Increasing students' library confidence.

Abstract

This paper reports on two research studies to evaluate a course to help first year students in a Higher Education Institution with a high non-traditional intake to become information literate. The course was designed for independent, hands-on learning and evidence of completed tasks was submitted in a portfolio for assessment. Students were asked to complete a Library Confidence Scale (Norton, 2001) before and after the course. Students were found to be more confident in using the library at the end of the course and more confident than students who had not taken the course. These results suggest strongly that tasks involving active participation, performed over a number of weeks, contextualised in the subject, and assessed, do help increase students' library confidence.

Introduction

Students in Higher Education are expected to be able to fred, evaluate and synthesise information and use it effectively in their academic writing. However, research (Jiao and Onwuegbuzie, 1999; Mech and Brooks, 1995; Mellon, 1984, 1986) indicates that many of them, particularly in the first year, feel anxious or not confident when required to use the library to research assignments. This is reflected in poor use of the library and quality of work produced (Jiao and Onwuegbuzie, 1999; Jiao et al., 1996) and in academic results (Wells, 1995). Such lack of confidence acts as a disincentive to students, discouraging them from participating in an activity fundamental to the learning experience. This is particularly problematic in the first year when 'traditional' students face the transition from secondary to tertiary education. Institutions with a high proportion of 'non-traditional' students, who have little knowledge of the demands of higher education, need to give greater support in using information resources.

A consistent finding from the research is that students become more confident over time (Jiao et al., 1996, Jiao and Onwuegbuzie, 1997; Mech and Brooks, 1997). Instruction has an important part to play in this improvement and good evidence of its worth has been reported in rigorous empirical studies (Daragan and Stevens, 1996; Hardesty et al., 1982; Mellon, 1988). This work suggests that instruction works best when both faculty and library staffs are involved and library instruction is course integrated. However, such instruction needs to be student-centred. Valentine (1993) reported that students adopt a 'quick and dirty' approach looking to maximise reward versus cost rather than follow the coherent strategies advised in traditional bibliographic instruction, while Limberg (2000) has found that outcomes are impoverished where students experience information seeking as finding facts or getting the right answer. Such studies suggest that independent learning and 'real' tasks requiring hands on experience are desirable in any instructional programme to improve students' competence in information literacy.

Research context

The College, a University College of Higher Education in the North of England, has a high proportion of non-traditional students with 37% of the first year intake in 2000 being young entrants from skilled manual, partly skilled and unskilled social classes, and 26% from neighbourhoods designated as low participation in Higher Education (HEFCE, 2002). Earlier research had found that students were lacking in information seeking skills. Despite being clearly aware of the need to consult and cite literature in assignments, students did so only to a limited extent (Norton et al., 1999). Norton and Norton (2000) found that most students were not very good at using the computer catalogue or the library classification scheme to find material. Only 60% of students participated in induction courses run by library staff and were found to be no more confident in using the library than those who had not (Norton, 2001). However, where information skills were integrated with subject content in an introductory seminar programme run by academic staff, which required students to use library resources to perform 'real' tasks, they were found to be more competent (Norton and Norton, 2000) and more confident in using the library (Norton, 2001).

In 2000, an Information Retrieval course was introduced as part of a generic programme, Unique Learning, to develop first year students' core skills such as communication, team working, critical thinking and information literacy. This was taught in groups of 10-12 by personal tutors in a weekly 2 hourly class alongside two academic subjects in a combined honours programme. As part of the evaluation of this new programme, research was commissioned to establish the effect of the intervention afforded by the Information Retrieval course. The research reported here was designed to find out how effective the Information Retrieval course would be in increasing students' confidence in using their academic library.

The Library Confidence Scale

Students' confidence in using the library was measured at the outset and completion of this course. The measure used was the Library Confidence Scale (LCS), developed by Norton (2001) which drew on and augmented questionnaires used by Jacobson (1991), Bostick (1992) and Mech and Brooks (1995; 1997) in their work on library confidence and anxiety. The LCS comprises 34 items designed to elicit a response on the use of specific facilities as well as a general response to using the library. Students are asked to select the response which most closely matches their feelings about each statement on a 5 point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The minimum score would therefore be 34 and the maximum score 170. 16 statements are positively worded, for example, 'I feel confident in my ability to use the library's CD ROM databases', 'I am comfortable using the library catalogue' and 18 are negatively worded, for example, 'Everyone else seems more able to use the WWW/Internet on the library's computers', 'I feel unsure of my ability to use current journals in the library'. A high reliability level for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.90, Spearman-Brown coefficient of 0.93 for split half reliability) was found for the instrument (Norton, 2001) and was replicated in the analysis of the datasets in the two studies reported here (Cronbach's alpha, 0.93, 0.93; Spearman-Brown, 0.92, 0.93, respectively).

