faculty voices on the framework: implications for …...694 faculty voices on the framework:...

portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (2018), pp. 693–718. Copyright © 2018 by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 21218.

Faculty Voices on the Framework: Implications for Instruction and DialogueLuMarie F. Guth, Judith M. Arnold, Veronica E. Bielat, Maria A. Perez-Stable, and Patricia Fravel Vander Meer

abstract: Librarians from two research institutions developed a qualitative and quantitative survey to bring faculty voices into the discussion of incorporating the “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education” into instruction. The survey aimed to (1) gauge the level of faculty support for information literacy; (2) solicit rankings of importance for the concepts in the Framework; and (3) elicit responses concerning its language. Results from 237 participants showed support for information literacy and for the Framework, with reservations about its language. Librarians can use these findings to explore a “common” language for promoting the Framework and to identify areas for instructional collaborations.

Introduction

Since the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) introduced the “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education” (the Framework) in 2015 and then adopted it in 2016,1 the library literature has been filled with

articles attempting to contextualize the Framework and find ways to fit it into infor-mation literacy (IL) instruction. Much of the recent discussion focuses on applying the Framework to disciplinary-focused instruction in such areas as art, music, and health sciences;2 or on its advantages for assessment.3 Much other literature deals with the Framework’s promise for transforming IL instruction, as expressed by William Badke, bringing to light the challenges of moving beyond using IL for teaching the superficial nature of “finding stuff.”4 He argued that we have let the nature of one-shot instruction limit the focus of teaching librarians and asserts, “The Framework is a bold attempt to embrace scholarship in a big way, placing IL in its larger context.”5

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.

LuMarie F. Guth, Judith M. Arnold, Veronica E. Bielat, Maria A. Perez-Stable, and Patricia Fravel Vander MeerFaculty Voices on the Framework: Implications for Instruction and Dialogue694

Understandably, much of this discussion is written from the librarian’s perspective, grappling with the task of transforming a skills-based curriculum, as exemplified in the earlier ACRL “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” (the Standards),6 to a concept-based one. This pedagogical transformation was demonstrated in a 2017 article by Zoe Fisher discussing how the Framework can provide structure for an IL credit course.7 The change is further illustrated by other discussions and examples of how to rethink approaches to teaching or how to design instructional activities to help students master the concepts that form the basis of the Framework.8 Largely absent from this conversation about the Framework is the faculty voice, though a review of the literature reveals that faculty have much to say about student IL skills (or lack thereof).

Literature Review

Faculty Voices on Information Literacy

Many higher education faculty have definite opinions regarding their students’ research skills and believe that students need improvement in this area for academic success. Be-gun in 2000, the triennial Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey randomly sampled the evolving teaching, research, and information practices of the professoriat in the United States. The results of the 2015 Ithaka survey, as reported by Christine Wolff-Eisenberg, Alisa Rod, and Roger Schonfeld, indicated that 54 percent of “respondents strongly agreed that their undergraduate students had poor skills related to locating and evaluating scholarly information.” That figure represented a 7 percent increase from the 2012 survey.9 About two-thirds of faculty respondents also “strongly agreed that improving their undergraduate students’ ‘research skills’ . . . was an important educational goal for the courses they teach.”10

The 2015 Library Journal and Gale Cengage Learning survey “Bridging the Librarian-Faculty Gap in the Academic Library” did not directly ask college faculty to comment on their students’ IL skills. However, the survey found that 85 percent of faculty considered the instruction of students in IL either “essential” or “very essential.” In fact, they rated this teaching as the most vital service offered by their academic libraries.11

Stuart Boon, Bill Johnston, and Sheila Webber interviewed 20 English department faculty in the United Kingdom who saw their students as deficient in research skills. Several faculty were interested in making students aware that developing their individual research abilities would make them marketable and desirable in the real world; in other words, the skills would appeal to potential employers.12 Laurie McNamara Morrison interviewed 15 faculty members at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who considered improving students’ research skills integral to their courses’ outcomes. They, too, mentioned the transferability of research skills to the workplace. Faculty felt the need to address their students’ research skills not only because they recognized the students’ need for it but also because they believed it their role as educators.13 Nicole Pagowsky also discussed this transferability issue. She called it preparing students “to meet the demands of the global knowledge economy, and to find jobs.”14

Laura Saunders conducted a random national survey of faculty in anthropology, English literature, political science, psychology, and science and technology to explore fac-

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.

LuMarie F. Guth, Judith M. Arnold, Veronica E. Bielat, Maria A. Perez-Stable, and Patricia Fravel Vander Meer 695

ulty perspectives on IL. She suggested that disciplinary faculty have been largely absent from the broad IL discussion in higher education. Faculty in her survey overwhelmingly reported that IL was important for their students. Asked to rate their students’ ability in seven IL competencies, respondents rated their students “somewhat strong” in six of the areas and “strong” in searching the general Web. Few faculty ranked their students “very poor” or “poor” in any area. Saunders concluded that, while there was room for improvement, students showed some ability with IL skills. She then interviewed 25 fac-ulty members, and the qualitative data told another story. Faculty agreed that students generally need help in developing their IL skills, especially for locating and evaluating information, and that students exhibited poor judgment in selecting sources.15

In 2012, Patricia Fravel Vander Meer, Maria Perez-Stable, and Dianna Sachs reported that faculty rated their undergraduate students’ ability to find information using the library’s resources as less than satisfactory, although juniors and seniors ranked slightly above satisfactory at searching the free Internet.16 These findings supported those of Anita Cannon and several other studies of faculty views on IL and library in-struction.17 Maria Pinto surveyed faculty at the University of Granada in Spain regarding their perceived importance, as researchers, of four areas of IL: (1) searching, (2) evaluation, (3) processing, and (4) communication/dissemination. Faculty ranked searching and communication/dissemination as “very important” and evaluation and processing as “important.”18 Faculty’s understanding of the importance of IL paves the way for librarians to partner with them in delivering IL to students.

