This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 00:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Web LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

Promoting and Teaching InformationLiteracy on the Internet: Surveying theWeb Sites of 264 Academic Libraries inNorth AmericaSharon Q. Yang a & Min Chou ba Rider University Libraries, Rider University , Lawrenceville , NewJersey , USAb Congressman Frank J. Guarini Library, New Jersey City University ,Jersey City , New Jersey , USAPublished online: 19 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Sharon Q. Yang & Min Chou (2014) Promoting and Teaching Information Literacyon the Internet: Surveying the Web Sites of 264 Academic Libraries in North America, Journal of WebLibrarianship, 8:1, 88-104, DOI: 10.1080/19322909.2014.855586

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.855586

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Web Librarianship, 8:88–104, 2014Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1932-2909 print / 1932-2917 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19322909.2014.855586

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacyon the Internet: Surveying the Web Sites

of 264 Academic Libraries in North America

SHARON Q. YANGRider University Libraries, Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, USA

MIN CHOUCongressman Frank J. Guarini Library, New Jersey City University, Jersey City, New Jersey, USA

A survey was conducted between July and November 2012 to de-termine how academic libraries in the United States and Canadamarketed and delivered information literacy on the Web. A randomsample of 264 institutions was taken from Peterson’s Four-Year Col-leges 2012, and the authors checked each Web site of the academiclibraries of the institutions in the sample for instruction-related ac-tivities. Only 65 percent of the libraries in the sample advertisedlibrary instruction as a service on the Web, while 64 percent ofthe libraries boasted research guides and tutorials. Sixteen percentof the libraries provided direct links to ACRL’s Information LiteracyCompetency Standards for Higher Education, and 24 percent madean effort to explain and define the term “information literacy” totheir users. The authors hope the findings can help determine howacademic libraries are currently using the Internet to increase in-formation literacy on the Web and set a new platform for betterstrategies for advocating information literacy.

KEYWORDS information literacy, library instruction, biblio-graphic instruction, library Web sites, academic libraries, promo-tion, marketing

© Sharon Q. Yang and Min ChouReceived 24 July 2013; accepted 13 August 2013.Address correspondence to Sharon Q. Yang, Associate Professor/Systems Librarian,

Rider University Libraries, Rm 336, Moore Library, Rider University, 2083 Lawrenceville Rd.,Lawrenceville, NJ 08648. E-mail: Yangs@rider.edu

88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 89

INTRODUCTION

With the vast and growing amount of information available, informationliteracy—the set of skills to know, locate, evaluate, and effectively and ethi-cally use relevant information—has become increasingly important. The As-sociation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) have been at the fore-front of the inclusion of information literacy in the curriculum of highereducation. To help institutions develop information literacy programs, ACRLpublished the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Edu-cation in 2000. Three years later, ACRL provided a toolkit to help librarianspromote their libraries across campuses and communities to “better markettheir services on-site and online” (ACRL 2003, 4). The toolkit listed the Webas one of the vehicles in advertising library messages (ACRL 2003, 8). In thepast decade, many libraries have effectively used their Web sites to advertiselibrary services. Specifically, promoting information literacy on the Web hashelped academic libraries articulate their value to the academic community.

ACRL conducted a study on information literacy in academic libraries(2001). One of the survey questions tested the awareness and use of theACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards in Higher Education. Atotal of 1,153 institutions responded. The data revealed that about 59 percentof the libraries were aware of the standards and used them to various degrees,while an estimated 41 percent were either unfamiliar with the standards ornot using them. The results indicated the beginning of a long journey foracademic libraries to promote the concept of information literacy in thehigher education community.

This article reports results from a survey conducted in the latter half of2012 of the library Web sites of 264 colleges and universities in the UnitedStates and Canada to find out how academic libraries used the Web topromote and deliver information literacy. The study described in this articleaimed to determine the extent to which academic libraries have used the Webto market and deliver information literacy both as a service and as a concept,and how libraries accomplished these missions. In this article, the terms“library instruction,” “research instruction,” and “information literacy” aresometimes used interchangeably. Part of the study focuses on the use of theterm “information literacy” and how academic libraries tried to communicateto their users. The authors hope this study will help academic libraries andlibrarians identify areas for improvement and establish a platform for futurediscussion and research in these areas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The topic of information literacy has received extensive coverage in libraryliterature. Research about instruction-related activities on the Web began

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

90 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

to proliferate in the last decade. Most of the literature focused on one ofthe following areas: usability studies of online tutorials and research guides,adoption of Web 2.0 technologies, assessment of information literacy in dis-tance learning, or students’ perception about Web-based library instruction.There were also case studies about using a course management system suchas Blackboard or WebCT to support distance teaching and collaboration withfaculty. However, very few studies have been conducted to examine howinformation literacy, both as a service and as a concept, has been promotedand delivered on academic libraries’ Web sites.