Study 1: The Original Information Retrieval Course

In its first incarnation, Information Retrieval formed one of three compulsory courses together with one optional course of Unique Learning taken by students in the first semester, each worth 5 credits. Written by members of the library staff, it was designed for independent study over six weeks. Students had to work through the exercises and tasks in the course handbook, for example, locating material and constructing a bibliography, comparing search engines and subject gateways, and evaluating sources of information such as books, journal articles and internet sites. Evidence of completed tasks was submitted as part of a portfolio at the end of the semester for assessment.

Procedure The LCS was administered in the Unique Learning weekly class to students in the School of Sciences and Social Sciences at the beginning of the course and again six weeks later. Students were made aware that completion was voluntary and asked to give their names to enable matching of questionnaires but informed that individual information would not be identified and that the data would be analysed by a researcher who was not involved in teaching. Tutors returned completed forms to the School Office for analysis. 126 students completed questionnaires at the beginning of the course and 165 at the end, of which 102 (17% of first year students in the School) completed both questionnaires.

Results For the students completing both questionnaires (N=102), there was a highly significant difference (t test for dependent samples, t (101,1) = 5.55, p<0.00001) between scores at the beginning of the Information Retrieval course (mean=113.08, SD=14.96) and scores at the end (mean=108.63, SD=16.88). This suggests that the course was of some benefit to students in improving levels of confidence in using the library but it must be noted that this is but a small sample of the total student population. Since data were to hand from an earlier study (Norton, 2001), it was possible to make comparisons between this first cohort of Unique Learning students and students from the earlier cohort, who had experienced the 'traditional' library induction and departmental support systems. Using t tests for independent samples, it was found that there was no significant difference between the mean scores for the 'traditional' cohort and the Unique Learning cohort at the beginning of the Information Retrieval course. However, there was a highly significant difference (t (307,2) = 4.17, p<0.001) between the scores for 'traditional' students (mean=108.66, SD=17.68, N=126) and Unique Learning students after they had completed the course (mean=116.93, SD=17.57, N=165). This suggests that it was the process of working through the Information Retrieval Course that improved students' levels of library confidence and supports the earlier finding for the matched students (Norton et al., 2001).

Study 2: The Revised Information Retrieval Course

Building on the findings from Study 1, it was decided to broaden the scope of the research to look at students' levels of confidence across all 4 schools in the Arts & Sciences Deanery and the Education Deanery. This increased the sample size and enabled comparisons to be made between students from the 4 schools (Science & Social Sciences, International Business, Information Technology & Enterprise, Humanities, and Creative & Performing Arts) and also with a group of students from the Education Deanery, who were not required to participate in the generic programme, Unique Learning.

Following course evaluation, Learning and Teaching Fellows contextualised information literacy with academic writing in the various subjects. The main aim for all schools was to ensure that students were obtaining practical hands on experience by embedding information literacy into a 'real' academic assignment that was to be assessed thus making the weekly tasks more meaningful and rewarding. It was also considered important to provide more scaffolding and academic support in this independent work which students were being required to complete at a very early stage of their academic career. There were some variations in the approach taken to this by the Schools. To provide scaffolding, Science & Social Sciences, Creative & Performing Arts and Humanities decided to monitor and give feedback on students' performance on Information Retrieval tasks at the weekly class whereas Business & Information Technology arranged a two hour session in the library for each group, supported and guided by their group tutor, to complete the first of the tasks as an active introduction to the course with a tangible, immediate benefit. To generate empathy for these new learners and also give tutors the skills and confidence to work closely with students in preparing them for the course, a staff development session was run prior to the students' arrival in which tutors went through the same exercises. In setting assignments, Creative and Performing Arts asked tutors to consider the provision of good opportunities for students to complete the various exercises. Humanities required students to include in their assignment a 500 word reflective account on finding and evaluating material.

Procedure The procedure was the same as before. 534 students completed questionnaires at the beginning of the course and 302 at the end, of which 216 (16% of first year students taking Unique Learning) completed both questionnaires. In addition, 177 students (out of 228) in the Education Deanery, who were not taking Unique Learning, completed the LCS in the second semester.

Results For the students completing both questionnaires (N=216), a highly significant difference (t test for dependent samples, (t (215,1) = 9.48, p<0.000001) was found between scores at the beginning of the course (mean=116.03, SD=15.10) and at the end (mean=125.39, SD=15.96). This strongly suggested that students bad benefited from the course. An Analysis of Variance showed significant differences IF (3,277)=3.86,p<0.05] between the mean scores for students in the four schools (Table 1). Post hoc tests (Games-Howell) showed that students from the School of Creative & Performing Arts scored significantly higher (p<0.01) than students from Business, Information Technology & Enterprise but that there were no other significant differences between the Schools. Analysis of Variance had shown that, for both studies 1 & 2, there were no significant differences between mean scores for students who had completed the LCS at the beginning or the end of the course and those who had completed both questionnaires. It was reasonable therefore to use data from all the students in the two studies together with data from an earlier study (Norton, 2001) to compare the mean scores of four groups of students shown in Table 2: two groups who did not take Information Retrieval (groups 1 & 2) and two groups who did take Information Retrieval (groups 3 & 4). See issue's website < http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

An analysis of variance showed significant difference between mean scores for these four groups (F (3,766)=39.65,p<0.0001). Planned comparisons analysis showed that while there was no difference (t (766)=0.60, ns) between scores on the LCS for students in the two groups who had not taken Information Retrieval, students in the two groups who had taken Information Retrieval, scored significantly higher (t (766) = 4.10, p<0.0001 and t (766) = 8.73, p<0.0001 respectively) than those in groups who had not. Furthermore, students who had taken the revised Information Retrieval course scored significantly higher (t (766) = 4.60, p<0.0001) than students who had taken the original Information Retrieval course. This not only supports the notion that the Information Retrieval course in both forms has had an effect in improving students' confidence in using the library but also provides evidence of the greater effectiveness of the revised course.

