction for specific courses 55 52.88Individualized-instruction 47 45.19Computer-assisted instruction 38 36.54Pathfinders or subject guides 33 31.73Classroom lectures and demos 28 26.92E-learning instructions 18 17.31Non-credit course 12 11.54Self-paced library tours 11 10.58Credit course 5 4.81

Table IV.Different concepts covered

while conducting LI

Different concepts covered in LI Positive responses Percentage

Different types of teaching and learning resources (books printedand electronic/reference materials/journals printed andelectronic/CD ROM, etc.) 90 86.54Electronic databases/online databases 84 80.77Library online catalog 83 79.81Internet searching 74 71.15Searching techniques/strategies (general searching/advancedsearching) 63 60.58Citation styles (e.g., Vancouver, Harvard, Modern LanguageAssociation, American Psychological Association, AmericanMedical Association, etc.) 43 41.35Plagiarism and copy right law 36 34.62Search engines (individual search engines, e.g. Google, Yahoo!,Mamma, etc. and meta search engines e.g. MetaCrawler, Dogpile,GrabAll. etc.) 35 33.65Subject Guides (eg. virtual libraries/subject trees) andInformation Gateways (e.g. SOSIG, HUMBUL Humanities Hub,British Academy Portal, SciCentral, etc.) 30 28.85Webpage evaluation 19 18.27Academic writing 18 17.31Problem based learning and critical thinking 4 3.85

373

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

thinking”, “academic writing”, “Web page evaluation”, etc. less frequently. They paidmore attention to some concepts which were mostly being covered while conducting LOprograms for first year students.

LI improvement activitiesAll respondents (104) were instructed to explain how important the items included inTable V were in terms of their potential to improve the quality of teaching in theirlibraries. Each statement was responded by � 50 per cent of academic librarians as“most important” or “important”. Table V mirrors the results achieved for the question.

Assessment of academic librarians’ teachingSri Lankan academic libraries use different assessment mechanisms to assess academiclibrarians teaching skills. Therefore, the respondents were asked to check all therelevant teaching assessment methods given in the question. Out of five categories, only“students’ evaluation of instruction” had been ranked by the majority (55.77 per cent).The other important mechanisms had not been utilized widely for the assessment ofacademic librarians’ teaching by the library administrations. The existing situation inthis regard can be understood according to the analyzed data recorded in Table VI.

In relation to the above question, respondents were asked to explain whether the“assessment of teaching was part of their formal annual review and/or promotion andtenure process”. Of all the academic librarians (104), 43 (41.35 per cent) respondedpositively.

Faculty – library collaboration for LIAll the academic librarians were asked to explain whether “their libraries collaboratewith teaching/academic departments in conducting library instruction”. Of all theacademic librarians (104) 62 (59.62 per cent), respondents confirmed this by replyingpositively to the question.

The next question was an optional follow-up sub-question which required answersfrom positive respondents on the above. Thus, the positive respondents (n � 62) wererequested to clarify “in what ways their libraries collaborated with teaching/academicdepartments in delivering/conducting library instruction”. The respondents wereallowed to check all the answers that apply. Out of the 62 respondents, the majority ofthem (61.29 per cent) had responded only for one category. The other categories received� 30 per cent responses as highlighted in Table VII.

Measuring faculty satisfaction in LIMeasuring faculty satisfaction with LI is very important because the data gained fromsuch assessment are essential for the reevaluation and further development ofinstructional activities in an academic library. Therefore, academic librarians wereasked to respond whether their “libraries had an assessment instrument to measurefaculty satisfaction with library instruction”. Out of the 104 academic librarians, only 10(9.62 per cent) responded positively.

The above question had follow-up sub-questions to answer depending on the positiveanswers to the main question. Hence, the positive respondents (n � 10) were asked “howthe data on the completed faculty response forms had been used”. Out of the 10 academiclibrarians, 8 (80 per cent) replied that they “had used data for annual review in libraryinstruction and/or in tenure and promotion decisions”, whereas 5 (50 per cent) answered

RSR42,2

374

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Table V.LI improvement activities

(N � 104)

LIim

prov

emen

tact

iviti

es

Ran

ksM

ost

impo

rtan

t(%

)Im

port

ant

(%)

Som

ewha

tim

port

ant

(%)

Less

impo

rtan

t(%

)U

n-im

port

ant

(%)

Ong

oing

in-h

ouse

trai

ning

prog

ram

sre

late

dto

teac

hing

skill

s58

(55.

