- Email: [email protected]
University faculty and information literacy: Who teaches the students?
University Faculty and lnformatibn Literacy: Who Teaches the Students? by Donna Amstutz and Donna Whitson
This descriptive study reports on a 1995 survey at the University of
Wyoming, in which faculty and academic professionals were asked how they acquire information, and how they require or encourage students to access and use information. 7’hefindings describe the characteristics and roles of faculty who use technology for information access, which resources they use, which sources thy promote to students, and who has the responsibility for developing students’ information access skills. Recommendations for further investigation are made, as are suggestions for wvlysthat librarians and faculty can collaborate to imprcme students’ skills in finding information.
N
ew technologies to find, store, manipulate, and transmit information with amazing speed have provided access to worldwide resources via the information superhighway. But this exponential proliferation of data can make faculty feel overwhelmed and almost paralyzed from information overload. Steven Gilbert, Director of Technology Projects for the American Association for Higher Education, writes, “Faculty members can feel vulnerable, disempowered, and frustrated when confronted with new technologies that may be For faculty and other academic profesdifficult to use or unreliable.“’ sionals to be proactive rather than reactive consumers in the information society, they must become information literate. They need a Donna Amstutz is Assistant Professor, Adult Education, San Francisco State University, and Donna Whitson is Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. E-mail: damstuM&fsu.edu and [email protected] Research Strategies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 18-25 01997 by Research Strategies. All rights reserved.
AmdutzfWhitson
19
lifelong ability to acquire, understand, and manage information. James Hall, President of Empire State University, acknowledges that instruction at universities has remained largely untouched by the technology revolution. He proposed developing a “university of convergence” to integrate technologies and instruction: Students in the university of convergence will learn to engage with information, understand how to use it, and gain the skills and intellectual competencies associated with a university graduate. . . . The (faculty) role of intellectual guide to the student, or mentor, will become more important.2
Currently, there are few resources that help faculty develop information access skills. If the faculty have limited skills, how do they train students to become proficient in information usage? RBVIEW OF THE L~~~~
A review of the literature about higher education faculty and information access skills produced an incomplete picture of information literacy. Research conducted by library and information science professionals tends to focus on the librarian’s role in working with faculty. The literature was especially sparse concerning faculty skills related to recent technological developments. Some literature speculated on how faculty and researchers formulate plans for becoming literate in the future. In the mid-1970s Crawford estimated that more than 1,000 papers had been published on behavior and information use.3 In the mid1980s most of the research on how students and faculty in higher education looked for information was done by librarians. Studies about information-seeking behavior were conducted in specific disciplines, such as the social sciences, engineering, psychology, and business, and in general higher education academic environments. Regardless of the discipline, the majority of studies from the past ten years concluded that faculty and students tended to follow similar, traditional ways of finding and using information, and that educational interventions by library professionals made little difference.4 Moreover, librarians have tended to focus on how they, rather than faculty, teach information literacy. Only now are a few researchers looking beyond librarians’ roles in teaching access skills and recognizing faculty responsibilities. A 1990 study at California State University, Long Beach, concluded that most faculty believed students learn information skills on their own, even with new technologies.5 Research in psychology has also focused on information seeking behavior. A 1994 study examined psychometric qualities to help assess the effectiveness of bibliographic instruction.6 In a 1995 study, researchers looked at cognitive and metacognitive demands in the initial stages of information gathering.’
20 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Winter1997
A number of studies involve K-12 learners and the process of information literacy. Patricia Breivik has written extensively on information literacy at all levels of education.s PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ways in which faculty access and use information. Because information access today includes technologies and resources not previously available, this study explored faculty use of both new tools and traditional methods. To this purpose, three research questions were developed: l l
l
What resources do faculty use to get information they need? Are there distinguishing characteristics of faculty who use electronic technology (including the Internet and e-mail) to access information? In what ways do faculty encourage technology?