Sophie Bury conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with faculty in business and the humanities, sciences, and social sciences at York University in Toronto, Canada. Faculty agreed that IL skills were fundamental in academic research, even for under-graduates. While most faculty agreed that students were skilled at searching the free Internet, they mentioned concerns regarding their students’ ability to identify a work-able research topic; too much reliance on Google and Wikipedia; little knowledge of print sources; inability to successfully search for scholarly information; a lack of critical thinking, especially for sources found on the open Web; and poor skills in documenting and synthesizing sources, occasionally delving into plagiarism.19

Information Literacy and the Faculty/Librarian Disconnect

The research on faculty opinions of IL showed a disconnect between the competencies faculty value, which they find most lacking in their students—evaluation and synthesis of information—and those that instruction librarians view as their primary responsibili-ties—search strategies and tools. Shelley Gullikson conducted a survey of faculty at five Canadian universities asking them to rank information concepts that she had mapped to the outcomes in the Standards. Of the top 10 overall ranked outcomes, 40 percent linked to the evaluation and synthesis outcomes in Standard Three, “evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge

Faculty’s understanding of the importance of IL paves the way for librarians to partner with them in delivering IL to students.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


base and value system.” Twenty percent related to outcomes on determining the infor-mation need in Standard One, “defines and articulates the need for information,” and 20 percent to outcomes on the ethical use of information in Standard Five, “understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.” Ten percent each linked to search outcomes in Standard Two, “accesses needed information effectively and efficiently,” and scholarly communication outcomes in Standard Four, “uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.”20 Gullikson cross-referenced faculty rankings with the ACRL “Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement for Aca-demic Librarians,”21 outcomes deemed the responsibilities of librarians. Of the top 10 ranked concepts that were also the responsibility of librarians, five were mapped to the determination of information need in Standard One and three were mapped to evalua-tion and synthesis in Standard Three.22 This indicated a gap between the stated values of faculty and the responsibility expectations of librarians.

In a study published in 2011, Bury asked faculty at York University to rank the importance of 12 IL competencies on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important). While all the competencies ranked high, with mean scores of 6 or above, the scores relative to one another showed a similar focus on evaluation and synthesis. The highest-ranked competency, with a mean score of 6.64, was related to Standard Three, “Understand how to critically evaluate library information sources found.” The lowest-ranked competencies pertained to Standard One, “Identify information appropri-ate to a given research topic,” with a mean of 6.00, and to Standard Two competencies, “Able to identify appropriate search tools to find needed information” and “Capable of formulating effective search strategies when looking for needed information within online research tools,” tied at a mean of 6.21.23

In the Saunders survey published in 2012, which queried faculty on the information competencies of their students, faculty ranked students highest at searching the Web and lowest at synthesizing information.24 Saunders followed this study with another that surveyed librarians on which competencies they regularly covered in their instruction. Specific search tools ranked highest, with 97.3 percent coverage, and evaluating infor-mation ranked fourth, with approximately 80 percent coverage.25 When asked which competencies librarians spent most time on in their instruction, Saunders found that 68.7 percent devoted most of their teaching time to general or specific search strategies and tools. Only 12 percent reported spending most of their instruction time on evaluat-ing information.26

Faculty and the Framework

Much of the research on faculty perceptions of IL dates from the era of the ACRL Stan-dards and suggests that faculty understand and value the broader concept of IL within the context of their disciplines.27 Similarly, recent articles have noted that the disciplinary focus is important for teaching the threshold concepts, transformative ideas that lead to a new level of understanding, embodied in the Framework. For example, Rebecca Kuglitsch argued that “teaching for transfer” (applying learning from one context to another) can resolve the inherent tension between IL as a skill that can be generalized

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


and as a discipline-specific capability. She argued for placing threshold concepts within a discipline, which would promote a more subtle understanding of the ideas and offer ways to facilitate transfer of the more general threshold concepts to the discipline and then draw analogies with other disciplines.28 Bringing a faculty writing studies director into conversation with a librarian, Brittney Johnson and I. Moriah McCracken contended that threshold concepts offer a common ground and language for collaboration between librarians and faculty—a space in which to discuss IL. They incorporated the disciplinary lens by using a similar document from the field of writing studies, comparing it with the Framework, and then explored how threshold concepts that are common or comple-mentary within the two documents provide a platform that can inform collaborative instructional goals and objectives.29

While Bury noted that few studies on IL report from the faculty perspective, her interviews unearthed themes showing that faculty ideas about IL focused on higher-order thinking, a value that should mesh well with the Framework and threshold concepts. Although she found no major disciplinary differences in their IL definitions, Bury reported that faculty associated IL with other digital literacies.30 A 2017 article by Troy Swanson also represented faculty views. In a librarian-led faculty development course on the Framework, discipline-specific examples helped faculty understand the idea of threshold concepts. When discussing individual frames, faculty could readily link many of the concepts, such as “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual,” directly to their teaching.31 Some frames, however, were unfamiliar to faculty because they were formulated from the perspective of librarianship. “Information Creation as a Process” was one of these; faculty sometimes failed to make the connection that how information is created relates to source evaluation. “Searching as Strategic Exploration” also had a distinctively librarian focus; while faculty value searching skills, they viewed searching as a “transactional process” instead of a “learning process.”32 Kathy Shields and Christine Cugliari described a discipline-focused collaboration between a librarian and faculty member using the frame “Scholarship as Conversation” as the organizing principle and found a stronger and more active learning experience.33 This finding dovetailed with what Johnson and McCracken argued, that reordering the frames, introducing “Scholar-ship as Conversation” first as the “driving” threshold concept, would facilitate teaching and understanding of the other frames.34

Regarding terminology in the Framework, the literature review unearthed a lack of research on faculty reactions to the language of the document. Gullikson’s survey, as noted earlier, addressed faculty perceptions of the Standards, and her findings indi-cated that some faculty found the language confusing and in need of clarification. One respondent described the term information literate as a “horrible term.”35 The author recommended that libraries engage in focus groups with faculty to explore outcomes and promote understanding.36 Additionally, when Jonathan Cope and Jesús Sanabria examined faculty perceptions of IL, interviews indicated that faculty gave serious con-sideration to IL concepts but thought of them in terms of the theory and language of their own disciplines.37 This outcome aligns with the results of Saunders’s 2012 study, which found that the descriptions faculty gave regarding the skills students need aligned with the idea of IL as defined by librarians; however, librarians and faculty did not necessarily share the same definition of IL.38 In a follow-up study from 2013, Saunders concluded

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


it was more important than ever that librarians incorporate the language of the various disciplines into regular communication with faculty. In other words, IL needs to be seated in the “language of faculty, specifically the language of the discipline.”39 Badke stated that the Framework’s complexity makes it difficult to communicate to faculty but that it does reflect scholarship in the disciplines, which is the concern of faculty.40

Context and Rationale for the Study

The literature shows that faculty say students are not information literate, and, in par-ticular, students are weak in searching and evaluation skills. Noting that faculty have

not been consulted in any large-scale study regarding the Framework and its language, the priority in setting up this research was to include the faculty voice. Teaching librarians recognize that imple-menting the Framework must, like any good collaboration, include faculty, but where is the faculty input as the Frame-

work approaches its third year? The Framework includes a “For Faculty” section that suggests opportunities for a disciplinary perspective and then offers various approaches to implementing the Framework.41

A few recent articles have gathered faculty input. For example, Swanson reported informal findings from a workshop on the Frames with seven faculty.42 Grace Kaletski’s study in 2017 analyzed 66 faculty survey rankings of the knowledge practices in the Framework but did not report on disciplinary differences.43 Individual efforts to collabo-rate with faculty in implementing the Framework have been mentioned in the literature review and provide practical examples of how the Framework can offer a common ground for collaboration, especially at the disciplinary level.44 These small study populations and findings, however, because of this singular disciplinary perspective may not reflect a broader faculty perspective on the Framework or apply across disciplines.