77)

27(2

5.96

)13

(12.

50)

4(3

.85)

2(1

.92)

Libr

ary

adm

inis

trat

ion

prom

otes

inst

ruct

ion

asa

core

libra

ryse

rvic

e37

(35.

58)

36(3

4.62

)25

(24.

04)

4(3

.85)

2(1

.92)

Ava

ilabi

lity

offu

ndin

g&

rele

ase

time

(sab

batic

al/p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

entl

eave

)for

inst

ruct

iona

lim

prov

emen

tact

iviti

es36

(34.

62)

47(4

5.19

)9

(8.6

5)5

(4.8

1)7

(6.7

3)T

each

ing

issp

ecifi

cally

reco

gniz

edin

annu

alre

view

san

d/or

inte

nure

and

prom

otio

nde

cisi

ons

(whe

reap

plic

able

)28

(26.

92)

36(3

4.62

)25

(24.

04)

4(3

.85)

11(1

0.58

)A

vaila

bilit

yof

inst

ruct

iona

lco

nsul

tant

s/m

ento

rson

cam

pus

21(2

0.19

)40

(38.

46)

26(2

5.00

)15

(14.

42)

2(1

.92)

375

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

that they had used them “to assess the effectiveness of the library’s instructionalservices”. Another 4 (40 per cent) responded that they had used them “as feedback forthe librarian who conducted the instructional session”.

The above respondents (n � 10) were asked whether the “faculty responses receivedfor the above questions compiled and/or were analyzed to develop profiles of individuallibrarians’ effectiveness in delivering library instruction”. Out of the 10 academiclibrarians, 8 (80 per cent) responded positively.

Though the response rate for the statements of the follow-up sub-questions washigher, the overall assessment of faculty’s satisfaction with regard to LI was very poorowing to the lack of considerable amount of positive responses to the main question.

Measuring students’ satisfaction in LIStudents’ satisfaction with regard to LI constitutes another important factor which wasconsidered in this study. For this purpose, the academic librarians were asked torespond whether “their libraries had used an assessment instrument to measurestudents’ satisfaction with library instruction”. Of the 104 academic librarians, 54 (51.92per cent) responded positively to the question.

The above positive respondents (n � 54) were asked to explain “how the data on thecompleted students’ response forms were used”. According to the answers given for thethree statements, there was not a single statement which had had a response of � 50 percent. Out of the 54 academic librarians, 20 (37.03 per cent) responded that they had used

Table VI.Assessment methods thatused to measure academiclibrarians’ teaching(N � 104)

Assessment methods Positive answers Percentage

Self-report/reflection 42 40.38Supervisor’s/coordinator’s evaluation of instruction, assessmentof handouts prepared for sessions 35 33.65Students’ evaluation of instruction (e.g., classroom evaluationform) 58 55.77Peer evaluation of instruction 35 33.65Evaluation of teaching portfolios 24 23.07

Table VII.Collaboration betweenlibrary and faculty indelivering/conducting LI(N � 104)

Collaboration methods Positive sponsors Percentage

Librarians in my university provide workshops/deliver speciallectures on new information resources available to supportteaching and research through the teaching center/faculties 38 61.29Teaching faculty in my university collaborate with the libraryof assessing students’ information competency 19 30.65My library collaborates in the development, design, deliveryand evaluation of library instruction program with theinstitution’s course design center/faculties/departments 18 29.03My library collaborates with instruction librarians from otheracademic institutions 12 19.35Librarians in my university participate in campus-wideprograms focused on the assessment of teaching and learning 8 12.9

RSR42,2

376

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

completed students’ response forms “as feedback for the librarians who conducted theinstructional session”, 19 (35.18 per cent) replied that they had used them “to assess theeffectiveness of the library’s instructional services”, whereas 13 (24.07 per cent) said thatthey “had used data for annual review in library instruction and/or in tenure andpromotion decisions”.

Then, the above respondents (n � 54) were asked whether the “students’ responsesgiven for the above questions compiled and/or were analyzed to develop profiles ofindividual librarians’ effectiveness in delivering library instruction”. The majority(77.77 per cent) responded negatively.