One study, published in Research Strategies in 2000, was similar ingoals and objectives to the one described in this article, but it was somewhatdifferent in methodology and scope. Patricia F. Vander Meer, a librarianfrom West Michigan University, conducted a study to “explore creative wayslibraries are using the Web for instruction and to support faculty use of theWeb for teaching” (2000, 237). She scanned the Web sites of 100 academiclibraries, corresponded with 50 instruction librarians, and reviewed relevantliterature. The resulting article was a description and showcase of the mostinnovative ways instruction was conducted on the Web sites of the 100academic libraries. A small portion of the article was devoted to the use ofthe Web to market library instruction (Vander Meer 2000, 254). The findingsrevealed that tutorials may be more effective if they are embedded with someinteractivity and are integrated with classwork. Vander Meer suggested thatlibraries emphasize learning outcomes and competencies when marketinglibrary instruction to faculty.

In 2006, a study evaluating the Web sites of 107 members of the Asso-ciation of Research Libraries found that 52 percent of these libraries offeredtutorials. Because the focus of the study was to make recommendations tobuild robust Web sites for its members, the online tutorial as part of the eval-uation was mentioned only briefly (Detlor and Lewis 2006, 252). Anotherstudy addressed “the readability of content on academic libraries’ Web sites,specifically content intended to improve users’ information literacy skills”(Lim 2010, 296). Adriene Lim, a librarian from Portland State University,formed student focus groups and asked them to view how-to guides, tutori-als, and instruction-related content on the Web sites of 21 libraries. The focusgroups used computerized readability formulas to produce ratings. Despitethe positive ratings for some Web sites, students found information literacycontent on most Web sites “intimidating,” “full of jargon,” and “bombarding”(Lim 2010, 300).

More recent research was conducted by two librarians outside the UnitedStates on how academic libraries use Web sites for information literacy in-struction. In 2011, Alina Renditiso analyzed Italian university libraries’ Websites as part of her research on information literacy education. She found thatonly one university out of four explicitly mentioned library instruction or in-formation literacy on its Web site or on its library’s Web site. She concluded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 91

that information literacy is still a developing field and has not received fullcoverage on the Web sites of Italian academic libraries. Another study byLalith Wickramanayake (2012) examined Web sites of fourteen Sri Lankanacademic libraries on instruction applications and help tools. The results re-vealed that “most important instruction applications and help tools have notbeen utilized by the majority of Web sites in Sri Lankan academic libraries,”and concluded that “[t]he development of the above online services remainsin its infancy” (Wickramanayake 2012, 377).

All the above studies involved examining the Web sites of academiclibraries for applications and content related to information literacy, andthey were qualitative and descriptive in nature. They emphasized the toolsand methods librarians have used for conducting instruction on the Web.None of the samples in the studies were such that their findings couldbe generalized to other libraries; random samples are more likely to bestatistically representative of a population under study. Additionally, theabove studies were limited in scale; the samples ranged from 14 to 107libraries.

The research described in this article is unique both in its scale andscope: It uses a research design that employs random sampling to examine264 North American academic libraries, and it investigates how academic li-braries market and deliver information literacy on the Web under the contextof limited financial budgets. Research of such scale and scope permits statis-tical inference as to whether the population of academic libraries has takenadvantage of the Web to market and deliver information literacy, since infor-mation literacy has increasingly taken a center stage in the current academicenvironment, as set forth by ACRL. This research article provides statisticallysignificant findings and discusses whether information literacy as a concepthas been given enough emphasis by the 264 North American academic li-braries in the sample. The study reported in this article is the first and onlyone so far with the possibility of generalizing findings to four-year collegesin the United States and Canada.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Sample Size Calculator by Creative Research System (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) indicates that the sample size must be at least 10percent of the population in order to have a 95 percent confidence leveland a reasonable error rate of ±6. Because most social science statisticsare based on inference, a confidence level of 95 percent indicates that 95out of 100 times there is a likelihood that the findings are true and exist inthe population accompanied by a certain margin of error (6 in this case).In other words, if this study finds that 65 percent of the libraries advertiseinformation literacy on the Web, one can infer that 58 percent to 70 percent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

92 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

of the population under this study advertise information literacy on theWeb, with a 5 percent possibility that this finding may not be true in thepopulation.

