Information Literacy among Pedagogy Majors

Visnja Novosel
University of Zagreb
vnovosel@ffzg.hr
Ivana Batarelo
University of Zagreb
batarelo@ffzg.hr
educational provision [6]. With a goal to educate
information literate student it is necessary to
incorporate information literacy across curricula,
in different programs and university services.
This attainment requires collaborative efforts of
faculty, librarians, and university administrators
[4].

Extended Abstract.
Information literacy initiatives in higher
education seek to meet the demands of the
knowledge based and information society [8].
According to the most common definitions,
information literacy has a large impact on the
development of problem based learning skills,
and direct influence on the life accomplishments
[2]. The majority of information literacy
interpretations are associated with lifelong
learning. According to UNESCO [10]
information literacy is a vital element for
successful lifelong learning. The concept of
lifelong learning has evolved with the need for
employees to increasingly acquire new
competences at the workplace [6].

Review of literature indicates that the traditional

notion of information literacy is inadequate to
address the learning needs in the 21st century
and it is necessary to adjust curricular and
teaching approaches in higher education to
develop students' information literacy [5; 12]. In
addition, current information literacy practices
are associated with surface learning approach,
lack of engagement by teachers, lack of
educational training for librarians and poor
assessment methods [5; 12]. Courses that
facilitate information literacy development are
commonly student-centered, based on inquiry
and problem solving activities [4]. This type of
courses could be taught both by faculty and
academic librarians. Information literacy
programs could arise from an academic library,
where faculty and librarians would share a task
of the information literacy development [7].

Due to implementation of Bologna process,

Croatia is passing through an ongoing reform of
higher education. The rationale behind Bologna
process is to create the common area of
European higher education, by the means of
more comparable and compatible academic
degree and quality assurance standards
throughout Europe [1]. While Bologna process
has a strong emphasis on lifelong learning [11],
it also requires continuous evaluation of students
through their involvement in problem solving
activities, critical thinking and active learning.
Mentioned teaching approaches facilitate one of
the lifelong learning key competences, learning
how to learn [3]. It is assumed that information
literate person has this competence. Furthermore,
American Library Association standards declare
that the information literate person is able to: (a)
determine the information needed; (b) access
needed information; (c) evaluate information; (d)
use information; and (e) understand economic,
legal, and social issues surrounding the use of
information [4].

With this research we attempt to determine level

of information literacy among pedagogy majors.
A quantitative methodology was used to
determine differences in information literacy,
frequency and extent of library catalogue and
database use between students. A questionnaire
focused on the issues of information literacy was
administered among 183 freshmen, sophomore
and junior students majoring in pedagogy.
Analysis of variance was used in order to assess
differences in various aspects of information
literacy between three groups. The ANOVA was
significant for relation between the three groups
that represented a year of study (N1 = 58; N2
=56; N3 =69) and different aspects of

Educational policy makers need to include the

lifelong learning requirements into all aspects of

23
Posters Abstracts of the ITI 2008 30th Int. Conf. on Information Technology Interfaces, June 23-26, 2008, Cavtat, Croatia

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronder
wijs/bologna/ [04/10/2008]
[2] Chambers D. Using problem based
learning to hone information literacy and
independent learning skills. Lifelong
Learning Conference; 2002.
http://lifelonglearning.cqu.edu.au/2002/pap
ers/chambers.pdf [01/05/2008]
[3] European Commission. Key competences
for lifelong learning a European reference
framework; 2004.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010
[01/05/2008]
[4] Information
Literacy
Competency
Standards for Higher Education. American
Library
Association;
2006.
http://www.ala.org/ [01/30/2008]
[5] Johnston B, Webber S. Information
Literacy in Higher Education: a review and
case study. Studies in Higher Education
2003; 28(3): 335-352.
[6] Kendall M. Lifelong Learning Really
Matters for Elementary Education in the
21st Century. Education and Information
Technologies 2005; 10(3): 1573-7608.
[7] Owusu-Ansah EK. Information Literacy
and Higher Education: Placing the
Academic Library in the Center of a
Comprehensive Solution. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship 2004; 30(1): 3-16.
[8] Petrides LA, Nodine TR. Knowledge
management in education: Defining the
landscape. The Institute for the Study of
Knowledge
Management;
2003.
http://www.iskme.org/kmeducation.pdf
[01/05/2008]
[9] Undergraduate and graduate study program
in pedagogy. University of Zagreb; 2005.
[10] UNESCO. Information Literacy key for
lifelong learning. Information Literacy
Summit; 2006.
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/
[01/05/2008]
[11] University lifelong learning in the Bologna
process: From Bergen to London and
beyond. The European Association for
University Lifelong Learning;
2005;
http://www.eucen.org/ [01/05/2008]
[12] Williams D, Coles L. Teachers
approaches to finding and using research
evidence:
an
information
literacy
perspective. Educational Research 2007;
49(2): 185 206.

information literacy: (a) use of MS Word (M1=

2,34; SD1=0,807; M2= 2,09; SD2=0,745; M3=
2,03; SD3=0,685; F (2,180) =3,088; p=0,048);
(b) use of library catalogues
(M1= 3,43;
SD1=0,957; M2= 3,25; SD2=0,977; M3= 3,00;
SD3=0,857; F (2,180) =2,982; p=0,033); (c)
usefulness of information literacy courses (M1=
2,28; SD1= 0,921; M2= 1,63; SD2=0,648; M3=
1,71; SD3=0,909; F (2,180) =7,365; p=0,000);
(d) perceived information literacy importance
(M1= 1,36; SD1= 0,485; M2= 1,09; SD2=0,288;
M3= 1,13; SD3=0,339; F (2,180) =1,265;
p=0,000); and (e) information literacy knowledge
(M1= 8,05; SD1= 1,932; M2= 8,95; SD2=2,540;
M3= 10,43; SD3=2,083; F (2,180) =11,289;
p=0,000);.
Undergraduate study program and teaching
approaches for the pedagogy majors were
analyzed. There is a one core course which is
directly focusing on the development of the
digital and information literacy skills
(Information Systems and Databases in
Education). Additionally, several other courses
taught during the first, second and third year of
study are incorporating problem-solving
activities that facilitate information literacy
development [9].
This study results show a raise in a various
aspects of students information literacy and
positive changes in students opinion about
information
literacy
courses
through
undergraduate study of pedagogy. While we
have identified a level of information literacy
among pedagogy majors, these findings should
influence
further
development
of
the
undergraduate and graduate study programs in
pedagogy. Nevertheless, further research is
needed to understand the complexities of
teaching practices and how cooperation between
faculty and librarians can help to serve their
students needs. The study results should help in
identifying common basis for cooperation and
reaching institutional goals.

Keywords.
Information
literacy;
Higher
education;
Curriculum; Pedagogical approaches; Facultylibrarian partnership

References.
[1]

Benelux Bologna Secretariat. Bologna

Process 2007-2009;

24