NATIONAL INFORMATION LITERACY SURVEY

Question One:

When defining information literacy at your institution, what are the three most important elements that you include in the definition?

To obtain a better picture of an institutions definition of information literacy we posed this question.  Responses are broadly grouped into categories.  Each answer is coded as to whether it appears as the first, second or third response element.  Can this imply a prioritization, an order of importance? Not necessarily as institutions were not explicitly asked to rank them even though the question might imply it by saying "the most importantÄ”

Chart four: Responses by Element

It is fairly evident that both the American Library Association's definition of information literacy, as well as the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, are encompassed in the responses. In the tabulation of the results, those that contained the exact wording or part of the wording from any Standard were placed in the appropriate category.  Responses that could have been placed under a Standard but which were important to separate are separated. One example of this is the element that specifically refers to critical thinking and evaluation of information that is noted by 479 or 27.8% of the overall responses to this question. Also as computer/technological literacy is many times thought as synonymous with information literacy it was important to separate out this element in the definition which was noted 158 times. 

Question Two:

In your institution, what groups have discussed information literacy?

Link to Chart five:  Groups on campus discussing Information Literacy

This chart clearly shows that the area where most of the discussion is occurring among librarians with 439 responses.  A second group with a little over half as many responses is the Humanities disciplines, 224 responses, followed closely by Social Sciences. Interesting to note that the answer "all of the above"  received 187 responses and allows us to conclude that these institutions are conducting campus-wide discussions. The "other" response was noted 166 times.  

Those respondents marking the "other” category were rather numerous therefore we broke down their responses into the various groups identified.  Two major groups that emerged were curriculum committees, being named 32 times, or specific academic departments being named 80 times. The General Education committees were named 24 of the 32 times that committees were named. The 80 answers listed in the category "Specific Department” were either a department (predominately English, Nursing, Professional Programs, or Business) or a course (Freshmen Seminar faculty, English 101, College orientation course).

Chart six:: Other groups discussing information literacy

Chart seven: Specific Academic Departments

Another interesting question is which campus groups are more active in which institutions. The following charts, by Carnegie classification institution type, can provide some information to answer this question:

Chart eight Community College groups  Here we clearly see that libraries (35%) and humanities (19%) groups have had discussions while technology groups (5%) and the science disciplines (6%) lag behind in this respect.

Chart nine Comprehensive institution groups Again the major group is librarians (30%) and humanities (17%) but also campus wide discussions are prominent (16%) followed closely by the social science disciplines (13%). A fairly large "other group" (11%) is seen here and the science (9%) are less prominent.

Chart ten Four Year Private groups In the Private colleges we have librarians included in 29% of the responses.  The next larges group is the humanities disciplines (15%) and campus-wide discussions (14%). Campus technology groups (12%) and the "other" group (11%) are prominent.

Chart eleven Four Year Public groups In the Public counterparts the breakdown is similar. Librarians total 30% of theresponses.  Campus wide discussions included 16% of the total responses. Humanities and "other" are strong each with 14% of the total responses. However the technology groups are less prominent with only 6% of the responses.

Chart twelve Research and Doctoral institution groups.  These campuses reflect the average in that librarians again are the largest campus group discussing information literacy (31%). Humanities disciplines (12%) and campus wide discussion (13%) are in line with other institutions. Sciences (9%) and social sciences (11%) are less prominent.  The "other" category includes 13% of the total response and the technology groups include 10%.

While many groups may be discussing information literacy it is essential to have data on how many of those campuses where a discussion has taken place, have actually gone on to implement a program. The following chart correlates responses from question two with those from question 4 and we see that in fact it is the librarian groups who have the highest implementation responses while administration or specific departments, followed closely by curriculum committees, that have the highest discussion responses. We can conclude that the librarians are spearheading the discussions with campus groups outside the library while they implement programs within the library. 

Chart 20: Discussion and Implementation of information literacy

Question Three:

There are various ways that information literacy can be included in the curriculum.  Please check all that apply to your campus.

This simple chart shows the responses to the various options for this question. We can easily see that instruction in use of the library (bibliographic instruction) and a focus on teaching the use of computers is more common in all institutions than is either information literacy in the curriculum or as a general education requirement. Also of interest are the 132 responses that specifically stated they had no program.

Chart 13: Inclusion in Curriculum by type of institution   The responses were tabulated by type of institution to see if there was some conclusions that could be made. This chart demonstrates that in every category the community colleges and the 4-year private colleges were more likely to have checked the responses, more likely to have a comprehensive program on their campuses.

This question assumes that information literacy is an extension of an active program of general library instruction.  Four options were given as seen above. While these may seem redundant at first glance further analysis points to the intent of each option.  The first option specifically looks at information literacy integration. In the second option library instruction is the main point. Computer or web-use instruction is the focus of the third option.  The last option asks if information literacy is part of the general education requirements on campus.  These options are not mutually exclusive and because of this a chart of the type of institution and how many of the options were included in their response generates Chart 14.

Chart 14: Number of Options selected by type of institution.

Chart 15: Information Literacy integral to courses. This chart shows clearly that most of the respondents that checked this item stating that information literacy was integral to at least one course on their campus were from Four-Year Private colleges or from community colleges.

Chart 16: Library Instruction inclusion. It is noted that about the same answers appear here as in the previous chart.  We may see that perhaps it is because the questions could be somewhat easily misinterpreted.