Application of library skills for day-to-day learning activitiesAcademic librarians were asked to explain whether they had tested “students’ libraryskills and application of such skills for day-to-day learning activities” as part of theirlibrary’s instructional services. The results confirmed that the academic libraries wereextremely weak in this regard because out of the 104 academic librarians, only 19 (18.27per cent) had responded positively.

Understanding the importance of implementation of IL and its challenges andpotentialsThis study aimed to assess the present situation of IL in academic libraries in Sri Lanka.Subsequently, the academic librarians’ views were asked whether they “had practicedany information literacy policy developed by their universities or another nationalbody”. The answers given for the question illustrate the real situation in IL inuniversities in Sri Lanka. Of the 104 academic librarians, only 12 (11.54 per cent) had ILprograms founded on IL policies introduced by their university or any other nationalbody. In other words, the majority (88.46 per cent) of academic librarians were of theopinion that they had no IL policies which may be helpful in the development of ILprograms to be practiced in universities. This can be further clarified according to theanswers received for the next question. The academic librarians who respondedpositively (n � 12) for the above question were asked whether “they had introducedinformation literacy as a credit-bearing module for undergraduate students’ education”.Out of the 12 academic librarians, only 4 (3.84 per cent) academic librarians confirmedthis by responding positively.

In the case of the above, it was found that the majority of academic librarians had notpracticed any IL program. The answers for the next question show how the academiclibrarians ranked each given statement which may have an effect on the implementationof IL programs. The results reveal that the academic librarians understand theirauthority and responsibility for the implementation of IL for their universities. Inaddition, the results show that the academic librarians expect an immediate change intheir institutional policies to facilitate the introduction and implementation of ILprograms. These results are included in Table VIII.

Understanding potential opportunities available in the implementation of ILThe respondents reveal some interesting opportunities which may be helpful in theimplementation of IL for their institutions. These results were derived from anopen-ended question. The researcher prepared a coder to analyze a variety of responsesreceived for the question, to classify them in a systematic way and to mark frequency ineach category. The overall potential opportunities available for implementation of IL for

377

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Table VIII.The facts that affect forimplementation of ILprograms (N � 104)

Som

eim

port

antf

acts

that

affe

ctfo

rim

plem

enta

tion

ofIL

prog

ram

s

Ran

ksM

ost

sign

ifica

nt(%

)Si

gnifi

cant

(%)

Low

sign

ifica

nt(%

)Le

sssi

gnifi

cant

(%)

Leas

tsig

nific

ant(

%)

Ava

ilabi

lity

ofw

ell-d

efine

din

form

atio

nlit

erac

ypo

licy

47(4

5.19

)44

(42.

31)

8(7

.69)

5(4

.81)

0In

trod

uctio

nof

info

rmat

ion

liter

acy

asco

mpu

lsor

yco

urse

for

unde

rgra

duat

est

udie

sin

the

univ

ersi

ty57

(54.

81)

40(3

8.46

)5

(4.8

1)2

(1.9

2)0

Tho

roug

hun

ders

tand

ing

ofth

eim

port

ance

ofin

form

atio

nlit

erac

yby

both

facu

ltyan

dad

min

istr

atio

nof

the

univ

ersi

ty59

(56.

73)

34(3

2.69

)8

(7.6

9)3

(2.8

8)0

Posi

tive

attit

udes

ofun

iver

sity

adm

inis

trat

ion

and

the

facu

ltyto

war

dth

elib

rary

inge

nera

l69

(66.

35)

27(2

5.96

)8

(7.6

9)0

0Po

sitiv

eat

titud

esan

dac

tive

invo

lvem

ento

flib

rari

ans

inth

isre

gard

71(6

8.27

)29

(27.

88)

4(3

.85)

00

Ade

quat

ehu

man

and

phys

ical

reso

urce

s37

(35.

58)

52(5

0)15

(14.

42)

00

Ade

quat

etim

efo

rth

elib

rari

ans

37(3

5.58

)43

(41.

3520

(19.

23)

4(3

.85)

0Pr

ofes

sion

alde

velo

pmen

topp

ortu

nitie

san

dtr

aini

ngfo

rth

epu

rpos

efo

rlib

rari

ans

67(6

4.42

)31

(29.