students
to use information
METHOD
To provide an initial overview of the topic, a descriptive survey was designed, adhering strictly to Dillman’s method.9 The survey consisted of 16 questions, some in multiple parts. It was sent-mainly via campus mail but also to some home addresses-to all professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and academic professionals at the University of Wyoming, as identified by the University’s Office of Institutional Analysis. The results were analyzed using SPSS-X (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). FINDINGS
Of the 945 surveys sent out, 313 were returned, for a response rate of 33 percent. Four surveys were declared unusable, so 309 surveys were analyzed. The first five questions asked respondents for demographic data: their academic discipline, academic rank, sex, age, and the year they received their terminal degree. All seven colleges in the University were represented: Arts and Sciences (37 percent of respondents), Agriculture (17 percent), Education (12 percent), Engineering (12 percent), Health Sciences (11 percent), Business (8 percent), and Law (1 percent). There were also four respondents from the ROTC on campus. All ranks were represented: academic professionals (20 percent), assistant professors (22 percent), associate professors (22 percent), and professors (35 percent). Thirtythree percent of the respondents were women. Some 40 percent had received their terminal degree in the past 10 years; 28 percent from 11 to 20 years ago; 28 percent from 21 to 30 years ago; and 4 percent over 30 years ago. As all but one of the above percentages are within 4
Amsfuh(Whitsm
21
percent of the distribution of the entire population, the respondent population was representative of the target population in demographic terms; the only exception was in rank where academic professionals comprise 29 percent of the entire population, but only 20 percent of the respondents. The remaining 11 questions explored various aspects of the three original research questions. Question 6 asked about frequency of use for 20 types of information sources. Frequency was ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very often and 5 being never; Table 1 shows percentages of responses in these two categories. Question 7 listed ten types of information sources and asked respondents whether each was required, encouraged, or never mentioned in classes they taught. Table 2 shows percentages of responses for each source. The next question focused on electronic sources, asking faculty if they used the Internet, how they used it, and how they accessed it. Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported using the Internet, but primarily for e-mail. Among the Internet users, many e-mailed colleagues on campus (66 percent) and off campus (70 percent), but only 39 percent communicated with students this way. Thirty-five percent used the Internet to access or retrieve files or resources, 21 percent used LISTSERVs, and 49 percent reported using Gopher, Table 1 Ranking of Resources Used by Faculty Percentages Who Used Resource Notes, files, and books in your office Books Professional journals University library Internet CARL (VW online catalog) Colleagues Off-campus conventions/conferences Uncover (journal index on CARL) Abstracts and bibliographies Browsing library shelves Outside experts CD-ROM sources Government documents Librarian Technical reports Public library On-campus workshops/seminars Microforms (film and fiche) Archives
“Verv Often”
“Never”
71.6 70.2 66.0 38.0 35.3 34.6 27.0 12.3 12.3 12.0 12.0 10.0 8.1 7.8 6.8 5.5
0
E 1:9 1.6
X:Z 202.; 9:1 0.6 4;:: 7.8 15.9 2.6 34.0 18.4 11.0 19.4 25.2 16.2 22.0 36.2
22 RESEARCH
STRATEGIES
Winter 1997
Veronica, or Archie. Although41 percent accessed the Internet through an Ethernet connection in their office, 37 percent still relied on a modem in their office, and 27 percent used a modem from home. Respondents were next asked about perceived barriers to obtaining the information they needed. Table 3 reports percentages by barrier. The next questions asked respondents where they first looked for information; whether the information need was mostly for personal reasons, teaching, or research; and how successful they felt they were in meeting their information needs. There were 51 different responses about where respondents first looked for information. The top response was a library (47 percent), followed by personal collections (23 percent), and electronic resources (11 percent). Concerning why faculty look for information, 47 percent listed research, 29 percent teaching, and 4 percent personal use as
Faculty-to-Student
Table 2 Transmission of Ten Principal Percentage
Source
Require
Textbooks Professional iournals UW library (in general) CARL E-mail Indexes and abstracts Government documents Internet CD-ROM sources Uncover
Facultv Perceptions Reported
76 44 38 22 14 12 9 7 ;
of Faculty
Encourage
Time constraints Library doesn’t own material Sources unavailable Financial constraints Procedures too complicated Library material lost or checked out Don’t understand or use electronic access Physical barriers Don’t know where to look Don’t know how to use the library Librarians unhelpful
Who:
Never
Mention
10 39
3 8
43 50 34 47
10
18
:o’ 43 44
;; 33 29
z!
Table 3 of Barriers to Information
Barrier
Sources
Access
Percentage
of Faculty
65 45 41 30 27 25 16 10 10 2 2
AmstutJWhitson
23
their primary reason. Almost 37 percent felt they were very successful in meeting their information needs and less than 5 percent felt unsuccessful. The final four questions addressed the importance of information access skills and whose responsibility it is to help students develop these skills. Almost 95 percent of the faculty ranked information access skills as either essential or very important. Some 53 percent felt faculty play a very important role in helping students develop information access skills and 45 percent felt librarians are important to the process. When asked if they felt personally responsible for helping students develop access skills, 82 percent of the faculty said yes. Question 16 asked about requiring or encouraging use of e-mail, the Internet, and the library with the following results: e-mail, 35 percent required, 48 percent encouraged; Internet, 32 percent required, 57 percent encouraged; library, nearly 80 percent required, 35 percent encouraged. (As the question invited faculty to “check all that apply,” the answers “require” and “encourage” are not mutually exclusive.) DISCUSSION
The data indicate that faculty continue to use traditional sources for information. Books remain the most common source for information needs, and textbooks remain the predominant resource required in classes. This reliance on traditional sources may indicate that faculty are most comfortable acquiring and using information in the way they were trained. The percentages of faculty who never mention CD-ROM sources (50 percent), the Internet (44 percent), or the computer library catalog system (52 percent) suggest that faculty pass on their biases when presenting information sources. Perhaps libraries need to develop more focused professional development opportunities so that faculty can become familiar with technological resources in their specific discipline. Developing this awareness, so that faculty refer students to library resources, may be essential to helping students seek out and use new information sources. Characteristics of Faculty who use Technology The ratios of users to nonusers of the Internet are 4:l for faculty up through age 49, 2:l for ages 50-59, and 1:l for faculty over 60. The ratios of users to nonusers based on number of years since receiving the terminal degree are as follows: l-5 years, 5:l; 6-10 years, 4:l; ll20 years, 3.6:1; and over 20 years, 1.6:1. Although these data suggest relationships, they are not statistically significant, so no predictions can be made about use or nonuse of the Internet depending on age or years since graduation. There appears to be a stronger connection between technology use and reason for information needs: faculty
24 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Winter 1997
who declared research as their main information likely to use electronic tools such as the Internet.
need were more
The Faculty Role in Teaching Information Access Skills Even though 95 percent of the respondents considered information access skills essential or very important, only 27 percent felt that faculty were very important in helping students develop these skills. Many faculty (45 percent) apparently still rely on librarians to teach these skills, and over half (64 percent) put the responsibility for developing information skills on the students themselves (thereby supporting Thomas‘ findings). Some 82 percent of the respondents said they felt personally responsible for helping students develop the skills, yet less than onethird required e-mail, Internet, and library use in their courses. This contradiction between belief and practice needs to be explored. A comparison of sources faculty use and those they require of students is shown in Table 4. The inference can be made that faculty require students to use the same sources that they use themselves, with two obvious exceptions: professional journals and the Internet. Professional journals provide current research for faculty but many are not well suited for undergraduates. As for the Internet, faculty may need time to become comfortable with this relatively new source before incorporating its use in class assignments. CONCLUSION This study explored the ways in which faculty at one university acquire and use information, both for professional activities and in the classroom. If a university community wants to develop its students’ information and technology skills, then faculty and librarians must work together to provide current resources and the technology for accessing them. Perhaps librarians need to focus more attention on informing faculty about: Table 4 Faculty Use of Sources vs. Those They Require
Percentage Who Required Used “Very Often”
Source Books CARL Uncover Professional journals CD-ROM sources Government Internet
for Student
documents
*This figure refers to textbooks.