Conclusion

The research showed that students' library confidence did increase after the Information Retrieval course and that the effect was greater when the course was contextualised with academic subjects. These results suggested that 'real' tasks involving active participation, performed over a number of weeks, embedded in the subject, and assessed, helped students to become information literate. However, because the research has been conducted in only one institution, we must be cautious in generalising these results. While recognising that we have not shown that improved confidence necessarily translates to better academic performance, we think that increasing first year students' confidence in any academic endeavour at an early stage can only be a good thing. Increasing library confidence must surely be an essential first step in encouraging students to overcome the anxiety identified by Mellon (1986) in the process of becoming information competent. The research has also shown that the LCS is very sensitive to picking up changes in students' library confidence (copies available from the first author).

Acknowledgments: The research reported in this paper has been funded by the School of Sciences & Social Sciences and the Education Deanery of Liverpool Hope University College.

References

Bostick, S. L. (1992) The Development and Validation of the Library Anxiety Scale. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 53-12, 4116. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International 

Daragan, P. and Stevens, G. (1996) Developing life long learners: an integrative and developmental approach to information literacy. Research Strategies. 14, (2), 68-81.

Hardesty, L., Lovrick, N.P. and Mannon, J. (1982) Library-use instruction: assessment of the long term effects. College & Research Libraries, 43, (1), 38-46.

HEFCE (2002) Performance Indicators in Higher Education: 1999-2000, 2000-1. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Jacobson, F. F. (1991) Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Using Computers in Libraries: An Exploratory Study. Library and Information Science Research, 13, (3), 267-79

Jiao, Q. G. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997) Prevalence and Reasons for University Library Usage. Library Review. 46, (6), 411-20

Jiao, Q. G. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999) Is Library Anxiety important? Library Review, 48, (6), 278-282.

Jiao, Q. G., Onwuegbuzie, A. and Lichtenstein, A. (1996) Library anxiety: Characteristics of 'At Risk' college students. Library and Information Science Research. 18, (2), 150-163.

Limberg, L. (2000). Is there a relation between information seeking and learning outcomes? In Information literacy: advances in programs and research. In C. Bruce and P. Candy (Eds). Wagga Wagga, Charles Sturt University Centre for Information Studies.

Mech, T. F. and Brooks, C. I. (1995) Library Anxiety among college students: an exploratory study. In R. AmRhin (Ed.) Continuity and Transformation: the Promise of Confluence. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.

Mech, T.F. and Brooks, C.I. (1997) Anxiety and confidence in using a library by college freshmen and seniors. Psychological reports, 81, (3), 929- 930.

Mellon, C.A. (1984) "Process Not Product in Course-Integrated Instruction: A Genetic Model of Library Research," College and Research Libraries, 45,(6), 471-78.

Mellon, C. A. (1986) Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development, College and Research Libraries, 47, (2), 160-166.

Mellon, C. A. (1988) Attitudes: The Forgotten Dimension in Library Instruction. Library Journal, 113, (14), 137-39.

Norton, J.C.W. (2001) Library confidence and information seeking skills: factors affecting library use by undergraduate students. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation. Liverpool: Liverpool Hope University College.

Norton, L., Brunas-Wagstaff, J. and Lockley, S (1999) Learning outcomes in the traditional coursework essay: Do students and tutors agree? In C. Rust (Ed) Improving Student Learning. Improving Student Learning Outcomes. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

Norton, L. S. and Norton, B. (2000). Information skills: Do we help our students enough? In C. Rust (Ed) Improving Student learning. Improving Student Learning through the disciplines. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Part III, Chapter 27, pp.283-293.

Norton, L. S., Norton, J.C.W. and Gayton, E. (2001) Do independent learning modules help students to use academic libraries? Paper presented at the second ILT Annual Conference (ILTAC). University of York, 4-6 July 2001

Valentine, B. (1993) Undergraduate Research Behaviour: Using Focus Groups to Generate Theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19,(5), 300-4.

Wells, J. (1995) The influence of library usage on undergraduate academic success. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 26,(2), 121-128

Bill Norton, Lin Norton, Tim Griffiths, Tessa Owens, Stephen Perrin, and David Walters; Liverpool Hope University College, UK

The first author is a retired librarian and Honorary Research Associate in Learning and Teaching and the other authors are Learning and Teaching Fellows. All have an ongoing interest in researching and fostering student learning.