JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-LINK Archives


LIS-LINK Archives

LIS-LINK Archives


LIS-LINK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-LINK Home

LIS-LINK Home

LIS-LINK  April 2008

LIS-LINK April 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Results from College Information Literacy Efforts Benchmarks

From:

James Moses <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

James Moses <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:51:28 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

College libraries in a North American sample experienced a dramatic
upsurge in the number of information literacy classes or presentations
given in 2007, according to a new report from Primary Research Group.

Primary Research Group’s new report – College Information Literacy Efforts
Benchmarks (ISBN# 1-57440-099-1) is a North American survey presenting
data on the information literacy efforts of colleges from the United
States and Canada.

Some of the key findings of the 175-page report were that:

• The mean percentage change in the number of classes or
presentations given between the fall semester of 2007 and 2006 was
+20.26%, with a median of +5%. The minimum offered in the sample was -50%
while the maximum was 576%.

• A mean of 9.64 instructors gave formal classroom instruction or
presentations in information literacy in the last year for which
statistics are available, with a median of 4 and maximum of 325. U.S.
respondents had almost 3 times as many instructors giving sessions than
did Canadian colleges.

• Business, psychology, sociology, nursing, education, and English
were commonly listed as one of the top three academic departments that had
requested the most library instructional presentations or classes in the
past year.

• Librarians in the survey estimated that 23.5% of their students
that had not taken any formal information literacy training knew a few
essentials of Boolean searching. In our prompt, we indicated that Boolean
searching basics included the use of quotation marks, “or” and “and.”
Private colleges reported that 32.5% of their students fell into this
category; public colleges, 18.3%.

• Data was more hopeful in assessing the student body’s skills in
using the online library catalog. Nearly 45% said their student body was
competent, while 42% said they had basic knowledge at best. Just 9%
considered them very unskilled, and nearly 4% reported they were highly
proficient. Canadian libraries were 3 times more likely than U.S. ones to
consider their students highly proficient in the use of the online catalog.

• Just over 13% of survey participants administered a test to assess
student skills in Microsoft Excel or other spreadsheet software.

• Almost 17% administered a test to incoming freshmen or transfer
students on their understanding of plagiarism. Almost 27% of research
universities gave such a test. Nearly 21% of colleges with over 10,000 FTE
students also gave this test, nearly twice the rate of mid-sized schools.

• Almost 70% of the sample used student evaluation forms to assess
the performance of information literacy or other library science
instructors. Student evaluation forms were more popular with public
colleges than private, and most popular with research universities, 80% of
whom reported using such forms.

• 63% of survey participants offer presentations or brief classes to
new students during new student orientation. Such classes were more
commonly offered by Canadian libraries, research universities, and
colleges with fewer than 1,000 FTE students. 71% of libraries at which
librarians held faculty status conducted such orientation sessions, while
less than 60% of participants whose librarians did not hold faculty status
offered the sessions.

• Barely 5.4% of the sample required a 1 or 2 credit information
literacy
course for graduation, and just 3.6% required a 3 or more credit course.
However, over 23% of the sample required information literacy training
integrated into basic writing or composition courses.

• Just over a third of the sample believed that the English
department, or equivalent department with similar responsibilities, seemed
to try but could do better in terms of carrying out its information
literacy responsibilities. Just 23% believed that the department was doing
well enough, while 22% believed information literacy was a high priority
for them and that the department made time for them. Just 8% believed the
English department to be laggard, and 12% believed their collaboration to
be an excellent one.

• Nearly 48% of the colleges sampled offered interactive tutorials
in information literacy topics to students. Just a third of bachelors-
granting colleges offered such tutorials, while 6 out of 10 research
universities did so.

• The vast majority of the sample, nearly 84%, reported that the
library was not really involved with computer technology training on
campus.

• Nearly 73% of the libraries in the sample had one or more
instructional labs or learning centers designed for information literacy
instruction in which much of their formal literacy instruction took place.

• Half of the libraries in the sample reported making tutorial links
and other resources available through course management systems such as
Blackboard and WebCT.

The report is based on detailed benchmarking data from more than 110 North
American colleges; data is broken out by type and size of college for
easier benchmarking.

 For a table of contents, sample pages, and other information, visit our
website at www.primaryresearch.com.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager