Research Proposal

597 views
501 views

Published on

Presents the structure and strategy for a research project focused on information literacy instruction in public libraries. Important topics include data collection methods and tools, data analysis procedures, and the scope and significance of the proposed research.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
597
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Research Proposal

  1. 1. Team 7 Research Proposal Presentation Alphild Dick, Melendra Sanders, Shelly Speicher, & Julie Temple
  2. 2. TERMINOLOGY OF INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION: What Terms should Public Libraries Use to Promote and Teach Information Literacy?
  3. 3. • An information literate population is a key element in the 21st century • The ability of public libraries to contribute to information literacy campaigns is often overlooked • Advocacy efforts: do patrons of public libraries have a negative view of IL and ILI? Role of Public Libraries in ILI “Information literacy is actually beautifully relevant within the mission of public libraries” Rachel Hall, pg. 163
  4. 4. Research Aims & Questions • To determine how the term “information literacy” is perceived by public library patrons and how these perceptions impact the success of information literacy instruction (ILI) programs.
  5. 5. • What are the dominant terminologies used in conjunction with IL programs (i.e. information literacy, information competency, life-long learning, etc.)? • What connotations do each of these terms have, and are they positive or negative? • How do public library patrons react to each of these terms? • What terms best represent the concept of IL while maintaining the best reaction from patrons? Research Aims & Questions
  6. 6. • Most IL research and programs reside in academic and school libraries • IL terminology and definitions are unclear to both librarians and patrons Common Themes “Perhaps there is too much confusion surrounding the concept itself, leading public librarians to believe that information literacy is only relevant to academic and research institutions” Rachel Hall, pg. 163. “many librarians, especially public librarians, may be the least able spokespersons. . .[because of] a lack of understanding and knowledge of information literacy concepts” Jane Harding, pg. 84
  7. 7. • Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181- 190. • Lin, P. (2010). Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568. • Hall, R. (2010).Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175. • Harding, J. (2010).Information literacy and the public library: we've talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294. • Hart, G. (2006). Public librarians and information literacy education: Views from Mpumalanga Province. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 72(3), 172-184. • Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Background of Research
  8. 8. Philosophical Assumptions Constructionist: Alan Bryman (2008) “implies that social phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision” (pg. 19). Language as a social tool is also in constant flux, especially in the context of lesser known terminology. Sociolinguist: Anja Kellerman (2001) notes “qualitative research forumulae provides flexible and malleable instruments to evaluate the complexities of modern society” (pg. 65) A new, new English: Language, politics, and identity in Gibralter Linguist: Marc Pruyn (1999) qualitative elements help us “see how participants construct understanding” (pg. 196) The power of classroom hegemony
  9. 9. Sampling • Content Analysis Public library websites selected using the American Library Association's "The Nation's Largest Libraries: A Listing By Volumes Held" • Self-Completion Questionnaires Four large public library systems in Kansas • Unstructured Interviews Convenience sample based on responses from self- completion questionnaires
  10. 10. Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures Content Analysis • Quantitative methodology • Coding instrument adapted from on-going research conducted by ESU SLIM professor Developed instrument via team collaboration for consistency • Analyzed two public libraries for terminology regarding IL programs Also drew from literature review terminology • Instrument usable for analyzing other public library IL programs
  11. 11. Content Analysis Coding Schedule
  12. 12. Self-completion Questionnaire • Quantitative methodology • Based questionnaire on terminology and programming drawn from content analysis • Delivered via Survey Monkey at the Topeka-Shawnee County, Manhattan, Johnson County, and Wichita public library systems Advantages • No interviewer effect • Convenience to participants • Provides sample for unstructured interviews Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures
  13. 13. Self-Completion Questionnaire
  14. 14. Unstructured interviews • Qualitative methodology • Voluntary • Questions designed to gauge attitudes towards real-life IL programs at public libraries Advantages • Deeper and more nuanced responses • Contextualize quantitative data • Provides usable raw data for public libraries (i.e., what classes would a patron find appealing?) Data Collection Methods & Analysis Procedures
  15. 15. Unstructured Interview
  16. 16. Permissions • Compliant with ESU Ethic Review Board • Permission gained by all involved: libraries, library professionals, and participants Ethical Concerns • Voluntary participation • Protection of privacy • Protection of personal data • Exclusion of minors Ethical Considerations
  17. 17. Ethical Considerations
  18. 18. • Selection of websites for unstructured interviews • Use of non-Kansan libraries • Brevity of unstructured interviews • Measurability of data from unstructured interviews • Objectivity Limitations of Research
  19. 19. • Little empirical research addressing IL terminology and consequently the success of IL programs • Lack of research on IL programs in public libraries Scope of the Research Reiterated
  20. 20. • Address gaps in IL research • Propose alternative terms for marketing IL programs • Develop a better understanding of patron needs • Contribute to discussion of what information literacy, in fact, is within a public library setting Significance
  21. 21. Concluding Remarks
  22. 22. References Brey-Casiano, C.A. (2006). From literate to information literate communities through advocacy, Public Library Quarterly, 25(1-2), 181-190. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hall, R. (2010). Public praxis: A vision for critical information literacy in public libraries, Public library quarterly, 29(2), 162-175. Harding, J. (2008). Information literacy and the public library: we've talked the talk, but are we walking the walk?. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 274-294. Lin, P. (2010), Information literacy barriers: Language use and social structure, Library High Tech, 28(4), 548-568. Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
  23. 23. Questions?

×