Collaborating with Librarians to Develop Lower Division Political Science Students' Information Literacy Competencies

Abstract

Studies suggest that course-integrated information literacy instruction is an effective way to enhance the quality of student research. However, many political science professors are unfamiliar with the growing information literacy movement in higher education today, with strategies for integrating information literacy into their courses and assignments, and with opportunities to collaborate with librarians beyond requesting a 50-minute library instruction session for their classes. This paper addresses these issues, beginning with a discussion of the emergence of information literacy as an important discourse in higher education today and a description of the Association of College and Research Libraries' “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” It then reviews relevant literature on library instruction and librarian/course faculty collaboration, illustrating that effective information literacy instruction requires that librarians and course faculty work together beyond “one-shot” library instruction sessions. Collaboratively developed research assignment sequences are posited as an effective way for librarians and political science professors to work together to enhance lower division students' information literacy competencies. Finally, the paper provides a practical example of a collaboratively developed assignment sequence for a lower division American Government class that is mapped to the “Information Literacy Competency Standards.”

Keywords:

• collaboration
• information literacy competency standards
• information literacy
• instruction
• librarians
• libraries
• political science
• research

Notes

According to Zurkowski, “People trained in the application of information resources to their work can be called information literates. They have learned techniques and skills for utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information-solutions to their problems” (1974, 6).

For example, in a paper presented at a Texas A&M library symposium, Burchinal (1976) suggested that “to be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include how to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively” (11). In a Library Journal article, Owens (1976) linked information literacy and democracy: “Beyond information literacy for greater work effectiveness and efficiency, information literacy is needed to guarantee the survival of democratic institutions. All men are created equal but voters with information resources are in a position to make more intelligent decisions than citizens who are information illiterates” (27).

These numbers were gleaned from a series of publications. See Johnson and Jent 2005, Johnson and Jent 2004, Johnson 2003, Johnson and Rader 2002, and Johnson 2001.

The “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” are available online (http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html).

For example, in the Fall of 2002, member libraries of the CTW Consortium, Connecticut College, Trinity College, and Wesleyan University, were awarded a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to support collaborative programs in information literacy (http://camel2.conncoll.edu/is/infolit/). In 2000, Carleton College received a three-year information literacy Mellon grant (http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/about/infolit/mellon//). The Five Colleges of Ohio also won an information literacy Mellon grant (http://www.denison.edu/collaborations/ohio5/grant/development/index.html). Some colleges and universities have funded their own information literacy grant programs. Virginia Tech, for example, developed an Information Literacy Collaboration Grant project, funded by the University Libraries and the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences (http:// www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=24).

For example, Carter (2002) states, “It is probably safe to say that most librarians agree that library research instruction is ‘most effective when integrated into courses, linked to an assignment, and designed cooperatively by librarian and course instructor’” (36); Julien and Given (2003) claim that “faculty-librarian collaboration is one of the most prevalent solutions offered in the Library Information System (LIS) literature, to the problem of faculty members' disengagement from the Information Literacy (IL) imperative” (70); and Rockman (2002) observes that “at the beginning of the twenty-first century” library literature evinced an “increased focus on faculty partnerships” bringing a “renewed emphasis” to the topic (187).

See, for example, D'Angelo and Maid (2004), who make the oft-repeated claim, “faculty across the campus must understand they all have a shared responsibility in injecting IL into their curriculum. However, they can only do so meaningfully in close collaboration with the experts in the library.” See also Mackey and Jacobson (2005). They begin their article on IL collaborations with the assertion, “Collaboration among faculty and librarians is essential for Information Literacy (IL) initiatives to be successful.”

“Situative” theorists, those who believe that learning and knowing is situated in specific environmental and social contexts, argue that how and why a person learns a particular set of knowledge or skills, including the situation in which the learning takes place and the learner's intentions, are fundamental aspects of what is learned. In other words, knowledge is created and made meaningful in specific contexts, to which it is inextricably linked. See, for example, Cobb and Bowers (1999) and Greeno (1997). Situated theorists recognize that knowledge does not always transfer between different contexts and emphasize the importance of authentic classroom activities. See, for example, Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) and Ball (1997).

In a two-year study of college students' feelings about library use, Mellon (1986) found that students described their initial reactions to the library in terms of fear. Specifically they were afraid that their own skills were inadequate compared to that of their peers. As a result, they avoided asking questions for fear of revealing their inadequacy to others. Bostick (1993) later developed a Library Anxiety Scale designed to measure five dimensions of library anxiety: 1) barriers with staff, 2) affective barriers, 3) comfort with the library, 4) knowledge of the library, and 5) mechanical barriers.

Bloom (1956) described a hierarchy of intellectual behavior (Bloom's Taxonomy), which popularized the concept of higher order thinking skills.