Use
for Student Use
Amstutz/Whitson
25
l
new holdings, both print and electronic,
l
processes students should use to investigate an area of interest, and
l
ways in which faculty can enhance the research process through information technology.
Perhaps faculty need to: l
l
communicate more effectively with students regarding they should consult,
resources
examine their course syllabi to determine areas in which they could develop students’ understanding of information technologies, and
. recognize their own need for professional development the library’s resources and processes.
relative to
Questions for further research include: Why have faculty not required students to master the use of e-mail, the Internet, and a library’s technological resources? What would encourage faculty to develop more collaborative relationships with librarians? What barriers inhibit change in the use of information resources? Librarians might also study the relationship between faculty use of information and the library’s instruction program. Both faculty and librarians must investigate these and other questions to prepare students for information access in the future. REFERENCES ‘Steven W. Gilbert, “If It Takes 40 or 50 Years, Can We Still Call It a Revolution?” E~~c~~ion~ZRecord 75 (Summer 1994): 28. 2James W. Hall, “The Convergence of Means: The Revolution in Electronic Technology and the Modern University,” Educom Review 30 (July/August 1995): 42-45. 3S. Crawford, “Information Needs and Uses,” in Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, Vol. 13, ed. M.E. Williams {White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications), 1978, pp. 61-82. (Sherri Edwards, “Bibliographic Instruction Research: An Analysis of the Journal Literature from 1977 to 1991,” Research Strategies 12 (Spring 1994): 68-78. 7oy Thomas, “Faculty Attitudes and Habits Concerning Library Instruction: How Much Has Changed Since 19827” Research Strategies 12 (Fall 1994): 209221 * *R. Eric Landrum, “Assessing Students’ Library Skills and Knowledge: The Library Research Strategies Questionnaire,” Psychological Reports 75 (December, 1994): 1619-1628. ‘Penny Moore, “Information Problem Solving: A Wider View of Library Skills,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 20 (January 1995): l-31. %ee, for example, Patricia S. Breivik and E. Gordon Gee, ~n~oyrnufionLiteracy: Revo~ufion in the Library (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1989). *Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).
This descriptive study reports on a 1995 survey at the University of
Wyoming, in which faculty and academic professionals were asked how they acquire information, and how they require or encourage students to access and use information. 7’hefindings describe the characteristics and roles of faculty who use technology for information access, which resources they use, which sources thy promote to students, and who has the responsibility for developing students’ information access skills. Recommendations for further investigation are made, as are suggestions for wvlysthat librarians and faculty can collaborate to imprcme students’ skills in finding information.
N
ew technologies to find, store, manipulate, and transmit information with amazing speed have provided access to worldwide resources via the information superhighway. But this exponential proliferation of data can make faculty feel overwhelmed and almost paralyzed from information overload. Steven Gilbert, Director of Technology Projects for the American Association for Higher Education, writes, “Faculty members can feel vulnerable, disempowered, and frustrated when confronted with new technologies that may be For faculty and other academic profesdifficult to use or unreliable.“’ sionals to be proactive rather than reactive consumers in the information society, they must become information literate. They need a Donna Amstutz is Assistant Professor, Adult Education, San Francisco State University, and Donna Whitson is Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. E-mail: damstuM&fsu.edu and [email protected] Research Strategies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 18-25 01997 by Research Strategies. All rights reserved.
