An Exploratory Survey of Reference Source Instruction in LIS Courses

The target population for this study was instructors of reference courses at ALA-accredited LIS programs in the United States. To identify members of this population, the Web sites of fifty-six LIS programs accredited by ALA at the time of the study were studied. Course titles in course schedules were used to identify reference-type courses taught within the last three years, or if three years’ of schedules were not provided, for as far back as course schedules were available. Some common terms used to identify these courses were: information sources, reference, library materials, and information access. The following are examples of typical course titles:

• for General Reference Courses: Information Sources and Services; Reference and Information Services;
• for Subject-Specific Courses: Library Materials in Humanities; Social Sciences Reference; Business Information Sources; and
• for Online Reference Courses: Online Information Services; Digital Reference.

The complete list included both introductory and advanced courses.

The instructors of reference courses identified on the Web sites were the accessible research population for this study. The process of population identification has some obvious limitations; for example, instructors may have been overlooked due to a lack of course schedules’ availability on the Web or due to a misleading title for an otherwise reference-oriented course. However, it was felt that this approach allowed the identification of a high percentage of practicing reference instructors while avoiding those not currently involved in reference instruction.

After identifying the study population, instructors’ contact information was acquired from the schools’ Web sites or by calling the schools directly. E-mail invitations to participate in the study were sent to a total of eighty-six individuals from forty-eight institutions. Eight schools’ Web sites did not provide sufficient information to identify reference instructors. The accessible population was narrowed to seventy-eight participants because four e-mail addresses had permanent delivery errors and four individuals responded that they did not teach reference courses.

The first invitation for study participation produced twenty-seven returned surveys, while a follow-up e-mail garnered another twenty, for a total of forty-seven surveys (60 percent response rate). Seven surveys were found to have technical errors and had to be excluded from the data set. As a result, the study data were provided from forty reference instructors from twenty-eight schools (50 percent of the fifty-six ALA-accredited LIS programs in the United States). Respondents comprised 51 percent of the accessible survey population of seventy-eight, as identified through LIS programs’ Web sites.

All respondents answered the six closed-ended questions for each of the reference courses they taught. For these questions, the unit of analysis was the individual course (n=61). The data were tabulated for each course and analyzed using simple descriptive parameters (averages). The six open-ended questions were answered by thirty-one to thirty-six respondents each. For these questions, the unit of analysis was the individual instructor. The content of the answers was analyzed through several coding iterations, allowing for codes and broader coding categories to emerge from the data. The iterative coding procedure followed the format of analytic induction that is commonly used in qualitative research. This procedure is also shared by grounded-theory methodology; however, in contrast to grounded theory, this study used analytic induction as a technique for data analysis and not as a tool for theory development.²⁸ Whenever possible, respondents’ answers were assigned only one category. In a few situations, when determination of a single code was not possible, multiple categories were assigned. Because the data-coding activities were performed jointly, there was no need for separate intercoder reliability evaluation.

Findings

The forty participants in the survey reported teaching a total of sixty-one unique reference courses. Of those courses, thirty were general reference, twenty-two subject-specific, and nine dealt with electronic reference sources. Of the thirty general courses, twenty-eight focused on basic reference and only two on advanced reference. Areas covered in the twenty-two subject-specific courses included humanities (five courses), health sciences (four), business (four), social sciences (three), science (three), and government documents (three). Among the electronic reference courses, seven were devoted to general electronic sources and two were subject-specific, covering business and health sciences. Table 1 provides a summary overview of the types of reference courses included in the study.

Table 1. Types of Reference Courses Taught by 46 Survey Respondents

Instructors spent more time teaching students about electronic sources than about print sources. As indicated in table 2, across all sixty-one courses, 59 percent of instruction time was dedicated to electronic sources and 41 percent to print sources. Controlling for courses that dealt with electronic sources specifically, the gap between coverage of these two formats lessens. In general reference courses, average time was evenly split between print (50 percent) and electronic (50 percent). In subject-specific reference courses, on average, more time was spent on electronic sources (57 percent) than on print sources (43 percent). Finally, while instructors of online reference courses spent a vast majority of time (94 percent) on electronic sources, some time was still devoted to print sources (6 percent).

Table 2. Percentage of Time Spent Teaching Print and Electronic Sources, by Course Type

Methods of Teaching about Reference Sources

A list of alternatives was provided and study participants were asked to choose the types of methods they use to present print and electronic sources in each of their reference courses. An open-ended “Other” choice allowed participants to describe additional methods of teaching print and electronic resources. Table 3 shows that on a scale of one to five, the most frequently used instructional method for print sources (3.65) was in-class discussion of reference books led by the instructor, with the assumption that students would peruse them on their own time. Regarding the course type, this method was most frequently reported for both general and subject-specific reference courses. General reference courses included a larger variety of instructional methods for teaching print sources. In contrast, subject-specific courses relied more exclusively (86 percent) on in-class discussion. Not surprisingly, in online reference courses, there was low level of use and low use frequency of all methods of print instruction. Respondents who chose the “Other” category mentioned reproducing reference source pages for their students, issuing assignments involving work with reference sources, creating workbooks or worksheets for student assignments, offering student-led bibliographic instruction sessions, and keeping source journals.

Table 3. Methods for Teaching about Print Sources

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5