81)

6(5

.77)

00

RSR42,2

378

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

universities are classified in Table IX. According to the table, most classified items hadbeen responded by � 50 per cent of academic librarians. This means that more than atleast 50 per cent of them had no such opportunities in their academic libraries in theimplementation of IL. In reality, though the majority of academic librarians needed toimplement IL programs for their universities, they suffered from the lack of physical andhuman resources and training. In addition, the poor attitude of faculty, administrativestaff and students toward librarians’ teaching and IL have had negative effects.

Understanding obstacles which may affect implementing ILThe above results can be explained by reviewing comments that the academic librariansmentioned at the end of the questionnaire. Some declared that the curricula of theiruniversities had not been designed to provide room for LI or IL programs and also theirteaching faculty and university administration were reluctant to allocate several periodsfor library activities in their teaching timetables. In addition, the faculty and universityadministrations had not understood the importance of the implementation of IL forinstitutional teaching. Thus, some academic librarians suggested that the faculty anduniversity administrations should change their attitudes and become thoroughly awareof the importance of IL for their universities.

Furthermore, some academic librarians mentioned that they were not invited whenthe university had workshops, seminars, trainings, etc., related to academic and

Table IX.Potential opportunities

available forimplementation of IL

(N � 104)

Available opportunities for implementation of IL for universitylibraries in Sri Lanka Frequency Percentage

Availability of high-speed Internet access 65 62.5Trained academic librarians/paraprofessionals are available at thelibrary 57 54.8Good learning environment of the library 52 50Availability of printed and electronic resources (study materials) 49 47.11Information skills/library skills programs have already beenstarted/such programs can develop up to IL 39 37.5Librarians’ enthusiasm and readiness to promote IL 37 35.57IT-literate students and faculty 32 30.76Positive attitudes and interest of the teaching faculty toward IL 29 27.88Availability of equipment (physical resources) 27 25.96Positive attitudes of the students 24 23.07Planning and developing IL modules to introduce for curriculumsas credit bearing courses 21 20.19Support from university administration/positive attitudes ofadministrators 17 16.34Collaboration with teaching faculty 16 15.38Dedicated leadership in libraries provide quick decisions toward IL 13 12.5Availability of virtual resource centers with several PCs/e-learningcenters/multimedia centers 13 12.5Funds for equipment 12 11.53Availability of necessary hardware/software/online resources 11 10.57Librarians attending curriculum development committees 10 9.61Availability of seminar rooms/pace in the library 9 8.65High demand of society for information literate graduates 9 8.65

379

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

teaching development. According to some respondents, they were not invited to serve oncurriculum revision committees. Therefore, they could not keep up with the curriculumdevelopment, revision and evaluation processes in their universities. Moreover, someacademic librarians stated that the university faculty and administrations hadneglected them. In addition, some respondents declared that the university culture hadnot accepted academic librarians’ teaching as a requirement for teaching and learningprocess. Some academic librarians affirmed that they were not allocated enough fundsfor training, materials, instruments and resources. The other obstacle mentioned wasnonavailability of enough space in traditional library buildings in the universities tohandle such activities.

DiscussionThe results reveal that more than two-thirds of academic librarians had earned at leasta master’s degree in LIS. This may be due to the fact that the junior persons who arerecruited for the assistant librarian post must necessarily acquire postgraduatequalification within a reasonable period of time to qualify for the next grade. The resultsfurther reveal that the academic librarians in Sri Lanka had very rarely engaged withstudies leading to doctoral degrees in LIS.

As the analysis confirms, Sri Lankan academic libraries are still conventionalorganizations. Their organizational structures do not clearly reflect academic librarians’roles in LI. While most academic libraries had formal instruction policies and qualifiedacademic librarians with good teaching experience, only a few academic librarians hadbeen appointed as instruction coordinator/instruction librarian/head of instruction, etc.This may be due to the fact that the chief librarians in most universities coordinateinstructional activities. Indeed, most academic librarians performed as instructors orteachers in university settings, though they were not assigned such duties formally. Asthe majority of respondents further confirmed, library administrations have notdiscussed issues related to the improvement or assessment of librarians teaching skillswithin recent years. Though systematic mechanisms for the assessment of academiclibrarians’ teaching were available in academic library settings, the majority ofuniversity librarians had not been satisfied with the poor mechanisms applied for theassessment of their teaching. Out of five categories (Table VI), only one, “students’evaluation of instruction”, had been ranked by the majority. Besides, academiclibrarians were very rarely involved in assessment of LI programs. As the resultsconfirm, � 80 per cent of academic librarians had not tested students’ library skills andapplication of such skills for their day-to-day learning activities.