AmdutzfWhitson
19
lifelong ability to acquire, understand, and manage information. James Hall, President of Empire State University, acknowledges that instruction at universities has remained largely untouched by the technology revolution. He proposed developing a “university of convergence” to integrate technologies and instruction: Students in the university of convergence will learn to engage with information, understand how to use it, and gain the skills and intellectual competencies associated with a university graduate. . . . The (faculty) role of intellectual guide to the student, or mentor, will become more important.2
Currently, there are few resources that help faculty develop information access skills. If the faculty have limited skills, how do they train students to become proficient in information usage? RBVIEW OF THE L~~~~
A review of the literature about higher education faculty and information access skills produced an incomplete picture of information literacy. Research conducted by library and information science professionals tends to focus on the librarian’s role in working with faculty. The literature was especially sparse concerning faculty skills related to recent technological developments. Some literature speculated on how faculty and researchers formulate plans for becoming literate in the future. In the mid-1970s Crawford estimated that more than 1,000 papers had been published on behavior and information use.3 In the mid1980s most of the research on how students and faculty in higher education looked for information was done by librarians. Studies about information-seeking behavior were conducted in specific disciplines, such as the social sciences, engineering, psychology, and business, and in general higher education academic environments. Regardless of the discipline, the majority of studies from the past ten years concluded that faculty and students tended to follow similar, traditional ways of finding and using information, and that educational interventions by library professionals made little difference.4 Moreover, librarians have tended to focus on how they, rather than faculty, teach information literacy. Only now are a few researchers looking beyond librarians’ roles in teaching access skills and recognizing faculty responsibilities. A 1990 study at California State University, Long Beach, concluded that most faculty believed students learn information skills on their own, even with new technologies.5 Research in psychology has also focused on information seeking behavior. A 1994 study examined psychometric qualities to help assess the effectiveness of bibliographic instruction.6 In a 1995 study, researchers looked at cognitive and metacognitive demands in the initial stages of information gathering.’
20 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Winter1997
A number of studies involve K-12 learners and the process of information literacy. Patricia Breivik has written extensively on information literacy at all levels of education.s PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ways in which faculty access and use information. Because information access today includes technologies and resources not previously available, this study explored faculty use of both new tools and traditional methods. To this purpose, three research questions were developed: l l
l
What resources do faculty use to get information they need? Are there distinguishing characteristics of faculty who use electronic technology (including the Internet and e-mail) to access information? In what ways do faculty encourage technology?
students
to use information
METHOD
To provide an initial overview of the topic, a descriptive survey was designed, adhering strictly to Dillman’s method.9 The survey consisted of 16 questions, some in multiple parts. It was sent-mainly via campus mail but also to some home addresses-to all professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and academic professionals at the University of Wyoming, as identified by the University’s Office of Institutional Analysis. The results were analyzed using SPSS-X (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). FINDINGS
Of the 945 surveys sent out, 313 were returned, for a response rate of 33 percent. Four surveys were declared unusable, so 309 surveys were analyzed. The first five questions asked respondents for demographic data: their academic discipline, academic rank, sex, age, and the year they received their terminal degree. All seven colleges in the University were represented: Arts and Sciences (37 percent of respondents), Agriculture (17 percent), Education (12 percent), Engineering (12 percent), Health Sciences (11 percent), Business (8 percent), and Law (1 percent). There were also four respondents from the ROTC on campus. All ranks were represented: academic professionals (20 percent), assistant professors (22 percent), associate professors (22 percent), and professors (35 percent). Thirtythree percent of the respondents were women. Some 40 percent had received their terminal degree in the past 10 years; 28 percent from 11 to 20 years ago; 28 percent from 21 to 30 years ago; and 4 percent over 30 years ago. As all but one of the above percentages are within 4
Amsfuh(Whitsm
21