Peterson’s Four Year Colleges 2012 was chosen to represent the popu-lation because it provides the most comprehensive listing of four-year col-leges and universities in Canada and the United States and is more likely torepresent the higher education institutions under this study. To generate arandom sample, the authors numbered each entry on the “Alphabetical List-ing of Colleges and Universities” from 1 to 2,583 and picked out a list of 300entries based on a list of random numbers obtained from a random numbergenerator (Haahr 2012). Because Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges lists multiplelocations of an institution as separate entries, sometimes multiple locationsof the same institution were selected by the random numbers. The authorsonly kept the first entry and discarded the subsequent entries to avoid du-plication. This procedure resulted in a final list of 264 institutions, or about10 percent of the total population in the Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges (seeAppendix A).

The authors checked the Web site of each institution in the sampleand used an Excel spreadsheet to collect data, noting the following: (1) ifthe library had taken advantage of the Web to market information literacyor library instruction as a service, (2) if the term “information literacy” wasactually used on the Web and if libraries explained the term and provideda link to the ACRL’s standards, and (3) if a library used the Web to deliverinformation literacy in the form of subject research guides and tutorials tohelp users in their research.

As a working definition, a library was considered to promote or marketinformation literacy if it displayed any information about information literacyor library instruction as a service to make the instruction program morevisible. Examples of items that satisfied this criteria included the display ofan instruction schedule, a description ranging from a sentence to a paragraphor several pages depicting the purpose and scope of the instruction program,or a contact e-mail or phone number for requesting instruction. As part ofthis aspect, researchers recorded terms used by libraries for the instructionled by librarians.

The researchers also looked for evidence of explaining information lit-eracy as a concept, specifically noting the following:

• If a library used the term “information literacy” on the Web;• If a library explained the concept of information literacy and its objectives;

and• If a library provided a link to the Information Literacy Competency

Standards for Higher Education by ACRL (http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 93

Researchers also noted how libraries delivered information literacy, includingwhether the library provided research guides or instructional tutorials. Iftutorials existed, researchers noted the contents in five categories:

• General research such as introduction to the library catalog, research pro-cess, evaluation of resources, and guide to citation styles;

• Database searching;• Explaining a concept such as copyright, plagiarism, and academic integrity;• Policy/procedures;• Technical how-to; and• Online tests.

The authors visited, examined, and analyzed the Web sites of the insti-tutions’ libraries in the sample for the above information and recorded thefindings into an Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix B).

FINDINGS

The findings showed that about 65 percent of the libraries (n = 170) in thesample used their Web sites to promote library instruction to various degrees.The extent of the promotion varied from a mere mention of the libraryinstruction program to an elaborate, several-pages long Web site detailingthe program’s purpose, class descriptions, explanation of the concept ofinformation literacy, contact information, instruction schedule, and more.About 30 percent of the libraries (n = 80) did not mention any libraryinstruction or information literacy, notwithstanding some that had researchguides or online tutorials. A search of the Web sites of those 80 librariesyielded 17 libraries that listed at least one instructional librarian in the staffdirectory. About 5 percent of the libraries (n = 14) either had no Webpresence or had Web sites only accessible via login. This 5 percent includesseven libraries with no Web presence for institutions and libraries and sevenothers that had institutional Web sites, but libraries that were either nowhereto be found on the Internet or closed to the public via login.

This study also found that 64 percent of the libraries (n = 169) offeredresearch guides, tutorials, or both on their Web sites, while 31 percent ofthe libraries (n = 81) in the sample did not. The 64 percent were dividedinto those who have tutorials, research guides, or both (see Figure 1). Inthe survey, libraries offering research guides and tutorials were countedas delivering or embedding library instruction on the Web. Many librariesalso offered live chat and IM reference services. However, it was hard todetermine the scope of the content of chat and IM reference in each library;because of this, the authors did not count them in this category, althoughthese are excellent ways to deliver information literacy instruction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

94 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

42%

58%

36%

31%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

111 154 96 81 14

Tutorials Research Guides Both None Missing

Libraries That Offer Tutorials and Research Guides

FIGURE 1 Number of libraries that offer tutorials, research guides, and both. (Color figureavailable online.)

Not all the libraries displaying online guides or tutorials advertised theirinstruction programs on the Web. Fifty-one percent of the libraries did both.Fourteen percent used the Web to promote library instruction but did notdeliver any form of instruction online. Thirteen percent of the libraries offeredresearch guides and tutorials but did not market library instruction on theWeb. Seventeen percent of the libraries neither displayed information aboutinstruction nor offered guides or tutorials on the Web. Five percent weremissing data.