Moreover, the results reveal (Table III) that the academic librarians in universitieshad covered certain important LI methods for students from time to time. The overallresults given for this question confirm that the academic librarians were more interestedin LO programs than conducting LI/BI programs, though most of the academic librarieshad developed LI policies and had qualified academic librarians with good teachingexperience. Furthermore, the academic librarians in universities covered certainimportant LI concepts (Table IV) less frequently. They paid much more attention tosome concepts, e.g., those that were merely on finding information. For each LIimprovement activity categorized in Table V, � 50 per cent of academic librariansresponded positively by considering their potentials to improve the quality of teachingin their libraries. The collaboration which academic librarians had with the teaching

RSR42,2

380

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

faculty was reported as a positive relationship. Yet, the results of the question whichmeasured collaboration methods between the above two groups (Table VII) showedpoor association. Although the majority of academic libraries had not measured facultysatisfaction with LI, the majority of them had measured students’ satisfaction with LI.

Development and initiation of IL programs in the university system were the othermost important factors which this study explored. As some respondents explain, ILprograms have been introduced for some faculties in several universities. The abovediscussed literature also provides substantiation in this regard (Jayatissa, 2008, 2009;Mashroofa, 2009; Seneviratne, 2009; Ranaweera, 2010). However, the IL movement in thehigher education system cannot yet purely extract from the existing traditional usereducation methods. Almost all the university libraries in the country practice their owninstructional methods to educate their users that suit their own library environment.Some of their instructional practices have direct relationships with IL, while some ofthem are merely conventional LI practices.

As shown in the analysis, the IL movement in Sri Lankan universities is still in itsinfancy. Around 10 per cent of respondents confirmed that they had IL policies, and only4 academic librarians said that they had started IL programs as credit-bearing modulesin their universities. However, � 70 per cent of academic librarians stronglyrecommended each fact categorized in Table VIII that affects the implementation of ILprograms to universities.

The overall potential opportunities available for implementation of IL foruniversities are reflected in Table IX. Most classified items had been responded by � 50per cent of academic librarians. This means that at least 50 per cent of academiclibrarians had no such opportunities, facilities and good working environment in theiracademic libraries for the implementation of IL. Actually, though the majority ofacademic librarians needed to implement IL programs for their universities, theysuffered from lack of physical and human resources and training. In addition, the poorattitude of faculty, administrative staff and students toward librarians’ teaching and ILhad a negative effect. As Peacock (2001) also highlights, academic librarians’ role asteacher or instructor:

[…] is often neither readily recognized nor accepted by the individual academic or the broaderuniversity, and there are number of barriers which exist beyond the control of the librarywhich inhibit a librarian’s ability to fully participate in, and contribute to, the teaching andlearning of the university.

Conclusion and recommendationsAlthough this study has addressed instructional issues of academic librarians in SriLanka, the total outcome of the study may be beneficial to academic librarians in otherdeveloping countries. The findings provide evidence that the LI activities of academiclibraries in Sri Lanka are considerably weak, although most of the academic librarianshad good experience in teaching and user education methods.

To overcome barriers associated with the development of LI in higher education,university library administrations must reevaluate their organization structures byemphasizing LI. The unavailability of a regular assessment mechanism for LI andformulated LI policies for each university has a negative impact on the development oflibrary user education. Thus, university library administrations should introduceregular assessment mechanisms for LI programs while promoting LI as a core library

381

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

service in their organizations. In addition, collaborative efforts are required amongall stakeholders in higher education in planning, developing and implementing LIpolicies which ultimately will have an effect on successful instruction programs.Teacher – librarian collaboration is also essential in converting such theories intopractice.