A second impetus for the research grew from acknowledging that higher education institutions and their student and faculty populations vary widely, which leads librarians to question how transferable findings are from one institution to the next. Therefore, the researchers designed a project that would include faculty from more than one institu-tion to expand the range of perspectives and possibility for meaningful data. Vander Meer, Perez-Stable, and Sachs, three librarians from Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, had previously gathered faculty input to identify collaborative opportunities and to help shape their instruction program. With a joint project between two similar, research-focused institutions, the librarians could gather data that would expand on the earlier research study on faculty views of library instruction and student skills.45 Similarly, this research study could be compared with Bury’s 2016 analysis that reported faculty definitions of IL and perspectives of student skills that included disciplinary distinc-tions.46 The researchers embarked on a cross-institutional survey involving faculty at Wayne State University (WSU) in Detroit and Western Michigan University (WMU) to determine whether the Framework would provide librarians and disciplinary faculty

Teaching librarians recognize that implementing the Framework must, like any good collaboration, include faculty . . .

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


with a common language to move forward with instruction that is more productive and integrated and that encourages critical thinking.

With those objectives in mind, and since no study in the literature had investigated a range of disciplinary faculty responses to the importance of the individual frames and their language or incorporated perspectives from across institutions, the authors defined the scope of their study to be: (1) to ascertain whether there is a baseline of faculty support for the goal of IL across two research-intense institutions; (2) to solicit faculty feedback on the concepts embodied in the Framework, pinpointing what frames are a priority for their students; and (3) to elicit a response from faculty concerning the language of the Framework to see if disciplinary perspectives could be elicited. By answering these questions, the researchers aspired to explore language for introducing and promoting the Framework. Faculty rankings of the frames in the survey could then serve as cata-lysts for instructional collaborations. Conversations could subsequently begin with the Framework priorities expressed, informed by any disciplinary perspectives revealed.

Methodology

Having made the decision to survey teaching faculty, the three librarians at Western Michigan University reached out to two colleagues at Wayne State University Libraries (a member of the Association of Research Libraries) to inquire if they wished to collabo-rate on this research study. In 2015–2016, the student enrollment at WMU was 23,556, and at WSU, it was 27,222. The potential pool of respondents included 897 faculty at WMU and 1,720 at WSU.

Both institutions received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct the anonymous, online survey using Qualtrics in the spring 2016 semester. Faculty received an e-mail invitation to take part. The survey consisted of 10 qualitative and quantitative (Likert scale) questions. The survey appears in Appendix A. The investiga-tors formulated the following three research questions and developed survey items to obtain faculty responses:

Question 1: For faculty, how important is information literacy for student success?Question 2: How do faculty “rank” the individual frames in importance, and are

there institutional or disciplinary differences?Question 3: How do faculty react to the language of the frames, and are there dis-

ciplinary differences?

Faculty reported demographic data, including their institution, their primary departmental affiliation, and the number of years teaching at the postsecondary level. Next, faculty answered the question “How important do you think it is for university students’ academic success to know how to find, evaluate, and use appropriate informa-tion resources responsibly in their assignments?” using a scale of 1 to 5. Faculty then ranked each of the concepts comprising the six frames on a Likert scale (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) according to how important it was for students to understand the concept.

In the ratings of the frames, the Likert scale mistakenly included a zero. When re-viewing the data, the researchers were unsure what the respondents meant when they chose zero and theorized that they selected it in lieu of an N/A (not applicable) option.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


These occurrences may have impacted the results; however, after running analysis with and without those data points, the researchers found that the rankings or significance of the findings did not change. In succeeding surveys, the investigators would adjust the scale to include only the choice of 1 to 5. Additionally, in the future, the authors would make the quantitative questions required, because a substantial number of respondents had to be removed because they omitted some rankings.

Faculty were asked the open-ended question “Regarding the information literacy concepts above, what alternate terminology might you suggest for relevance and un-derstanding for students in your discipline?” This query invited faculty to suggest other ways of expressing the concepts from their disciplinary perspective to help make the frames more relevant and understandable to their students.

Several additional questions addressed faculty’s collaboration with librarians on the delivery of IL, including what they liked or did not like about IL instruction. The survey also asked faculty to explain why they did not take advantage of collaborating with librarians to deliver IL instruction. The researchers plan to report on the data regarding collaboration, which were enlightening, in a future article.

Summary of Demographic Findings

Data from both institutions were combined in analyzing the results. The researchers received 79 usable surveys from WMU (8.9 percent response rate) and 158 usable sur-veys from WSU (9.4 percent response rate). Faculty self-reported their departmental affiliation in an open-ended field. Departments were categorized into nine consolidated areas based on disciplinary affiliation. For example, the discipline of kinesiology and exercise science was placed under education, consistent with categorization at both institutions. After conferring with the WMU Statistical Consulting Center (https://wmich.edu/statistics/center), the categories were further compressed into the following five areas to achieve higher counts for statistical analysis: education, fine arts (including communication), humanities, social sciences (including business and social work), and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including health sciences, computer science, and the hard sciences). The largest response came from social sci-ences (31 percent), followed by STEM (26 percent), education (16 percent), fine arts (14 percent), and humanities (13 percent).

Faculty were asked to indicate their years of teaching experience: less than two years, two to five years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, or 21 or more years. The results indicated that most faculty respondents, 58 percent, had 11 or more years of college teaching. Twenty percent of the participants had five or less years of college teaching , which was comparable to the 22 percent of faculty who reported 6 to 10 years of aca-demic teaching experience.

Results

Faculty and Information Literacy

As a cornerstone to this research study, faculty responded to the question regarding how important IL is for college students’ academic success. On a sliding scale of 1 to 5

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


(1 = lowest, 5 = highest), faculty ranked the importance of IL at 4.81. Ratings varied by academic area, with humanities at 4.93, followed by a cluster of education, fine arts, and STEM ranging from 4.82 to 4.84, and trailed by social sciences at 4.73. Even the lowest figure reflected that faculty comprehended the value of IL skills to their students’ success.

Faculty Ranking of Individual Frames

To explore faculty perceptions regarding the individual frames, faculty were asked to rank each frame from 1 to 5 in terms of how important each frame was to students’ academic success. All frames averaged above 4.0. Faculty ranked the frames as follows: “Research as Inquiry” (4.50), “Searching as Strategic Exploration” (4.46), “Information Has Value” (4.40), “Scholarship as Conversation” (4.32), “Information Creation as a Process” (4.19), and “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” (4.08).