Regarding the content of the online tutorials, a total of 308 tutorialswere found on the Web sites of the 111 libraries that offer tutorials in thesample (see Figure 2). The data in Figure 2 illustrate the tutorials by contenttype. Most of the tutorials were Adobe Flash tutorials with animation and

99 88 46 41 25 9

General Research DatabaseSearching Explain a Concept Policies &

ProceduresTechnological

How-to Online Test

32% 29% 15% 13% 8% 3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Tutorials by Contents (308 Tutorials)

FIGURE 2 Tutorials by content (308 tutorials). (Color figure available online.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 95

audio. The others included HTML with limited animation (CGI scripts) orstatic Web pages, PDF documents, Webcasts, Microsoft Word documents,and Microsoft PowerPoint presentations. Some of the libraries had takenadvantage of tutorials created by vendors or other libraries and made linksto those external tutorials on their Web sites.

The authors also recorded how parent institutions provided links to theirlibraries. Forty-one percent of the institutions (n = 109) placed their librariesin a prominent position on the front page, while 51 percent (n = 136)placed the library either in a drop-down menu or a sub-page. In the lattercase, it took extra clicks to locate the library. Some libraries were online orpartially online behind a login screen, especially for institutions with multiplecampuses. For whatever reason, 5 percent of the institutions (n = 12) didnot provide links to their libraries. Three percent of the institutions (n = 7)did not have Web sites, nor did their libraries. Coincidentally, the authorsfound that most of those were small, religious colleges.

DISCUSSION

The findings indicate that only 65 percent of the libraries in the sample pro-moted or advertised instruction on the Web. With 95 confidence, this statisticcould be between 58 percent and 70 percent in real life for the populationof interest. It is true that libraries may use other channels to promote in-structional services to faculty and students. Nevertheless, a library’s officialWeb site is an ideal tool for this purpose, especially as distance learningproliferated in the last ten years and when considering the possibility thatstudents’ learning habits may have changed due to the influence of the Inter-net and social media. The libraries (30 percent in the sample; 24 percent to36 percent in the population) that do not take advantage of the Web to pushresearch instruction have missed an important opportunity for advertising avaluable service.

The authors also recorded terms used denoting library instruction. Therewas no consistent or standard way that the sites referred to library instruc-tion. The most commonly used term was “library instruction” followed by“information literacy.” “Information literacy” is a relatively new term denotinga theoretical and formal approach to library teaching, especially since 2000when the ACRL published the Information Literacy Competency Standardsfor Higher Education. Other terms that are less frequently used include “re-search instruction,” “library education,” “essential library courses,” “essentiallibrary education,” and “instruction.” Only a few libraries used “bibliographicinstruction” (see Table 1).

Despite the fact that there seems to be no consistent or agreed-uponterm to denote instruction led by a librarian, “bibliographic instruction”was once a commonly used term. For the last ten years, the term “library

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

96 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

TABLE 1 Terms to Denote Instruction Led by Librarians

Bibliographical instruction Information literacy program Library instruction and toursBibliographical instruction

sessionsInformation literacy sessions Library instructional

sessionsClass instruction Instruction Library orientationClass visit Instruction and orientation Library trainingClasses Instruction program Library workshopsConsultation Instruction sessions Orientation sessionsEducation Library and research

instructionPrograms & workshops

Essential education courses Library classes Research instructionInformation literacy Library course offering Research workshopInformation literacy classes Library instruction SeminarInformation literacy education Library education Workshops for library and

Internet useInformation literacy instruction

instruction” has become more widely accepted and used. Only one-third ofthe libraries mentioned the term “information literacy” on the Web in differ-ent contexts. It is unknown why some libraries use “information literacy,”while others do not. It was not nearly as popular as the term “library in-struction,” and perhaps it depended on the personal preference of a Webdesigner to choose a term. In other words, “information literacy” is a lesspopular term used on library Web sites when promoting instruction, researchguides, and tutorials. Libraries may promote information literacy without call-ing it by that name in order to keep the concept from sounding intimidating.They may promote it effectively using terms academic colleagues and userswill understand more readily.

Because users may find the jargon on a library’s Web site intimidat-ing, the term “information literacy” may require clarification if it is beingused. Therefore, explaining and defining the concept will not only signify itsimportance but also increase users’ understanding; libraries should explainthe information literacy objectives in clear, simple language. Linking to theACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Educationmay also help raise users’ awareness of the information literacy objectives.The authors checked the Web sites of the libraries in the sample to determinehow many linked to the ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standardsfor Higher Education. Figure 3 provides an at-a-glance view of findings fromthis study’s sample. While it is questionable whether any users will actuallyread the document, the authors noticed that several libraries approachedinformation literacy in the context of their institutional strategic planning.Some even displayed the official statement of strategic planning and missionwhere information literacy was intertwined with the institution’s goals. Thiscould be an effective way to promote information literacy in an academiccommunity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 97

Yes, 33%

No,62%

Missing, 5%

Used the Term "Informa�on Literacy"

Yes 86No 164Missing 14

Yes, 24%

No, 71%

Missing, 5%

Explained IL and ACRL Standards

Yes 63No 187Missing 14

Yes, 16%

No, 79%

Missing, 5%

Linked to ACRL Standards

Yes 41No 209Missing 14

FIGURE 3 The concept of information literacy on the Web (n = 264). (Color figure availableonline.)

Online tutorials and research guides are significant tools for embed-ded information literacy in distance learning. Teaching research instructionvia the Web fits the learning styles of undergraduate students who grewup amidst the Internet culture and social media. In the last ten years, asdistance learning proliferated, the need to embed information literacy in on-line courses has become more urgent. Many librarians have experimentedwith teaching research skills using wikis, blogs, and social media, and theresults are mostly positive (Click and Petit 2010; Niedbala and Fogleman2010; Secker and Price 2007). Virtual reference through chat, IM, text mes-saging, or interactive knowledge bases can also be considered informationliteracy-related activities. Nevertheless, this study found that tutorials and re-search guides were the major teaching tools employed on these Web sitesand that 64 percent of the libraries in the sample provided one or both ofthem. Online tutorials and research guides are more effective if they areused in conjunction with class assignments. Compared with a one-shot li-brary instruction session, the online tutorial seems to be the most effectivedelivery format in terms of students’ acquisition of information literacy skills(Domı́nguez-Flores and Wang 2011, 495). Results from one study showeda positive relationship between the use of instructional technology and stu-dent engagement and learning outcomes (Chen, Lambert, and Guidry 2010,1222). More libraries should be encouraged to offer class integrated tutorialsand research guides in addition to a variety of other Web 2.0 technologies.

Most academic libraries (a combined 78 percent, counting those whopromoted or advertised information literacy and those who offered researchguides or tutorials) are promoting and attempting to deliver informationliteracy and library instruction on the Web. However, the findings of the sur-vey revealed some unanswered questions. For instance, there is a mysteriouspercentage involving one-third of the libraries that do not even mention in-structional services on their Web sites. Seventeen percent (n = 45) neithermarket library instruction nor offer research guides or tutorials. One explana-tion could be that libraries may have other effective ways of promoting their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

98 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

services or delivering tutorials that are not visible on their Web sites, such asmass e-mails to faculty, password-protected portals, or course managementsoftware like Blackboard. Regardless, if libraries offer instruction we believe,they should advertise it on the library’s official Web site. Considering the factthat only 65 percent of the academic libraries promoted research instructionas a service on the Web, academic librarians should intensify the marketingof information literacy and instructional services. More creative ways shouldbe considered in both marketing and delivering information literacy on theWeb; for instance, multimedia technology could be used to add color andliveliness to the tutorials and research guides as it is a popular belief thatstudents learn best in a game-like environment.

Additional research is needed to explore the relationships between thecharacteristics of institutions and their Web-based, instruction-related activi-ties. Using correlational study methods with stratified samples by the size andtypes of institutions may illuminate some of the mysteries. Stratified samplinginvolves taking a random sample from the subgroups of a population thatare formed based on characteristics such as the type of institutions, numberof undergraduate students, or annual tuition. Stratified sampling may help re-veal possible relationships between the institutions’ characteristics and theirlibraries’ information literacy-related activities on the Web by looking for thedifferences among the subgroups.

While visiting the sample institutions’ Web sites, the authors recordedhow the institutions provided links to their libraries. Although this was notthe focus of the study, the authors believe that the relative position of thelibrary on an institution’s Web site may be indicative of how important theinstitution views their library. At times, libraries must fight for a spot on theinstitution’s main homepage. The data indicate that 41 percent of academiclibraries achieved prominence in their academic institutions. If academiclibraries are to play a central role in the mission of the institution they serve,more libraries should advocate for a front-page spot on their institutions’Web sites, not only to compete for attention but also because it will bemore effective in promoting library services, including information literacyservices. Regarding the 8 percent of libraries in this sample with no Web siteor link from the institutions’ Web site, it seems safe to conclude that eitherthose libraries do not offer instruction services or simply do not use the Webto advertise their services.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the majority of academic libraries have embracedthe strategic mission and planning for information literacy and have providedinformation literacy services on the Web. Sixty-five percent advertised infor-mation literacy services, while 64 percent provided tutorials and research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 99

guides. The question remains as to why 30 percent (n = 80; 24 percent to36 percent in the population) of the libraries in the sample do not market in-formation literacy on their Web sites. It is also unclear why 17 percent of thelibraries (n = 45; 11 percent to 23 percent in the population) in the sampledo not show any information literacy-related activities at all. They neitherpromote nor deliver any form of information literacy skills. There was oneinstruction librarian listed in the staff directory, indicating that perhaps someof these libraries have instruction programs. The possible explanations formissing information literacy-related actions may include the lack of technicalexpertise, diminished administrative support of Web management and de-velopment, and inadequate staffing and training. Further research is neededin order to identify the challenges that may prevent effective use of the li-brary’s Web site. In an era where most academic libraries are increasinglyfacing budgetary restraints, academic libraries should take advantage of theWeb to advertise their services to their students and faculty because it is aneffective and powerful tool for reaching larger audiences at minimal cost.