percent of the distribution of the entire population, the respondent population was representative of the target population in demographic terms; the only exception was in rank where academic professionals comprise 29 percent of the entire population, but only 20 percent of the respondents. The remaining 11 questions explored various aspects of the three original research questions. Question 6 asked about frequency of use for 20 types of information sources. Frequency was ranked from 1-5, with 1 being very often and 5 being never; Table 1 shows percentages of responses in these two categories. Question 7 listed ten types of information sources and asked respondents whether each was required, encouraged, or never mentioned in classes they taught. Table 2 shows percentages of responses for each source. The next question focused on electronic sources, asking faculty if they used the Internet, how they used it, and how they accessed it. Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported using the Internet, but primarily for e-mail. Among the Internet users, many e-mailed colleagues on campus (66 percent) and off campus (70 percent), but only 39 percent communicated with students this way. Thirty-five percent used the Internet to access or retrieve files or resources, 21 percent used LISTSERVs, and 49 percent reported using Gopher, Table 1 Ranking of Resources Used by Faculty Percentages Who Used Resource Notes, files, and books in your office Books Professional journals University library Internet CARL (VW online catalog) Colleagues Off-campus conventions/conferences Uncover (journal index on CARL) Abstracts and bibliographies Browsing library shelves Outside experts CD-ROM sources Government documents Librarian Technical reports Public library On-campus workshops/seminars Microforms (film and fiche) Archives
“Verv Often”
“Never”
71.6 70.2 66.0 38.0 35.3 34.6 27.0 12.3 12.3 12.0 12.0 10.0 8.1 7.8 6.8 5.5
0
E 1:9 1.6
X:Z 202.; 9:1 0.6 4;:: 7.8 15.9 2.6 34.0 18.4 11.0 19.4 25.2 16.2 22.0 36.2
22 RESEARCH
STRATEGIES
Winter 1997
Veronica, or Archie. Although41 percent accessed the Internet through an Ethernet connection in their office, 37 percent still relied on a modem in their office, and 27 percent used a modem from home. Respondents were next asked about perceived barriers to obtaining the information they needed. Table 3 reports percentages by barrier. The next questions asked respondents where they first looked for information; whether the information need was mostly for personal reasons, teaching, or research; and how successful they felt they were in meeting their information needs. There were 51 different responses about where respondents first looked for information. The top response was a library (47 percent), followed by personal collections (23 percent), and electronic resources (11 percent). Concerning why faculty look for information, 47 percent listed research, 29 percent teaching, and 4 percent personal use as
Faculty-to-Student
Table 2 Transmission of Ten Principal Percentage
Source
Require
Textbooks Professional iournals UW library (in general) CARL E-mail Indexes and abstracts Government documents Internet CD-ROM sources Uncover
Facultv Perceptions Reported
76 44 38 22 14 12 9 7 ;
of Faculty
Encourage
Time constraints Library doesn’t own material Sources unavailable Financial constraints Procedures too complicated Library material lost or checked out Don’t understand or use electronic access Physical barriers Don’t know where to look Don’t know how to use the library Librarians unhelpful
Who:
Never
Mention
10 39
3 8
43 50 34 47
10
18
:o’ 43 44
;; 33 29
z!
Table 3 of Barriers to Information
Barrier
Sources
Access
Percentage
of Faculty
65 45 41 30 27 25 16 10 10 2 2
AmstutJWhitson
23
their primary reason. Almost 37 percent felt they were very successful in meeting their information needs and less than 5 percent felt unsuccessful. The final four questions addressed the importance of information access skills and whose responsibility it is to help students develop these skills. Almost 95 percent of the faculty ranked information access skills as either essential or very important. Some 53 percent felt faculty play a very important role in helping students develop information access skills and 45 percent felt librarians are important to the process. When asked if they felt personally responsible for helping students develop access skills, 82 percent of the faculty said yes. Question 16 asked about requiring or encouraging use of e-mail, the Internet, and the library with the following results: e-mail, 35 percent required, 48 percent encouraged; Internet, 32 percent required, 57 percent encouraged; library, nearly 80 percent required, 35 percent encouraged. (As the question invited faculty to “check all that apply,” the answers “require” and “encourage” are not mutually exclusive.) DISCUSSION
The data indicate that faculty continue to use traditional sources for information. Books remain the most common source for information needs, and textbooks remain the predominant resource required in classes. This reliance on traditional sources may indicate that faculty are most comfortable acquiring and using information in the way they were trained. The percentages of faculty who never mention CD-ROM sources (50 percent), the Internet (44 percent), or the computer library catalog system (52 percent) suggest that faculty pass on their biases when presenting information sources. Perhaps libraries need to develop more focused professional development opportunities so that faculty can become familiar with technological resources in their specific discipline. Developing this awareness, so that faculty refer students to library resources, may be essential to helping students seek out and use new information sources. Characteristics of Faculty who use Technology The ratios of users to nonusers of the Internet are 4:l for faculty up through age 49, 2:l for ages 50-59, and 1:l for faculty over 60. The ratios of users to nonusers based on number of years since receiving the terminal degree are as follows: l-5 years, 5:l; 6-10 years, 4:l; ll20 years, 3.6:1; and over 20 years, 1.6:1. Although these data suggest relationships, they are not statistically significant, so no predictions can be made about use or nonuse of the Internet depending on age or years since graduation. There appears to be a stronger connection between technology use and reason for information needs: faculty
24 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Winter 1997
who declared research as their main information likely to use electronic tools such as the Internet.