In examining the ranking of individual frames by unit, “Research as Inquiry” was ranked the highest by humanities at 4.70 and received no score from any discipline lower than 4.44 (social sciences). To achieve high enough counts for statistical analysis, the Likert rankings were placed into three categories, low (0–3), medium (4), and high (5). “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” was the only frame that showed a sig-nificant difference among the areas in a chi-squared test (p = 0.03, standard deviation = 1.09). Humanities ranked it the highest at 4.40 and STEM the lowest at 3.89. “Information Has Value” ranged from 4.61 (education) to 4.21 (STEM). “Scholarship as Conversation” showed a slightly smaller range between the high (humanities, 4.50) and the low (fine arts, 4.12). There was little variation in the ranking of “Information Creation as a Process” by academic area. “Searching as Strategic Exploration” ranged from 4.58 (education) to 4.27 (humanities).

Kaletski’s faculty survey of the importance of the 45 knowledge practices included under the six frames indicated that all the knowledge practices received a mean score of either “very important” or “somewhat important.” Of the 10 top-rated knowledge practices, five came under the frame “Research as Inquiry.” This result dovetailed with the findings of this study, in which “Research as Inquiry” was the frame rated the highest by WMU and WSU faculty. Two of the knowledge practices included in the top 10 were related to the frame “Searching as Strategic Exploration,”47 which was also consistent with our study.

Faculty and the Framework Language

With the adoption of the Framework in early 2016, the researchers seized the opportu-nity to explore faculty’s responses to the language of the document. Coupled with the research question regarding how faculty value IL skills in their students, this survey solicited faculty views about how those skills could be understood in the language of their disciplines. The survey presented the open-ended question “Regarding the IL concepts above, what alternate terminology might you suggest for relevance and un-derstanding for students in your discipline?” The authors hoped to elicit feedback that would address any disciplinary rephrasing of the language of the Framework, which could prove useful for instructional librarians.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Table 1. Faculty perceptions of the importance of IL to student academic success

Area Information literacy importance

Mean 4.84 Education N 38 Standard deviation* 0.370 Mean 4.82 Fine arts N 33 Standard deviation 0.392 Mean 4.93 Humanities N 30 Standard deviation 0.254 Mean 4.73 Social sciences N 73 Standard deviation 0.479 Mean 4.83 STEM N 63 Standard deviation 0.525 Mean 4.81 Total N 237 Standard deviation 0.444

Based on their literature review, the researchers recognized that disciplinary per-spectives affect how faculty and their students comprehend the meaning of IL. The survey collected department affiliations to determine if differences might emerge. This data point would indicate whether some disciplines voiced language issues more often than others and if there were recurring themes associated with particular disciplines.

Sixty-six text responses provided suggestions regarding different language for the frames. The replies were manually coded using themes identified through review of the content. Unique answers or those that did not reflect the coding scheme were not included in the final analysis. For example, a singular response of “paradigm shift” was excluded. Overall, the responses offered critiques of the Framework or of a particular frame.

Faculty also used the opportunity to reflect on the importance of a particular IL competency from their perspective. Some answers were coded for more than one theme, resulting in a total of 105 coded responses. The themes identified through the coding pro-cess are presented in Table 3. Examples of coded faculty responses appear in Appendix B.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Tabl

e 2.

Fa

culty

per

cept

ions

of t

he im

port

ance

of F

ram

ewor

k co

ncep

ts to

stud

ent a

cade

mic

succ

ess

Are

a “A

utho

rity

Is

“Inf

orm

atio

n “I

nfor

mat

ion

“Res

earc

h as

“S

chol

arsh

ip a

s “S

earc

hing

as

Co

nstr

ucte

d

Crea

tion

as

a Pr

oces

s”

Has

Val

ue”

Inqu

iry”

Co

nver

sati

on”

Stra

tegi

c

and

Cont

extu

al”

Expl

orat

ion”

Educ

atio

n M

ean

4.26

4.

29

4.61

4.

50

4.26

4.

58

N

38

38

38

38

38

38

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n*

1.03

2 0.

835

0.59

5 0.

726

0.97

8 0.

552

Fine

art

s M

ean

4.00

4.

18

4.39

4.

48

4.12

4.

36

N

33

33

33

33

33

33

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n 1.

090

1.01

4 0.

827

0.83

4 0.

960

0.99

4H

uman

ities

M

ean

4.40

4.

20

4.37

4.

70

4.50

4.

27

N

30

30

30

30

30

30

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n 0.

855

1.06

4 1.

033

0.53

5 0.

682

0.74

0So

cial

M

ean

4.04

4.

15

4.48

4.

44

4.42

4.

44sc

ienc

es

N

73

73

73

73

73

73

St

anda

rd d

evia

tion

1.14

8 1.

023

0.76

6 0.

866

0.81

5 0.

799

STEM

M

ean

3.89

4.

17

4.21

4.

48

4.27

4.

57

N

63

63

63

63

63

63

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n 1.

123

0.97

6 1.

220

1.09

0 0.

971

0.81

7T o

tal

Mea

n 4.

08

4.19

4.

40

4.50

4.

32

4.46

N

237

237

237

237

237

237

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n 1.

087

0.98

0 0.

932

0.87

2 0.

892

0.79

4

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Table 3. Coding for faculty comments on Framework language

Theme Explanation

Lacks clarity or uses jargon Either clarity or jargon appeared in the response, or response reflected that the frames would be difficult to understand.

Types of authority Reponses alluded to evaluating or considering different types of authority.

Students will not understand Comments specifically identified students and their challenges understanding the Framework or its language.

Types of sources Remarked on the different types of sources of information.research versus Research/evidence Responses reflected a need to distinguish between the

actions and outcomes of library research and empirical or scientific research or evidence, referred to colloquially as little “r” versus big “R” research.

Too abstract/not concrete enough Like “Lacks clarity or uses jargon,” except the language reflected the words abstract or concrete.

Makes sense in my discipline Responses affirmed the Framework language was suitable to the respondent’s discipline.

Digital literacy Applied to responses that referred to skills identified with digital literacy.

Information versus knowledge Referred to the differences between just finding resources and the actual act of interpreting the information into knowledge.

Visual literacy Applied to responses that referred to skills identified with visual literacy.

Literacy versus fluency Distinguished the differences between a skill and a deeper understanding of negotiating the information landscape.

Lack of clarity and use of jargon in the frames was the most frequent theme identi-fied in the comments, representing 31 percent of the coded responses. This sentiment was echoed by a faculty member from education who stated, “The jargon used is quite

dense. The literacy levels expressed in the statements are stratosheric [sic]: as-troliteracy required.” Other noteworthy comments coded as “lacks clarity or uses jargon” were “These are in no way suc-cinct” (business); “The language around

them was so jargonistic it was hard to tell what the point was” (social science); and “The language presupposes a high academic English level” (education).

Lack of clarity and use of jargon in the frames was the most frequent theme identified in the comments . . .

