Title
UK academics' conceptions of, and pedagogy for, information literacy.

Awarding body
Arts and Humanities Research Council

Duration
2002-2005

Award holders
Sheila Webber (Principal investigator) and Bill Johnston

Research Assistant
Stuart Boon, based at University of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies

1. What conceptions of information literacy are held by UK academics;
2. How do these conceptions relate to previous research;
3. What is academics' practice in educating students for information literacy;
4. What is the relationship between conceptions and practice;
5. Do differences in conception and practice correspond to differences in discipline.

"the adoption of appropriate information behaviour to obtain, through whatever channel or medium, information well fitted to information needs, together with critical awareness of the importance of wise and ethical use of information in society."

1. Contribute to the development of the discipline of information literacy by identifying UK academics' conceptions and relating the results to information literacy research internationally;
2. Develop a framework of academics' educational practice as regards information literacy and collect data using that framework;
3. Identify whether there are differences in conception and practice in different disciplines, and relate any differences to previous research on disciplinarity.
   
   

There is no basic research on these topics relating to UK academics. Until there is such research we will lack insight into how information literacy can be foregrounded in UK academic practice and best value obtained from the substantial investment made in higher education information resources.

Whilst models (e.g. the SCONUL 7 pillars(1) ) and (in the US (2) and Australia) standards for information literacy exist, these have been produced by library and information services (LIS) professionals without application of a specific research method and reflecting LIS professionals' conceptions. Bawden (3) provides a review of definitions.

The key role of academics in producing information literate students has been identified in the literature (e.g. by the SCONUL Task Force (4)). Many librarians view contextualisation of information literacy within the curriculum as vital(5) but comment on the difficulty of collaborating with academics. Academics need to be involved because they are both more influential on students (6) (and, arguably, on senior university staff) and simply more numerous than librarians. Without a better understanding of what academics are doing and thinking, better to engage them in effective education for information literacy, it is difficult for librarians to adopt effective tactics in their campaign to embed information literacy in the curriculum. A small pilot study undertaken by an MSc student at Sheffield University(7) revealed interesting differences in the way information literacy was discussed by academics and librarians.

There have been, and are, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) funded projects concerning information skills, but these concentrate on mapping practice of centrally delivered training (or at most gathering librarians' perceptions of what might be going on elsewhere (8)), or concentrate on improving internet skills, or gathering information about academics' use of information resources (rather than their educational practice as regards information literacy) (9,10).

The social and economic importance of information literacy is increasingly acknowledged. In their influential report Candy et al.(11) identify information literacy as one of the five key elements needed for lifelong learning. Breivik identifies a need for basic research into different cultures' and professions' conceptions of information literacy (12).

There have been a small number of research studies focusing on academics' perceptions and practice outside the UK. These include Bruce's(13) phenomenographic studies of educators in Australian universities, and Canadian surveys of information literacy perceptions/activities amongst science and engineering faculty(14) and humanities and social sciences faculty(15). Novelty in the proposed research lies in: focus on the UK; consideration of disciplinarity; acknowledgement that academics are already engaged in information literacy education; setting analysis of information literacy in the context of teaching conceptions.

The phenomenographic method(16) will be used for the first stages of research. Trigwell (17) has identified distinguishing aspects of this method. Of key relevance to this research is that:
a) the method aims to identify variation in experience of a phenomenon; and
b) it takes a second-order perspective: the focus is on the perceptions of the subjects of study, not on those of the researcher.
This contrasts with the consensus approach that characterises the formulation of information literacy definitions, models and standards in the LIS sector.

For the purpose of identifying variation between disciplines we will use Biglan's typology as modified by Becher(18) in his study of disciplinarity. This characterises disciplines as hard pure; hard applied; soft pure and soft applied. This typology has been used by subsequent researchers. For example Neumann(19) reviews disciplinary differences in learning and teaching, showing that various studies have highlighted differences in teaching methods, assessment and performance criteria correlating with the Biglan-Becher disciplinary categories. We will select one subject from each of the categories: Chemistry (Hard Pure), Civil Engineering (Hard Applied), English (Soft Pure) and Marketing (Soft Applied).

As we are investigating both conceptions of information literacy and pedagogic practice concerning it, one facet of analysis will seek to map interviewees' conceptions of teaching, since it will be interesting to note whether there is correlation in conceptions of teaching and of information literacy. For this purpose we will use the six categories of teachers' conceptions of teaching identified by Prosser et al(20) using the phenomenographic method.

1. SCONUL Task Force on Information Skills. (1999) Information Skills in Higher Education. London: Standing Conference of National and University Libraries.
2. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association.
3. Bawden, D. (2001) "Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts." Journal of documentation, 57 (2) 218-259.
4. SCONUL. Op cit para 6
5. Farber, E. (1999) "Faculty-librarian cooperation: a personal retrospective." Reference services review, 27 (3), 229-234.
6. Armstrong, C. et al (2000) JUSTEIS: JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services. Aberystwyth: University of Wales. [See Table 6.9] http://www.dil.aber.ac.uk/dils/Research/Justeis/cyc1rep0.htm
7. Hetherington-Field, J (2001) An investigation into the perceptions of information literacy among lecturers, library staff and students. MA Librarianship, University of Sheffield.
8. e.g. Big Blue: information skills for students. (2001) http://www.leeds.ac.uk/bigblue/
9. reviewed in: Levy, P. (2000) "Information specialists supporting learning in the networked environment: a review of trends and issues in higher education." New review of libraries and lifelong learning, 1, 35-64.
10. Armstrong et al. (2000) op cit.
11. Candy, P; Crebert, G and O'Leary, J. (1994) Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education. Canberra: NBEET. [Page 43]
12. Breivik, P.S. (2000). "Foreword." In: Bruce, C. and Candy, P. (eds) Information literacy around the world: advances in programs and research. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University. [Page xi]
13. Bruce, C. (1997) The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
14. Leckie, G. and Fullerton, A. (1999) "Information literacy in science and engineering undergraduate education: faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices." College and research libraries, 60 (1), 9-29.
15. Cannon, A. (1994). "Faculty survey on library research instruction." RQ, 33 (4), 524-541.
16. Marton, F and Booth, S. (1997) Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Trigwell, K. (2000) Phenomenography: variation and discernment. In: Improving student learning: Proceedings 1999 7th International Symposium. Oxford. 75-85.
18. Becher, T. (1989) Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: SRHE.
19. Neumann, R. (2001) "Disciplinary differences and university teaching." Studies in higher education, 26 (2), 135-146.
20. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. and Taylor, P. (1994) "A phenomenographic study of academics' conceptions of science learning and teaching" Learning and instruction, 4, 217-31.