More studies are needed to reveal and evaluate how other Web tech-nologies are being used for library instruction such as blogs, wikis, socialmedia, mobile computing, and Internet videos. These are valid and timelymethods to advertise and deliver information literacy in addition to tutorialsand research guides on a library’s official Web site. Facebook and Twitterare very popular among college students. Applying Web 2.0 technologiesto promote and deliver information literacy can be a great way to reachout to students; these technologies should supplement, not substitute, theinformation literacy-related activities on the library’s official Web site.

Because higher education has increased its distance learning effortstremendously in the past ten years, embedding research instruction intoonline courses has been a challenge. Web-based tutorials and researchguides provide some of the solutions, and wikis, blogs, and social mediaprovide other possibilities. Libraries should explore emerging technologies(e.g., mobile-based instructional technologies and video conferencing tools)to promote and deliver information literacy in addition to what they do al-ready. Research shows that a positive relationship exists between the use oflearning technology and student engagement and learning outcomes (Chenet al. 2010).

Regional accreditation agencies such as Middle States, NEASC, and SACShave provided accrediting guidelines and standards in relation to informationliteracy, and they have connected information literacy to essential studentlearning outcomes such as critical thinking and lifelong learning skills (ACRL2013). Such recognition and endorsement of information literacy standardsby professional organizations helps raise the profile of academic librariesin campus communities and provides opportunities for librarians to assumemore prominent roles in educating students through information literacyinitiatives to advance institutional mission and goals. Therefore, promoting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

100 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

libraries’ information literacy services on the Web is critical to keeping aca-demic libraries and librarians relevant to the mission and strategic goals ofhigher education.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Sharon Q. Yang has been working with library systems for Rider Uni-versity for 17 years. She received her MS in 1988, Certificate for AdvancedLibrarianship in 1989, and DLS in 1997, all from the School of Library Service,Columbia University. She is the recipient of 2012 Research Award from NewJersey Library Association and 2012 Jing Liao Award for the Best Research inAll Media.

Ms. Min Chou received her MLS from Pratt Institute and her MA in musiceducation from New Jersey City University. She has published extensively inlibrary and information science and presented papers at national and inter-national conferences. Ms. Chou has been active in professional organizationssuch as ALA, ACRL, and CALA (Chinese American Librarians Association). In2013, she received the CALA Distinguished Service Award.

REFERENCES

Association of College & Research Libraries. 2000. “Information LiteracyCompetency Standards for Higher Education.” Accessed May 15, 2013.http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

———. 2001. “ACRL Library Data Tables 2001: Summary Data: Trends inInformation Literacy—All Institutions Reporting.” Accessed May 15, 2013.http://www.virginia.edu/surveys/Projects/ACRL/.

———. 2003. Toolkit for Academic and Research Libraries: Messages, Ideas, andStrategies for Promoting the Value of Our Libraries and Librarians in the 21stCentury. Chicago: American Library Association.

———. 2013. “Information Literacy and Accreditation Agencies.” Accessed May 15,2013. http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/standards/accred/accreditation.

Chen, Pu-Shih Daniel, Amber D. Lambert, and Kevin R. Guidry. 2010. “EngagingOnline Learners: The Impact of Web-Based Learning Technology on CollegeStudent Engagement.” Computers & Education 54 (4):1222–32.

Click, Amanda, and Joan Petit. 2010. “Social Networking and Web 2.0 in InformationLiteracy.” International Information & Library Review 42 (2):137–42.

Detlor, Brian, and Vivian Lewis. 2006. “Academic Library Web Sites: Current Practiceand Future Directions.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (3):251–8.

Domı́nguez-Flores, Noraida, and Ling Wang. 2011. “Online Learning Communities:Enhancing Undergraduate Students’ Acquisition of Information Skills.” Journalof Academic Librarianship 37 (6):495–503.

Haahr, Mads. 2012. “True Random Number Generator.” Accessed October 20, 2012.http://www.random.org.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 101

Lim, Adriene. 2010. “The Readability of Information Literacy Content on Aca-demic Library Web Sites.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 36 (4):296–303.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.003.