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Anecdotally, many librarians have experienced this conversation about the jargonistic language of the Framework at conferences, workshops, and within their own institu-tions. For example, the 2015 discussion thread initiated by Jody Caldwell, “[acrlframe] Info Lit definitions for students,” archived in the ACRL Framework e-mail list, spoke to students’ understanding of the frames. Librarians discussed that threshold concepts appear more theoretical, making the Framework more challenging to impart to students; one librarian even described the Framework language as “forbidding.”48

Over 20 percent of comments concerned language that related to types of author-ity. Given that “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” ranked low in importance when faculty were asked to rank the frames, this apparent conflict made us wonder if faculty may have failed to grasp that “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” relates to evaluating authority. Was the concept of contextual authority too esoteric to faculty, who typically ask students to primarily consult scholarly sources? Kaletski reported that faculty responded positively to the more specific and perhaps understandable knowledge practices language relating to authority, specifically, “use research tools” and “indicators of authority.”49

Responses by Discipline

As reflected in Table 4, the concern with jargon and students not understanding was a strong theme throughout all disciplines. However, a 2017 research study questioned this concern. Rachel Scott explored student understanding of the Framework in a small two-part study with first-year honors students. She integrated the Framework as a foundation of a one-credit course and found that students could demonstrate understanding of the concepts and language.50 Table 4 presents the number of language-related comments for all themes and the number of mentions for each theme by discipline area.

Social sciences faculty contributed 33 percent of the coded responses, the largest of all groups. Their greatest area of concern related to types of authority, a theme which STEM faculty also considered important. For some, this theme meant understanding “the hierarchy of journal quality” or “being able to differentiate and find primary resources (research in peer review journals) and distinguish it from a news bite on Fox News.” Language such as “determine credibility” and “peer review” was used.

The second most often-mentioned theme by social sciences faculty was types of sources, which is closely allied to the types of authority theme. One respondent expressed concern that students “need to be able to distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources,” which echoed a simi-lar response on the value of primary sources in the humanities group. Social sciences, STEM, and education faculty were the only groups to remark that the frames “made

. . . the concern with jargon and students not understanding was a strong theme throughout all disciplines.

Social sciences, STEM, and education faculty were the only groups to remark that the frames “made sense” in their disciplines.This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.4.


Tabl

e 4.

Fa

culty

com

men

ts o

n Fr

amew

ork

lang

uage

by

them

e an

d ar

ea

Them

es

Soci

al s

cien

ces

STEM

Ed

ucat

ion

Fine

art

s H

uman

itie

s To

tal

[n

= 2

2]

[n =

14]

[n

= 1

2]

[n =

9]

[n =

9]

[n =

66]

Lack

s cla

rity

or u

ses j

argo

n 6

4 6

3 2

21Ty

pes o

f aut

horit

y 11

5

0 1

2 19

Stud

ents

will

not

und

erst

and

3 1

3 4

2 13

Type

s of s

ourc

es

6 2

1 0

3 12

rese

arch

ver

sus R

esea

rch/

evid

ence

2

4 3

1 2

12T o

o ab

stra

ct/n

ot co

ncre

te e

noug

h 5

2 1

1 0

9M

akes

sens

e in

my

disc

iplin

e 2

1 2

0 0

5D

igita

l lite

racy

0

1 1

1 2

5In

form

atio

n ve

rsus

kno

wle

dge

2 1

0 1

1 5

Visu

al li

tera

cy

0 0

0 2

0 2

Lite

racy

ver

sus fl

uenc

y 0

1 0

0 1

2

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


sense” in their disciplines. Social sciences was the only group that failed to mention either digital or visual literacy.

STEM faculty accounted for 21 percent of the coded comments. The theme of types of authority and that of research (lowercased)—versus Research (capitalized) or evidence—that is, the actions and outcomes of library research as distinct from empirical or scien-tific research—were reflected the most in their suggestions. Types of sources received mention and, not surprisingly, discipline-associated terms such as “evidence-based,” “peer review,” “impact factor,” and “reproducibility” were evident in their examples of alternate terminology.

Responses from education faculty constituted 18 percent of the recorded comments. They were most concerned with the theme research versus Research/evidence, as reflected in this comment: “We share what we learn and the information we develop at least in part as a way of testing what we have learned against what others have published.” A few respondents affirmed an understanding of the frames from a disciplinary perspec-tive; in other words, the frames “make sense” in their discipline. Additional remarks from education faculty addressed the public or community-based nature of scholarship, a theme echoed in other disciplinary groups.

Observations from fine arts and communication faculty, which constituted 14 percent of the coded responses, understandably specified an interest in the themes of visual literacy as well as digital literacy. One faculty member expressed this theme as “the ability to communicate visually from state to state or out of the country.” Faculty commented on “ethos” or the authority of the author/speaker (types of authority) as well as the research versus Research/evidence theme.

Themes in comments from humanities faculty, which comprised 14 percent of the comments, most frequently mentioned types of sources, types of authority, digital literacy, and the research versus Research/evidence themes, followed by literacy versus fluency and the knowledge versus information distinction. Unlike most other groups, humani-ties faculty emphasized the importance of primary sources and “older information,” as this response from a history faculty member indicates: “I pose questions about the past and expect students to use primary sources to then compose a thesis that answers those questions.”

Discussion and Conclusion

Faculty’s ranking of the importance of IL for students’ academic success was high across disciplines, varying little from the average of 4.81. IL was defined in this context as the ability to “find, evaluate, and use appropriate resources responsibly in their assignments.” This finding should encourage librarians to continue their efforts to integrate IL into the curriculum.

Although faculty perspectives of IL have been studied, their perspectives on the Framework have been largely absent to date. This absence limits the ability of librar-ians to use the frames as starting points when collaborating with faculty on IL learning

Faculty’s ranking of the importance of IL for students’ academic success was high across disciplines . . .This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.4.


outcomes. Faculty’s individual rankings of the frames, which averaged above 4.0 for each, demonstrated that faculty value the concepts embodied in the Framework as goals for student success. The two most highly ranked frames, “Research as Inquiry” and “Searching as Strategic Exploration,” whose knowledge practices also scored among the top 10 in Kaletski’s study,51 represent more traditional goals often requested by faculty for instruction sessions. “Information Has Value” placed third at 4.40, but there were no open-ended comments from faculty to elaborate on this ranking. A surprising result in the rankings was that “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” averaged the lowest and was the only instance where a significant difference occurred among disciplines. Given that faculty often voice the value of critical thinking and emphasize evaluation of sources, the researchers were puzzled by the lower ranking of this frame. While hu-manities faculty scored it at 4.40, STEM faculty averaged 3.89. The authors hypothesized that the phrasing of the frame using “constructed” and “contextual” might have caused some discomfort in data-driven disciplines such as those in STEM.52

In Kaletski’s rankings as well, the knowledge practices associated with “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual,” which spelled out the relation between format and author-ity and the relativity of recognized authority among scholars, appeared in the lowest-ranked practices.53 However, the more traditionally phrased criterion of authority stated

as “Use research tools and indicators of authority to determine the credibility of sources, understanding the elements that might temper this credibility” placed in the top-ranked knowledge practices.54 Open-ended comments elicited strong faculty support for teaching students to evaluate information and sources, and

would suggest that conversations with faculty about this frame should make clear how it advances source evaluation and credibility. Ambiguity on the value of critical thinking and evaluation indicates that more communication on learning priorities and time allocation for different IL elements (searching, evaluation, citing, and the like) in instruction needs to occur between faculty and librarians.

