NATIONAL INFORMATION LITERACY SURVEY

CONTENTS

Executive Summary
Background
The Survey Instrument
Demographics
Analysis of Responses
Conclusions and Recommendations

Executive summary

When defining information literacy the respondents relied heavily on the American Library Association’s definition of information literacy and included basic elements of the Standards for Information Literacy Competency for Higher Education. We can also interpret that the Standards are widely accepted and that there is a general desire to make sure students gain the skills that meet these standards.

Librarians are spearheading the campus discussions with groups outside the library while at the same time they implement programs within the library. Others on campus have joined in the dialog but have not been quick to adopt programs. Although some institutions have a formal charge to include information literacy this does not necessarily correspond to establishing specific information literacy requirements. This underscores the multiplicity of efforts for teaching information literacy.

It is too early to tell. Most respondents were just beginning to develop programs, were initiating dialogs across their campuses. Many of the respondents to question 13 on the impact of information literacy stated that they had not gotten to an assessment stage yet. Many comments to the various questions indicated that they expected positive results in the future.

Whether public or private, comprehensive or community colleges, no matter the type of institution, the inclusion of information literacy depends on the institution's goals - focused on teaching students and not focused on research. 

Background      

More than 5 years have passed since the first survey of information literacy programs at higher education institutions was conducted.  Cosponsored by the National Forum on Information Literacy, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in collaboration with the Commission on Higher Education (CHE) of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and the Western Accreditation Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC), the survey report can be found as an appendix to Patricia Senn Breivik's book "Student Learning in the Information Age" (American Council on Education/Oryx Press, 1998).   Our intent is to continue to refer back to that effort and enhance those findings with current information.

The five years since the survey have seen tremendous national activity in information literacy.  Foremost within ACRL is the creation in 1997 and the extraordinary impact of the Institute for Information Literacy with its Immersion Program for librarian professional development, institutional best practice and community partners initiatives. More recently two efforts stand out, the ALA Special Presidential Committee on Information Literacy Community Partnerships and the development, endorsements, publication, and distribution of the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Not only have these efforts been widely applauded but also their impact can be seen in the preponderance of panels, workshops and presentations at professional conferences both within libraries and within higher education. 

The higher education accrediting associations, both general and disciplinary, are aware of and embracing information literacy and are either considering or have adopted information literacy standards.  The impact at the campus level is seen in resolutions adopted by Academic Senates, the establishment of information literacy requirements in the curriculum, as well as numerous and varied examples of the reform of general education to include information literacy.

With this in mind the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) conducted a new survey to update recent campus activities in information literacy programming in higher education institutions.

The Survey Instrument      

The instrument was developed by the consultants with input from librarians nation-wide who have developed or were developing similar instruments for local or regional distribution. Several drafts were sent to the ACRL Executive Director, Althea Jenkins, who also gathered input from AAHE collaborators. The final draft was circulated to a small sample. The final draft was then sent to the ACRL offices for any further input, revision and ultimate distribution. The actual distribution of the survey and initial receipt of the responses was left to the staff at the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia. The original emails were sent on May 2^nd, 2001.  A reminder notice was sent 2 weeks later. With only 18 days turnaround time, and an extension until the end of May, we were very pleased to see the number of returns. The Consultants were given as contacts for the survey and they received a number of calls regarding access, cut-off date, and submission difficulties. Also one question asked the respondents to send information to the Consultants. Question 5 asked for mailed documentation identifying the institutionÕs formal charge or documentation that mandates the teaching of information literacy. The fact that three separate groups, the ACRL office, the Consultants and the Center for Survey Research were all responsible for aspects of the survey made this a somewhat cumbersome process.

Responses were submitted electronically by using a web-based survey form. 710 institutions or 26% responded to the survey. Compilation of data used 664 of these responses as the others were duplicate or invalid submissions.  These figures are comparable to the 1994 survey where 834 or 20% of the 3236 institutions responded.

The survey (pdf)

The cover letter

Demographics      

As seen in the following chart the four-year institutions comprise the majority of the responses. Institutions were also classified according to the Carnegie Classification system. 

 Chart one: Institutions Responding by Carnegie Classification type

Chart Two: Respondents by Accrediting Association

Chart Three: Respondents by State

In terms of the size of the responding institutions we have the following chart:

Analysis of Responses      

You can start reading the complete list of questions, or browse the list below.

Question 1:  Definition of Information Literacy
Question 2:  Campus discussions of IL
Question 3: Inclusion in the Curriculum
Question 4:  Implementation of Standards
Question 5: Mandate to teach
Question 6: IL Requirement  
Question 7:  Computer Literacy
Question 8: Use of the Standards
Question 9: Implementation of Standards
Question 10:  Accreditation and IL
Question 11: Assessment of IL
Question 12: Teaching responsibility
Question 13: Impact on campus
Question 14: Barriers

Acknowledgments

We would specifically like to thank Hugh Thompson, ACRL Director of Publications, for his liaison work helping the Consultants by coordinating the distribution and collection of the survey results, forwarding the completed surveys to the Consultants. Within the Consultant team special thanks goes to Judith Downie, Humanities Librarian at CSUSM for her careful tracking of the survey results as they were forwarded to us, for collecting the submissions from question 5 and gathering permissions to use them here, for doing the initial number-crunching and for all her support throughout the process.  We also want to express our appreciation to all those institutions who took the time to answer the survey.

Next >> Survey Questions 1-6