1. Kenneth C. C. Yang The University of Texas at El Paso Presented at 2016 Sun Conference TEACHING INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS IN COLLEGE CLASSROOMS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM 13 CLASSES AT UTEP

2.  information literacy has been linked to student engagement, graduate employability, and student success (Gardner & Koch, 2007; Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities [MTCU], 2009; Rockman, 2004; Varcoe, 2012).  According to Association of Colleges & Research Libraries [ACRL] (2000), information literacy skills are claimed to multiply “the opportunities for students’ self-directed learning, as they become engaged in using a wide variety of information sources to expand their knowledge, ask informed questions, and sharpen their critical thinking skills for further self-directed learning (p. 3, cited in Varcoe, 2012, p. 7) BACKGROUND

3.  According to Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliter acycompetency), an information literate individual should be able to 1) “[d]etermine the extent of information needed”; 2) “[a]ccess the needed information effectively and efficiently”; 3) “[e]valuate information and its sources critically.”http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliter acycompetency INFORMATION LITERACY: ITS DEFINITION

4.  The literate level:  A basic ability to determine that information is needed, to access information, to evaluate and incorporate information into knowledge base and value system, to use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose, and to understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information. (Varcoe, 2012, p. 11)  The fluent level:  Sophisticated comprehension and synthesis of the information literacy standards with an ability to transfer the skills. (Varcoe, 2012, p. 11)  The master level:  A progression from the fluent level that includes a specialized ability in a particular discipline or narrowly defined subject area and the ability to actualize the skills in an interdisciplinary environment. (Varcoe, 2012, p. 11) THREE LEVELS OF INFORMATION LITERACY

5.  RQ1: What are the types of search tools commonly used by college student participants?  RQ2: What are the types of sources commonly used by college student participants in their research projects?  RQ3: Did students’ information literacy level change throughout the semester?  RQ4: Will students’ gender and year in college affect their information literacy level? RESEARCH QUESTIONS

6.  An online survey was developed  The project collected data at the beginning (1 st week), in the middle of (7 th week), and the end (15 th week) of classes taught between 2014 and 2015 to examine whether information literacy instructions contribute to students’ knowledge and skills in conducting research.  Instructors took part in this study voluntarily. RESEARCH METHOD

7.  13 college courses after the Department of Communication voted to integrate information literacy pedagogy into its curriculum.  The following section reports data collected between 2014 and 2015. Thirteen courses in the Communication Department have taken part in the information literacy project (2014-2015). These courses range from the introductory course (e.g., COMM. 1301 and COMM. 1305), to courses related to each degree plan (e.g., COMM. 2330, COMM. 3338, and COMM. 3344), and to senior-level and graduate courses (e.g., COMM. 4372 and COMM. 5301). SAMPLING METHOD

8. CLASSES IN THE SAMPLE

9.  The project collected over 317 responses  Valid sample is 254  Among these responses, 30 (11.8%) were freshman, 22 (8.7%) were sophomore, 53 were junior (20.9%), 144 were senior (56.7%), and 5 of them were graduate students (2.0%). SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: LEVEL

10.  Among these responses, 97 (38.2%) were male, while 157 of them were female (61.8%). SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: GENDER

11.  The online survey begin with demographic questions about the class, month, last four digit of their 800-, level, and gender  The second section of the survey include questions about students’ use of search tools, research activities done, and whether they enjoy doing research  The third section of the survey include 10 questions related to the literate level of information skills by asking students how they perceive a list of research activities to be challenging to them. These questions asked participants to assess whether using a library catalog, for example, would be challenging to them by answering “very easy” (coded as 1), “somewhat easy” (coded as 2), “somewhat difficult” (coded as 3), “very difficult” (coded as 4), and “no experience” (coded as 5 and as a missing value). INSTRUMENTATION

12.  The four section of the survey include seven questions related to the fluency level of information literacy skills to examine how students perceive a list of research components to be challenging to them. These questions asked participants to assess whether using a library catalog, for example, would be challenging to them by answering “very easy” (coded as 1), “somewhat easy” (coded as 2), “somewhat difficult” (coded as 3), “very difficult” (coded as 4), and “no experience” (coded as 5 and as a missing value).  Sample instrument Sample instrument INSTRUMENTATION (CONT.)

13.  Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for 10-item literate- level information literacy is 0.8407  Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for 7-item fluent-level information literacy is 0.8428 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

14.  The empirical data found that the most used search tools when conducting research among the college student participants were as follows:  Google, Yahoo Search, and other search engines (N=206)  Library catalogs (whether print or online) (N=163)  Wikipedia (N=106)  Online indexes or databases (JSTOR, PUBMED, PsycINFO, etc.) (N=101)  Google Scholars (N=83) FINDINGS: TYPES OF SEARCH TOOLS (RQ1)

15.  The empirical data found that the most commonly used sources in participants’ research activities were as follows:  Encyclopedias and dictionaries (N=182)  Audio-visual resources (music, videos, artwork, etc) (N=165)  Course readings (N=165)  Academic Journal (N=91)  Newspapers or magazines for the general public (N=89)  Books/eBooks (N=3) FINDINGS: TYPES OF SOURCES USED (RQ2)

16.  Overall, the data support students are making progress in their information literacy levels FINDINGS: INFORMATION LITERACY SKILL IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME (RQ3)

17. FINDINGS: ONE-WAY ANOVA (RQ3)

18. FINDINGS: POST-HOC COMPARISON (RQ3)

19. FINDINGS: GENDER AND YEAR IN COLLEGE AS COVARIATES (RQ4)

21.  Pedagogical Implications  The importance of assessing students’ existing information literacy skills  The role of faculty-instructor to implement information literacy instruction  The role of embedded librarians in a course  Research Implications  Small sample size  Data completeness at three stages of data collection  Future Research Directions  A panel study  Cross-discipline IMPLICATIONS

22. Q&A