Chart 17: Instruction in the use of computers. Clearly the community colleges are much more likely to have answered that computer instruction was available for their students than any other institution type.

Chart 18: Information Literacy within the General Education Program Here again community colleges were much more likely to have general education program that included information literacy than the other institution types.

Those respondents that marked the "Other” option did so for two main reasons. Some wanted to expound on or further clarify their responses by explaining the type of library instruction or information literacy that occurred on their campus.  Typical responses include:

• Faculty are required to address the Standards for Information Literacy when constructing their extended course syllabi.
• Bibl. instruction within First Year Program was mandated by faculty vote. Full information literacy was not mandated.
• We also teach a one credit course Navigating the Electronic Library
• General research instruction is included in well over half of the courses offered on campus. No student can graduate without encountering information fluency in some way.

The second reason for marking this later option was to state that in fact, little was being done and in many cases, to explain what steps were in process for the future. Typical responses include:

• At this time, we provide course-related instruction, but not real course-embedded instruction.
• IL instruction to classes upon invitation from the professor
• Information literacy competency is a graduation requirement for all students entering from Fall 2001 forward.
• Library instruction is taught in some classes. There is no consistency here regarding the instruction of information literacy
• We are working *towards* incorporating info. lit. into gen. ed. requirements, but we aren't there yet.

Question Four:

If your institution has implemented information literacy standards, what committee, group or council was responsible?

 The typical answer was to give the name of the committee, group or council. These responses were reviewed and classed into categories as seen in

Chart19: Groups implementing Standards.  In all 189 responses listed a group, committee or council. It was important to see how the process for adopting information literacy on campus had taken place. Most of the groups were those included in the "Other" category of question 2 regarding campus discussions of information literacy.

In fact, of those listed in the category "Not implemented or no answer”, 45 respondents specifically tell us that they have not implemented or are in the process of formalizing a group. And of those that do not answer this question, 11 respondents do give contact information implying that a person may be responsible for spearheading this effort. 

Again it is important to note a comparison of these responses with those in question 2 regarding campus discussions of information literacy. While many groups may be discussing information literacy it is essential to have data on how many of those campuses where a discussion has taken place, have actually gone on to implement a program. The following chart correlates responses from question two with those from question 4 and we see that in fact it is the librarian groups who have the highest implementation responses while administration or specific departments, followed closely by curriculum committees, that have the highest discussion responses. We can conclude that the librarians are spearheading the discussions with campus groups outside the library while they implement programs within the library. 

Chart 20: Discussion and Implementation of information literacy looks at those campus groups that are discussing and those groups that are implementing information literacy. Because of the distortion that would occur in the chart both the campus wide discussions, totally 187, and the librarian discussions, totaling 438 responses, were capped at 100. 

Also important is to see the comparison of those groups discussing information literacy and those that actually implemented a program. 

Chart 21 shows this comparison but includes the faculty groups that we have seen previously.

Question Five:

Is there a formal charge or document by this group that mandates the teaching of information literacy (For example, is it part of the General Education goals and objectives document, a strategic plan, a library committee mandate?)

Chart 22 Institutions with a formal charge. We see from examining this chart that 26% of those 99 institutions that have a formal charge of document were Community Colleges, followed closely by Four-Year Private institutions (23%) and Comprehensive institutions (22%).

While 99 answered yes to this question 45 institutions provided the information we requested either by email or via fax.æ The following institutions granted permission to link to their documents:

** Links valid as of May 2002

Question Six

Does your institution have a specific information literacy requirement? 

 Chart 23 Institutions with an IL requirement.  Community Colleges and 4-Year Private institution each  represented  29% of all the institutions stating that they did have an IL requirement. Comprehensive institutions formed 18% of the total respondents with a requirement.

Chart 24 Institutions with formal charge and those with requirement. We are also interested in the correlate between answers to question 5 about formal charge and question 6 about a specific requirement.   We then look at comparing the institutions that stated they had a formal charge or mandate to include IL and those that stated they had a specific IL requirement. We note that most respondents answered no or did not answer at all.

Chart 25 Formal Charge and requirement by institution type  This allows us to break down further the comparisons of  formal charge and IL requirement by institution type.

Question 6a: If yes, is the requirement:

Chart 26 shows this graphically.

We note here that some respondents stated that they did not have a specific information literacy requirement but still answered 6a. From their comments we interpret that they see all students as having a general information literacy requirement that is defined as "knowing how to do research” or "using the library.” Therefore they check either "all students” or "General Education” or "transfer students” as answers to question 6a. Further information was found when reviewing the answers to the "Other” responses.

Of the respondents that answered NO to question six, 7 gave answers to question 6a about the category of student that had an IL requirement.  Their answers are below. One assumption to this disconnect is that while there is no formal requirement, these specific students do have information literacy instruction.

Other responses:

Question 6b:  How long has this requirement been in existence?

Chart  27 shows this graphically . At least 49% of all respondents to this question had a program 0-3 years old.

Again, some institutions noted in their comments that they have a requirement that is in place for some time now but not really being implemented or a "specific” requirement is in progress and has been for some time. These generally checked off the "0-3 years” response.

Of the respondents that answered NO or gave no answer to question six, 11 gave answers to the following question on the number of years that their requirement had been in existence. So we can assume that while they do not have a formal requirement, they do have a program in place.

Next: Questions 7-14 >>