Niedbala, Mona Anne, and Jay Fogleman. 2010. “Taking Library 2.0 to the Next Level:Using a Course Wiki for Teaching Information Literacy to Honors Students.”Journal of Library Administration 50 (7/8):867–82.

Peterson’s Publishing. 2011. Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges: 2012. 42nd ed.Lawrenceville, NJ: Author.

Renditiso, Alina. 2011. “Information Literacy in the Italian Universities. A Users’Survey Combined with the Analysis of the University Web Sites.” Bollettino AIB51 (3):213–26.

Secker, Jane, and Gwyneth Price. 2007. “Libraries, Social Software and DistanceLearners: Blog It, Tag It, Share It!” New Review of Information Networking 13(1):39–52.

Vander Meer, Patricia Fravel. 2000. “Pushing the Limits: Creative Web in LibrariesRelated to Instruction.” Research Strategies 17 (4):237–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0734-3310(01)00060-X.

Wickramanayake, Lalith. 2012. “Instruction and Help Services in the Academic Li-brary Web Sites and Web Pages in Sri Lanka: A Content Analysis.” ElectronicLibrary 30 (3):377–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640471211241654.

APPENDIX A

264 Institutions in the Sample

1 Academy College2 Adrian College3 American University4 Amridge University5 Argosy University,

Inland Empire6 Ashworth College7 Baker College of Owosso8 Bastyr University9 Baylor University

10 Belmont Abbey College11 Bentley University12 Beulah Heights University13 Bluffton University14 Bowdoin College15 Briar Cliff University16 Briarcliffe College17 Brigham Young University18 Brookline College19 Brooks Institute20 Brown Mackie College-Boise21 Brown University22 Bryant & Stratton College-Richmond

Campus23 Caldwell College24 California Baptist University25 California Christian College26 California Institute of Technology27 California State University, Bakersfield28 Canisius College29 Capella University30 Capital University31 Castleton State College32 Central Bible College33 Central Connecticut State University34 Central Washington University35 Christopher Newport University36 City Vision College37 Clark Atlanta University38 Clarke University39 Colby College40 Colegio Pentecostal Mizpa41 Coleman University42 College America-Fort Collins43 Colorado Technical University Denver44 Columbia College Hollywood

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

102 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

45 Concordia College Alabama46 Converse College47 Dalhousie University48 Daniel Webster College49 Darkei Noam Rabbinical College50 Delta State University51 Dickinson College52 Dillard University53 Doane College54 Dominican College55 Dominican University56 EcoleHoteliere de Lausanne57 Elmira College58 Florida Atlantic University59 Fort Valley State University60 Franklin College Switzerland61 Georgia Gwinnett College62 Georgia Institute of Technology63 Golden Gate University64 Goucher College65 Great Lakes Christian College66 Greensboro College67 Grove City College68 Hamilton College69 Hartwick College70 Hebrew Theological College71 Heidelberg University72 Hendrix College73 Henley-Putnam University74 Hesser College, Salem75 Holy Apostles College and Seminary76 Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminnary77 Houghton College78 Houston Baqtist University79 Humboldt State University80 Husson University81 Illinois Institute of Technology82 Indiana University-Purdue University

Indianapolis83 Indiana University Southeast84 Indiana Wesleyan University85 InstitutoTecnolgico y de Estudios-

Superiores de Monterrey, CampusChihuahua

86 Inter American University of Puerto Rico,Guayama Campus

87 Johnson Bible College88 Johnson State College89 Jones College90 Judson College91 Kaplan University, Des Moines92 Kennesaw State University93 La Sierra University94 Lawrence University95 Lee University96 LeTourneau University97 Liberty University

98 Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania99 Louisiana State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical College100 Louisiana State University in Shreveport101 Lubbock Christian University102 Lynchburg College103 Maharishi University of Management104 Maranatha Baptist Bible College105 Martin Methodist College106 Mary Baldwin College107 Maryland Institute College of Art108 Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and

Health Sciences109 McGill University110 Medaille College111 Memorial University of Newfoundland112 Metropolitan State University113 Mid-America Christian University114 Middle Tennessee State University115 Middlebury College116 Midwestern State University117 Miles College118 Millikin University119 Minnesota School of Business, St. Cloud120 Minnesota State University Mankato121 Mississippi Valley State University122 Missouri College123 Missouri University of Science and