Providing funds, release time, encouraging academic librarians and especiallyproviding training and professional development opportunities for teaching areessential to increase instructional performance of academic librarians. Recognizingacademic librarians’ teaching for annual reviews and/or in tenure and promotiondecisions is the other most important factor. The positive attitudes, thoroughunderstanding and active involvement of faculty, administrative staff and librarianstoward IL and the introduction of compulsory/elective IL courses for students’ learningare also very important.

ReferencesAshoor, M. (2005), “Information literacy: a case study of the KFUPM library”, The Electronic

Library, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 398-409.Bewick, L. and Corrall, S. (2010), “Developing librarians as teachers: a study of their pedagogical

knowledge”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 97-110.Hindagolla, B.M.M.C.B. (2012), “Restructuring of user education programmes in university

libraries from user perspectives: a case study”, Journal of the University LibrariansAssociation, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Jayasundara, C.C. (2007), “An identification of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) on user perspectivesin diffusing e-Information Service in the University of Colombo Library”, Sri LankanJournal of Librarianship and Information Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-12.

Jayatissa, L.A. (2008), “Developing information literacy skills at the University of Kelaniya – startingpoints”, LINK Connecting Commonwealth Librarians, Vol. 4, August, pp. 6-7.

Jayatissa, L.A. (2009), “A multifaceted program for information skills development: University ofKelaniya”, Journal of the University Librarians Association of Sri Lanka, Vol. 13, specialissue, pp. 5-22.

Lwehabura, M.J. and Stilwell, C. (2008), “Information literacy in Tanzanian universities:challenges and potential opportunities”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 179-191.

Mashroofa, M.M. (2009), “New vistas of information literacy education: a case from South EasternUniversity”, Journal of the University Librarians Association of Sri Lanka, Vol. 13, specialissue, pp. 23-36.

Peacock, J. (2001), “Teaching skills for teaching librarians: postcards from the edge of theeducational paradigm”, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Ranaweera, P. (2010), “Information literacy programs conducted by the universities in Sri Lanka”,Journal of the University Librarians Association of Sri Lanka, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-74.

Rathnayake, A.R.M.M. (2004), “Library user education programs in Sri Lankan universities: anoverview”, Journal of the University Librarians’ Association of Sri Lanka, Vol. 8, pp. 54-64.

Salleh, M.I.M., Halim, A.F.A., Yaacob, R.A.R. and Yusoff, Z. (2011), “Measuring the effect ofinformation literacy on the undergraduates’ academic performance in higher education”,Proceedings of International Conference on Social Science and Humanity (IPEDR Vol. 2),IACSIT Press, Singapore, pp. 506-510, available at: www.ipedr.com/vol5/no2/112-H10267.pdf (accessed 29 July 2012).

RSR42,2

382

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Seneviratne, T.M. (2009), “Going the extra mile: Information skills development at University ofMoratuwa”, Journal of the University Librarians Association of Sri Lanka, Vol. 13, specialissue, pp. 37-52.

Warnken, P. (2004), “The impact of technology on information literacy education in libraries”, TheJournal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 151-156.

Wickramanayake, L. (2012), “Instruction and help services in the academic library websites andweb pages in Sri Lanka: a content analysis”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 377-389.

Wijetunge, P. (1998), “A descriptive survey of library and information science education personnelin Sri Lanka”, Asian Libraries, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 315-324.

Wijetunge, P. (2001), “Training and education of paraprofessionals in Sri Lankan universitylibraries”, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 42 No. 2,pp. 149-160.

Wijetunge, P. (2002), “Adoption of knowledge management by the Sri Lankan UniversityLibrarians in the light of the National Policy on University Education”, InternationalJournal of Educational Development, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 85-94.

Wijetunge, P. and Alahakoon, U.P. (2005), “Empowering 8: the information literacy modeldeveloped in Sri Lanka to underpin changing education paradigms of Sri Lanka”, Sri LankaJournal of Librarianship and Information Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-41.

Wijetunge, P., and Willson, J. (1998), “Perceptions of library and information science educationand training in Sri Lanka”, Proceedings of 64th IFLA General Conference, available at:http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/056-140e.htm (accessed 29 July 2012).

About the authorLalith Wickramanayake is Senior Assistant Librarian at the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. Lalith Wickramanayake can be contacted at:wwk@sab.ac.lk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

383

Assessment ofacademiclibrarians

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Wis

cons

in M

ilwau

kee

At 0

2:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)