need were more
The Faculty Role in Teaching Information Access Skills Even though 95 percent of the respondents considered information access skills essential or very important, only 27 percent felt that faculty were very important in helping students develop these skills. Many faculty (45 percent) apparently still rely on librarians to teach these skills, and over half (64 percent) put the responsibility for developing information skills on the students themselves (thereby supporting Thomas‘ findings). Some 82 percent of the respondents said they felt personally responsible for helping students develop the skills, yet less than onethird required e-mail, Internet, and library use in their courses. This contradiction between belief and practice needs to be explored. A comparison of sources faculty use and those they require of students is shown in Table 4. The inference can be made that faculty require students to use the same sources that they use themselves, with two obvious exceptions: professional journals and the Internet. Professional journals provide current research for faculty but many are not well suited for undergraduates. As for the Internet, faculty may need time to become comfortable with this relatively new source before incorporating its use in class assignments. CONCLUSION This study explored the ways in which faculty at one university acquire and use information, both for professional activities and in the classroom. If a university community wants to develop its students’ information and technology skills, then faculty and librarians must work together to provide current resources and the technology for accessing them. Perhaps librarians need to focus more attention on informing faculty about: Table 4 Faculty Use of Sources vs. Those They Require
Percentage Who Required Used “Very Often”
Source Books CARL Uncover Professional journals CD-ROM sources Government Internet
for Student
documents
*This figure refers to textbooks.
Use
for Student Use
Amstutz/Whitson
25
l
new holdings, both print and electronic,
l
processes students should use to investigate an area of interest, and
l
ways in which faculty can enhance the research process through information technology.
Perhaps faculty need to: l
l
communicate more effectively with students regarding they should consult,
resources
examine their course syllabi to determine areas in which they could develop students’ understanding of information technologies, and
. recognize their own need for professional development the library’s resources and processes.
relative to
Questions for further research include: Why have faculty not required students to master the use of e-mail, the Internet, and a library’s technological resources? What would encourage faculty to develop more collaborative relationships with librarians? What barriers inhibit change in the use of information resources? Librarians might also study the relationship between faculty use of information and the library’s instruction program. Both faculty and librarians must investigate these and other questions to prepare students for information access in the future. REFERENCES ‘Steven W. Gilbert, “If It Takes 40 or 50 Years, Can We Still Call It a Revolution?” E~~c~~ion~ZRecord 75 (Summer 1994): 28. 2James W. Hall, “The Convergence of Means: The Revolution in Electronic Technology and the Modern University,” Educom Review 30 (July/August 1995): 42-45. 3S. Crawford, “Information Needs and Uses,” in Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, Vol. 13, ed. M.E. Williams {White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications), 1978, pp. 61-82. (Sherri Edwards, “Bibliographic Instruction Research: An Analysis of the Journal Literature from 1977 to 1991,” Research Strategies 12 (Spring 1994): 68-78. 7oy Thomas, “Faculty Attitudes and Habits Concerning Library Instruction: How Much Has Changed Since 19827” Research Strategies 12 (Fall 1994): 209221 * *R. Eric Landrum, “Assessing Students’ Library Skills and Knowledge: The Library Research Strategies Questionnaire,” Psychological Reports 75 (December, 1994): 1619-1628. ‘Penny Moore, “Information Problem Solving: A Wider View of Library Skills,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 20 (January 1995): l-31. %ee, for example, Patricia S. Breivik and E. Gordon Gee, ~n~oyrnufionLiteracy: Revo~ufion in the Library (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1989). *Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).