Technology124 Moody Bible Institute125 Moore College of Art & Design126 Mount Saint Vincent University127 National Labor College128 National-Louis University129 New England College130 New England Conservatory of Music131 New England Culinary Institute132 New York City College of Technology of

the City University of New York133 Newberry College134 Newman University135 North Central University136 Northern Illinois University137 Northwood University, Florida Campus138 Nova Southeastern University139 Oberlin College140 Oglala Lakota College141 Ohio Valley University142 Oregon Institute of Technology143 Ottawa University144 Pacific States University145 Paine College146 Park University147 Parsons Paris School of Art + Design148 Paul Quinn College149 Penn State Mont Alto150 Pennsylvania College of Art & Design

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Promoting and Teaching Information Literacy 103

151 Pima Medical Institute152 Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto

Rico153 Prairie Bible Institute154 Prairie View A&M University155 Purdue University156 Rabbi Jacob Joseph School157 Rabbinical College Bobover Yeshiva

B’nei Zion158 Rabbinical College of Long Island159 Rabbinical College of Ohr Shimon

Yisroel160 Ranken Technical College161 Rasmussen College St. Cloud162 Redeemer University College163 Regent’s American College London164 Remington College-Mobile Campus165 Rhode Island School of Design166 Rochester College167 Roosevelt University168 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology169 Saint Martin’s University170 Saint Paul’s College171 Saint Peter’s College172 Salem State University173 San Francisco Art Institute174 Santa Fe College175 Santa Fe University of Art and Design176 Sarah Lawrence College177 Seminole State College of Florida178 Shenandoah University179 Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania180 South Dakota School of Mines and

Technology181 South Dakota State University182 Southern Alberta Institute of Technology183 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary184 Southern California Institute of

Technology185 St. John’s College186 St. John’s University187 St. Mary’s University188 St. Thomas University189 State University of New York College

of Agriculture and Technologyat Cobleskill

190 Stevens Institute of Technology191 Strayer University-Cherry Hill Campus192 Summit Pacific College193 Susquehanna University194 Talmudic College of Florida195 Texas Tech University196 The Art Institute of California-Los

Angeles197 The Catholic University Of America198 The Citadel, The Military College of

South Carolina

199 The College of New Rochelle200 The Illinois Institute of Art-Chicago201 The Juilliard School202 The King’s College203 The Ohio State University-Mansfield

Campus204 The University of British Columbia205 The University of Texas at San Antonio206 Thomas Edison State College207 Toccoa Falls College208 Trevecca Nazarene University209 United States Air Force Academy210 United Talmudical Seminary211 Universidad de las Americas, A.C.212 Universidad Teologica Del Caribe213 Universite de Montreal214 Universite du Quebec Chicoutimi215 Universite Sainte-Anne216 University of Alaska Anchorage217 University of Arkansas for Medical

Sciences218 University of Arkansas-Fort Smith219 University of California, Irvine220 University of Houston-Clear Lake221 University of King’s College222 University of Lethbridge223 University of Louisville224 University of Maine at Presque Isle225 University of Minnesota, Morris226 University of New Brunswick Saint John227 University of North Florida228 University of Pennsylvania229 University of Phoenix-Central Valley

Campus230 University of Pittsburgh231 University of Prince Edward Island232 University of Puerto Rico at Bayamon233 University of Richmond234 University of South Africa235 University of South Florida Sarasota-

Manatee236 University of Southern California237 University of Southern Mississippi238 University of the Incarnate Word239 University of the Southwest240 University of Virginia241 University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire242 University of Wisconsin-Parkside243 Ursuline College244 Vancouver Island University245 VanderCook College of Music246 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University247 Warner University248 Wartburg College249 Wayne State University250 Webb Institute

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

104 S. Q. Yang and M. Chou

251 Webster University252 Wesley College253 West Virginia Wesleyan College254 Western Carolina University255 Western International University256 Western Nevada College257 Westwood-College-Arlington Ballston

Campus

258 Whitworth University259 Wilkes University260 William Carey University261 Winona State University262 Woodbury University263 Yeshiva University264 Yeshivath Viznitz

APPENDIX B

A List of Fields in Excel Data Collection Worksheet

Institution nameURL for the institution Web siteLink to the library Web site (1 = direct link; 1.1 = sub-link)Presence of instruction (Yes or No)Presence of instructional librarian (Yes or No)Marketing of instruction (Yes or No)Use the term “information literacy”

Term used for IL (record terms)Link to IL standard by ACRL (Yes or No)Explain IL and standard (Yes or No)Additional ways for marketing IL (Record them)

Deliver IL on the Web (Yes or No)Presence of tutorials (Yes or No)Tutorial content

General research (count)About databases (count)Explain a conceptPolicies/ProceduresTechnological how

Presence of guides (Yes or No)Presence of test (Yes or No)Other ways to deliver IL (Record them)Note

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

31 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014