“Scholarship as Conversation” ranked fourth overall (4.32) in this survey. However, humanities (which includes writing studies) faculty’s ranking averaged 4.50, which reflected Johnson and McCracken’s recommendation that this frame serve as the peda-gogical starting point for writing studies.55 The second-lowest ranking was “Information Creation as a Process” at 4.19, appearing to echo the observation in Swanson that faculty do not think as much about the information creation process and its impact.56 Perhaps this frame reflects a librarian’s perspective and is not necessarily central to the goals of instruction in the eyes of faculty.

This joint survey’s rankings indicate that faculty think it most important to teach students how to formulate a research question (“Research as Inquiry”) and then to in-struct them in how to find the answer or answers with a creative and critical approach to searching (“Searching as Strategic Exploration”). Instruction librarians wishing to incorporate the Framework in their sessions might consider starting their conversations with these frames but also think about how to incorporate “Authority Is Constructed

Open-ended comments elicited strong faculty support for teaching students to evaluate information and sources

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


and Contextual.” Although faculty did not rank this frame as primary, their open-ended responses relating to Framework language highlighted their concerns about students’ lack of skills in evaluating credibility of sources, a valued learning goal. Although there were not stark differences among disciplines regarding value and interpretation of the individual frames, some varia-tions did occur. Liaison librarians should explore and be sensitive to the perceptions of faculty in their institutions to better serve the needs of faculty and their students.

In faculty statements addressing the language of the frames, the most common concern, voiced by all disciplines, was the use of jargon and lack of clarity. From the researchers’ perspec-tive, these responses serve as a reminder that teaching librarians need to connect the frames in everyday terminology or disciplinary language that reflect faculty’s concerns regarding their students’ IL skills. Faculty went beyond the language of the Framework to voice their frustration with students’ inabilities to distinguish between different types of authority. This was a specific concern of faculty in the social sciences and STEM. The researchers theorized that this was another indication that faculty did not fully com-prehend “Authority Is Constructed and Contextual,” or if they did, they felt it needed to address specific indicators of authority, including peer review and the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. This frame, especially, needs to be explored more in depth with faculty to better understand their perceptions.

Another faculty concern that emerged was the opinion that students would not grasp the language of the frames. The researchers saw this as evidence that some respondents viewed students as a direct audience of the document, which was never the intention of the authors of the Framework. Indeed, faculty may view the knowledge practices detailed in the Framework as more practical learning objectives than the summaries of the frames that were provided in the survey.

This study surveyed academic libraries at two large research institutions. Although few differences were found when comparing the two schools, additional studies could take place in other institutions to determine if the results are transferable. Even though this study surveyed faculty in all disciplines, additional research more focused on in-dividual disciplines would be useful. As the Framework matures, further case studies of Framework implementation in faculty/librarian collaborations should emerge. In addition, perhaps librarians need to investigate the impact of the Framework regarding program accreditation standards. Some faculty in our study surmised that the Framework and its language would not be well understood by their students. As mentioned earlier, Scott conducted research with honors students that indicated promising potential on the part of students for understanding the frames.57 Subsequent studies might expand research in this regard and include feedback from a wider sampling of students in re-lation to their perceived value and understanding of the Framework. Future research could also seek student input related to the relevancy of the knowledge practices to their future professions and personal enrichment. As educational standards continually look at the skills needed in the labor force, research could be considered that seeks connec-tions among the tenets of the frames and a skilled workforce.

. . . faculty think it most important to teach students how to formulate a research question (“Research as Inquiry”)

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


The goal of this research project was to incorporate the faculty voice into the mod-ern concepts of IL as expressed in the “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” As the environment around information changes, with increased confusion

surrounding such issues as the validity of information, biased sources, polar-ization of the news, and selection of re-search tools, the conversation between faculty and librarians will become more crucial than ever to fostering an information-literate society. Acknowl-edging disciplinary differences within the academy regarding faculty’s needs for IL and the Framework, encourag-ing dialogue between librarians and

teaching faculty, and considering corresponding language that is the most meaningful to each discipline can further serve to contribute to the development of best practices in information literacy.

LuMarie F. Guth is an assistant professor and business librarian at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Judith M. Arnold is a librarian IV and liaison coordinator (retired) at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Veronica E. Bielat is a librarian III and student success librarian at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Maria A. Perez-Stable is a professor and instruction and outreach librarian at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Patricia Fravel Vander Meer is a professor and instruction and outreach librarian at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo; she may be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

As educational standards continually look at the skills needed in the labor force, research could be considered that seeks connections among the tenets of the frames and a skilled workforce.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Appendix A

Survey of Faculty Perspectives on Information LiteracyTo begin, please give us some information about yourself (which shall remain anonymous and presented in aggregate).

I am a faculty member/instructor at: ___ Wayne State University___ Western Michigan University

Please enter your primary departmental affiliation at your university (e.g., English,

Mathematics, Social Work, Center for Latino/a & Latin American Studies, etc.). __________________

Years teaching at the postsecondary level: ___ Less than 2___ 2–5___ 6–10___ 11–20___ 21 or more

The following set of questions will reference information literacy, the ACRL “Frame-work,” and definitions provided below.

4. Please indicate on the following sliding scale (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) how impor-tant you think it is for university students’ academic success to know how to find, evaluate, and use appropriate information resources responsibly in their assignments (information literacy).

Importance of IL to student academic success 1 2 3 4 5

5. The ACRL Framework:

An important part of becoming information literate involves students gaining under-standing of a framework of related information/scholarship concepts. Please rate (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) the importance of students’ understanding each of these six concepts, as defined by ACRL in the Framework, for their academic success.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


“Authority Is Constructed and Contextual”Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used.

Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required.

“Authority Is Constructed and Contextual” 1 2 3 4 5

“Information Creation as a Process”Information in any format is produced to convey a message and is shared via a selected delivery method. The iterative processes of researching, creating, revising, and dissemi-nating information vary, and the resulting product reflects these differences.

“Information Creation as a Process” 1 2 3 4 5

“Information Has Value”Information possesses several dimensions of value, including as a commodity, as a means of education, as a means to influence, and as a means of negotiating and understanding the world. Legal and socioeconomic interests influence information production and dissemination.

“Information Has Value” 1 2 3 4 5

“Research as Inquiry”Research is iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex or new questions whose answers in turn develop additional questions or lines of inquiry in any field.

“Research as Inquiry” 1 2 3 4 5

“Scholarship as Conversation”Communities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of varied perspectives and interpretations.

“Scholarship as Conversation” 1 2 3 4 5This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.4.


“Searching as Strategic Exploration”Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.

“Searching as Strategic Exploration” 1 2 3 4 5

6. Regarding the information literacy concepts above, what alternate terminology might you suggest for relevance and understanding for students in your discipline?

7. How have you collaborated with librarians at your university to help students develop information literacy? Please select all that apply.

___ A librarian teaches a session (in-person or online) on library research skills for my course(s).

___ I have worked with a librarian to define information literacy learning outcomes for my course(s).

___ I have worked with a librarian to develop an assignment that helps my students develop information literacy skills.

___ A librarian has developed online videos and tutorials for my students to use to develop information literacy skills.

___ A librarian has created a course-specific research guide for students.___ There is a librarian presence in my course management system (e.g., Blackboard,

D2L).___ I do not work in collaboration with a librarian, but I refer my students to a

specific librarian for help.___ I have not worked in collaboration with a librarian at my university.___ I teach these information literacy skills myself.

8. If you have collaborated with a librarian in a course, please explain what motivated you to do so. What did you like, or did not like, about the instruction experience?

9. If you have not taken advantage of working with a librarian in a course, please tell us why.

10. Any final comments?

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


Appendix B

Examples of Faculty Comments on Framework Language by Theme

Theme Faculty comments

Lacks clarity or uses jargon “The first 2 didn’t seem very relevant to scientific inquiry. The language around them was so jargonistic it was hard to tell what the point was.”

Types of authority “If studies have contradictory findings, it might say something about the situations/people to which the findings can be generalized—i.e., there is no one Truth—can differ for different subgroups of population.”

Students will not understand “I would ask the students themselves. A dialogue that concludes with how the students would word these concepts could be quite productive.”

Types of sources “On a practical level, they need to be able to distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I’m sick of people sticking definitions from Webster’s or the Oxford dictionary into a technical paper.”

research versus Research/evidence “The term ‘Research’ has multiple meanings in the academy for faculty and students. A primary distinction is ‘research’ as exploring a given question, facet, or dynamic versus ‘research’ as a completed scholarly addition to the field. Both are scholarly pursuits, the first is preparatory whereas the second is actively shared and participatory.”

Too abstract/not concrete enough “Terms such as ‘Authority Is Constructed and Contextual,’ ‘Information Creation as a Process,’ etc. disconnected and foreign to our needs.”

Makes sense in my discipline “This vernacular is used in my discipline.”Digital literacy “‘Digital literacy,’ given growing reliance on mediated

resources and databases.”Information versus knowledge “Data/information does not speak for itself.” Visual literacy “. . . ability to communicate visually from state to state or

out of the country.”Literacy versus fluency “I’m not sure exactly where this fits in, but I feel like it is

important to help students differentiate between searching (the normal use of search engines to find answers to everyday questions) and researching (which requires more in-depth knowledge of databases, Boolean logic, etc.).”This

mss

. is pe

er rev

iewed

, cop

y edit

ed, a

nd ac

cepte

d for

publi

catio

n, po

rtal 1

8.4.


Notes

1. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” 2015, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

2. Stephanie Beene and Shannon Marie Robinson, “When Research Does Not Start with a Question: Teaching with the Framework and Visual Literacy Standards within Art and Architecture Librarianship,” Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 36, 2 (2017): 254–80, doi:10.1086/694243; Erin Conor, “Reframing the Framework: Situated Information Literacy in the Music Classroom,” Fontes Artis Musicae 64, 4 (2017): 346–54, http://muse.jhu.edu/article/680344/pdf; Amanda Meeks, Larissa Garcia, Ashley Peterson, and Alyssa Vincent, “CREATE: Adapting the Framework to Studio Art Disciplines,” College & Research Libraries News 78, 10 (2017): 554–59, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16807; Stephanie J. Schulte and Maureen Knapp, “Awareness, Adoption, and Application of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy in Health Sciences Libraries,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 105, 4 (2017): 347–54, doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.131.

3. Megan Oakleaf, “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 40, 5 (2014): 510–14, doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.001; Rachel Wilder Gammons and Lindsay Taylor Inge, “Using the ACRL Framework to Develop a Student-Centered Model for Program-Level Assessment,” Communications in Information Literacy 11, 1 (2017): 168–84, doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.1.40; Gloria Willson and Katelyn Angell, “Mapping the Association of College and Research Libraries Information Literacy Framework and Nursing Professional Standards onto an Assessment Rubric,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 105, 2 (2017): 150–54, doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.39.

4. William Badke, “Stressing Out about the Framework,” Online Searcher 40, 1 (2016): 71–73. 5. Ibid., 73. 6. ACRL, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” 2000, https://

alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668. 7. Zoe Fisher, “Facing the Frames: Using the Framework as a Guide for a Credit-Bearing

Information Literacy Course,” College & Research Libraries News 78, 7 (2017): 354–58, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16696/18175.

8. See, for example, David A. Hurley and Robin Potter, “Teaching with the Framework: A Cephalonian Approach,” Reference Services Review 45, 1 (2017): 117–30, doi:10.1108/RSR-07-2016-0044; Joanna M. Burkhardt, Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2016); see also the “ACRL Framework for Information Literacy Sandbox,” http://sandbox.acrl.org/.

9. Christine Wolff-Eisenberg, Alisa B. Rod, and Roger C. Schonfeld, “Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2015,” Ithaka S+R, 58, http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-us-faculty-survey-2015/.

10. Ibid.11. Library Journal and Gale Cengage Learning, “2015 Bridging the Librarian-Faculty Gap in

the Academic Library Survey,” https://lj.libraryjournal.com/downloads/2015-bridging-the-librarian-faculty-gap-in-the-academic-library, 17.

12. Stuart Boon, Bill Johnston, and Sheila Webber, “A Phenomenographic Study of English Faculty’s Conceptions of Information Literacy,” Journal of Documentation 63, 2 (2007): 204–28, doi:10.1108/00220410710737187.

13. Laurie McNamara Morrison, “Faculty Motivations: An Exploratory Study of Motivational Factors of Faculty to Assist with Students’ Research Skills Development,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research/Revue canadienne de la pratique et de la recherche et bibliothéconomie et sciences de l’information 2, 2 (2007): 1–20, http://synergies.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/295/568#.Wor7noJJmCQ.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


14. Nicole Pagowsky, “A Pedagogy of Inquiry,” Communications in Information Literacy 9, 2 (2015): 139, doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.2.190.

15. Laura Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 38, 4 (2012): 226–36, doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001.

16. Patricia Fravel Vander Meer, Maria A. Perez-Stable, and Dianna E. Sachs, “Framing a Strategy: Exploring Faculty Attitudes toward Library Instruction and Technology Preferences to Enhance Information Literacy,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 52, 2 (2012): 109–22, https://journals.ala.org/rusq/article/viewFile/3856/4267.

