Presents the structure and strategy for a research project focused on information literacy instruction in public libraries. Important topics include data collection methods and tools, data analysis procedures, and the scope and significance of the proposed research.

1. Team 7 Research
Proposal Presentation
Alphild Dick, Melendra
Sanders, Shelly Speicher, & Julie
Temple

2. TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION
LITERACY INSTRUCTION:
What Terms should Public Libraries Use to
Promote and Teach Information Literacy?

3. • An information literate
population is a key element in
the 21st century
• The ability of public libraries to
contribute to information literacy
campaigns is often overlooked
• Advocacy efforts: do patrons of
public libraries have a negative
view of IL and ILI?
Role of Public Libraries in ILI
“Information
literacy is actually
beautifully
relevant within the
mission of public
libraries” Rachel
Hall, pg. 163

4. Research Aims & Questions
• To determine how the term “information literacy”
is perceived by public library patrons and how
these perceptions impact the success of
information literacy instruction (ILI) programs.

5. • What are the dominant terminologies used in conjunction
with IL programs (i.e. information literacy, information
competency, life-long learning, etc.)?
• What connotations do each of these terms have, and are
they positive or negative?
• How do public library patrons react to each of these
terms?
• What terms best represent the concept of IL while
maintaining the best reaction from patrons?
Research Aims & Questions

6. • Most IL research and programs
reside in academic and school
libraries
• IL terminology and definitions
are unclear to both librarians
and patrons
Common Themes
“Perhaps there is too
much confusion
surrounding the concept
itself, leading public
librarians to believe that
information literacy is
only relevant to
academic and research
institutions”
Rachel Hall, pg. 163.
“many librarians, especially public librarians, may be
the least able spokespersons. . .[because of] a lack
of understanding and knowledge of information
literacy concepts” Jane Harding, pg. 84

7. • Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate
communities through advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-
190.
• Lin, P. (2010). Information literacy barriers: Language use and social
structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568.
• Hall, R. (2010).Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in
public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.
• Harding, J. (2010).Information literacy and the public library: we've
talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library
Journal, 57(3), 274-294.
• Hart, G. (2006). Public librarians and information literacy education:
Views from Mpumalanga Province. South African Journal of Libraries
and Information Science, 72(3), 172-184.
• Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information
literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press.
Background of Research

8. Philosophical Assumptions
Constructionist: Alan Bryman (2008) “implies that social
phenomena and categories are not only produced through
social interaction but that they are in a constant state of
revision” (pg. 19). Language as a social tool is also in constant
flux, especially in the context of lesser known terminology.
Sociolinguist: Anja Kellerman (2001) notes “qualitative research
forumulae provides flexible and malleable instruments to
evaluate the complexities of modern society” (pg. 65) A new,
new English: Language, politics, and identity in Gibralter
Linguist: Marc Pruyn (1999) qualitative elements help us “see
how participants construct understanding” (pg. 196) The
power of classroom hegemony

9. Sampling
• Content Analysis
Public library websites selected using the American
Library Association's "The Nation's Largest Libraries:
A Listing By Volumes Held"
• Self-Completion Questionnaires
Four large public library systems in Kansas
• Unstructured Interviews
Convenience sample based on responses from self-
completion questionnaires

10. Data Collection Methods &
Analysis Procedures
Content Analysis
• Quantitative methodology
• Coding instrument adapted from on-going research
conducted by ESU SLIM professor
Developed instrument via team collaboration for
consistency
• Analyzed two public libraries for terminology
regarding IL programs
Also drew from literature review terminology
• Instrument usable for analyzing other public library
IL programs

11. Content Analysis Coding Schedule

12. Self-completion Questionnaire
• Quantitative methodology
• Based questionnaire on terminology and programming
drawn from content analysis
• Delivered via Survey Monkey at the Topeka-Shawnee
County, Manhattan, Johnson County, and Wichita
public library systems
Advantages
• No interviewer effect
• Convenience to participants
• Provides sample for unstructured interviews
Data Collection Methods &
Analysis Procedures

13. Self-Completion Questionnaire

14. Unstructured interviews
• Qualitative methodology
• Voluntary
• Questions designed to gauge attitudes towards real-life IL
programs at public libraries
Advantages
• Deeper and more nuanced responses
• Contextualize quantitative data
• Provides usable raw data for public libraries (i.e., what
classes would a patron find appealing?)
Data Collection Methods &
Analysis Procedures

15. Unstructured Interview

16. Permissions
• Compliant with ESU Ethic Review Board
• Permission gained by all involved: libraries, library
professionals, and participants
Ethical Concerns
• Voluntary participation
• Protection of privacy
• Protection of personal data
• Exclusion of minors
Ethical Considerations

17. Ethical Considerations

18. • Selection of websites for unstructured interviews
• Use of non-Kansan libraries
• Brevity of unstructured interviews
• Measurability of data from unstructured interviews
• Objectivity
Limitations of Research

19. • Little empirical research addressing IL
terminology and consequently the success of IL
programs
• Lack of research on IL programs in public
libraries
Scope of the Research Reiterated

20. • Address gaps in IL research
• Propose alternative terms for marketing IL
programs
• Develop a better understanding of patron needs
• Contribute to discussion of what information
literacy, in fact, is within a public library setting
Significance

21. Concluding Remarks

22. References
Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate
communities through advocacy, Public Library
Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Hall, R. (2010). Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in
public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175.
Harding, J. (2008). Information literacy and the public library: we've
talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library
Journal, 57(3), 274-294.
Lin, P. (2010), Information literacy barriers: Language use and social
structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568.
Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy:
Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.

23. Questions?