17. See Anita Cannon, “Faculty Survey on Library Research Instruction,” RQ 33, 4 (1994): 524–41, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20862531; Gloria J. Leckie and Anne Fullerton, “Information Literacy in Science and Engineering Undergraduate Education: Faculty Attitudes and Pedagogical Practices,” College & Research Libraries 60, 1 (1999): 9–29, https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/15258; Rhonda Gonzales, “Opinions and Experiences of University Faculty regarding Library Research Instruction: Results of a Web-Based Survey at the University of Southern Colorado,” Research Strategies 18, 3 (2001): 191–201, doi:10.1016/S0734-3310(02)00090-3; Paul L. Hrycaj and Michael F. Russo, “A Survey of LSU [Louisiana State University] Faculty Attitudes toward Library Research Instruction,” Louisiana Libraries 69, 4 (2007): 15–25, http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=502914518&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

18. Maria Pinto, “Assessing Disciplinary Differences in Faculty Perceptions of Information Literacy Competencies,” Aslib [Association for Information Management] Journal of Information Management 68, 2 (2016): 227–47, doi:10.1108/AJIM-05-2015-0079.

19. Sophie Bury, “Learning from Faculty Voices on Information Literacy: Opportunities and Challenges for Undergraduate Information Literacy Education,” Reference Services Review 44, 3 (2016): 237–52, doi:10.1108/RSR-11-2015-0047.

20. Shelley Gullikson, “Faculty Perceptions of ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, 6 (2006): 585, doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.001.

21. ACRL, “Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement for Academic Librarians,” 2001, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation.

22. Gullikson, “Faculty Perceptions of ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” 589.

23. Sophie Bury, “Faculty Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Information Literacy: A Study across Multiple Disciplines at York University, Canada,” Journal of Information Literacy 5, 1 (2011): 52, doi:10.11645/5.1513.

24. Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome,” 229.

25. Laura Saunders, “Culture and Collaboration: Fostering Integration of Information Literacy by Speaking the Language of Faculty,” in Imagine, Innovate, Inspire: Proceedings of the ACRL 2013 Conference, April 10–13, 2013, Indianapolis, ed. D. M. Mueller (Chicago: ACRL, 2013), 137–47, http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Saunders_Culture.pdf.

26. Ibid., 140.27. See, for example, Jonathan Cope and Jesús E. Sanabria, “Do We Speak the Same Language?

A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries & the Academy 14, 4 (2014): 475–501, doi:10.1353/pla.2014.0032; Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome,” 226–36; Saunders, “Culture and Collaboration,” 9–12; Bury, “Learning from Faculty Voices on Information Literacy,” 237–52.

28. Rebecca Z. Kuglitsch, “Teaching for Transfer: Reconciling the Framework with Disciplinary Information Literacy,” portal: Libraries & the Academy 15, 3 (2015): 457–70, doi:10.1353/pla.2015.0040.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.


29. Brittney Johnson and I. Moriah McCracken, “Reading for Integration, Identifying Complementary Threshold Concepts: The ACRL Framework in Conversation with Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies,” Communications in Information Literacy 10, 2 (2016): 178–98, doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.23.

30. Bury, “Learning from Faculty Voices on Information Literacy,” 241–43.31. Troy Swanson, “Sharing the ACRL Framework with Faculty: Opening Campus

Conversations,” College & Research Libraries News 78, 1 (2017): 12–48, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9600/10987.

32. Ibid., 14.33. Kathy Shields and Christine Cugliari, “Scholarship as Conversation: Introducing Students

to Research in Nonprofit Studies,” College & Research Libraries News 78, 3 (2017): 137–40, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9635/11057.

34. Johnson and McCracken, “Reading for Integration, Identifying Complementary Threshold Concepts,” 186.

35. Gullikson, “Faculty Perceptions of ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” 591.

36. Ibid.37. Cope and Sanabria, “Do We Speak the Same Language?” 475–501.38. Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome,”

231–32.39. Saunders, “Culture and Collaboration,” 145.40. Badke, “Stressing Out about the Framework,” 73.41. ACRL, “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” 13.42. Swanson, “Sharing the ACRL Framework with Faculty,” 12–14, 48.43. Grace Kaletski, “Faculty Perceptions of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher

Education,” Endnotes 8, 1 (2017): 26–35, http://www.ala.org/rt/sites/ala.../Faculty%20Perceptions%20of%20the%20Framework.pdf.

44. See, as noted earlier, Shields and Cugliari, “Scholarship as Conversation,” which built instruction around the “Scholarship as Conversation” frame, and Johnson and McCracken, “Reading for Integration, Identifying Complementary Threshold Concepts,” which developed a crosswalk between the Framework and threshold concepts in writing studies.

45. Vander Meer, Perez-Stable, and Sachs, “Framing a Strategy,” 109–22.46. Bury, “Learning from Faculty Voices on Information Literacy,” 237–52.47. Kaletski, “Faculty Perceptions of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,”

29.48. Jody Caldwell to ACRL Framework mailing list, August 25, 2015, http://lists.ala.org/

sympa/arc/acrlframe/.49. Kaletski, “Faculty Perceptions of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,”

29.50. See Rachel E. Scott, “Part 1. If We Frame It, They Will Respond: Undergraduate Student

Responses to the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” Reference Librarian 58, 1 (2017): 1–18, doi:10.1080/02763877.2016.1196470; Rachel E. Scott, “Part 2. If We Frame It, They Will Respond: Student Responses to the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” Reference Librarian 58, 1 (2017): 19–32, doi:10.1080/02763877.2016.1196471.

51. Kaletski, “Faculty Perceptions of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” 29.

52. A supporting observation that the language of information literacy is more humanities- and social sciences-based and sometimes exclusive of the sciences, which value data and tighter definitions for information, can be found in Kate Manuel, “Generic and Discipline-Specific Information Literacy Competencies: The Case of the Sciences,” Science & Technology Libraries 24, 3–4 (2004): 291–93, doi:10.1300/J122v24n03_05.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.

Faculty Voices on the Framework: Implications for Instruction and Dialogue718

53. Kaletski, “Faculty Perceptions of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” 30.

54. Ibid., 29.55. Johnson and McCracken, “Reading for Integration, Identifying Complementary Threshold

Concepts,” 185–86.56. Swanson, “Sharing the ACRL Framework with Faculty,” 14.57. Scott, “Part 1. If We Frame It, They Will Respond,” 1–18, and Scott, “Part 2. If We Frame It,

They Will Respond,” 19–32.

This m

ss. is

peer

review

ed, c

opy e

dited

, and

acce

pted f

or pu

blica

tion,

porta

l 18.4

.

faculty voices on the framework: implications for …...694 faculty voices on the framework:...

Documents