How do faculty perceive their students’ abilities to conduct research? We were particularly interested in the responses to this question to target specific areas for improvement and better market our services. When faculty were asked if their courses had assignments that required searching for and using information beyond the textbook and course readings, nearly 84 percent replied that they required this in half or more of their courses. Faculty were then asked to rate their students’ abilities to find information using either library resources or Internet sites such as Google. On a five-point scale ranging from unsatisfactory to excellent, faculty ranked freshmen and sophomores below satisfactory levels for finding information using the library or public Internet sites. Juniors and seniors were also ranked below satisfactory using the library, but fared slightly above satisfactory in Internet searching. Faculty ranked graduate students’ research skills as above satisfactory in both categories, though they were scored higher in researching on the Internet than in the library. These results are in keeping with research studies by Cannon, Leckie and Fullerton, Gonzales, and Hrycaj and Russo who all reported that faculty mostly lacked confidence in their students’ library research skills.¹⁸ On the whole, faculty indicated that students at all levels were better at finding information through the free Internet than through the libraries. This could serve as an entrée for librarians to market instructional services to faculty that would teach students to better use the scholarly resources made accessible by academic libraries.

Using a scale of “not at all important,” “minimally important,” “important,” and “very important,” faculty were asked to place a value on the following student skills:

• develop a workable research question
• select and use appropriate tools to find information
• evaluate information sources
• correctly cite sources
• avoid plagiarism

Faculty respondents, nearly unanimously, indicated that all of these skills were either important or very important, with evaluating information sources and avoiding plagiarism tied as the most important skills to have. These were followed closely by selecting and using appropriate information tools, correctly citing sources, and, finally, developing a workable research question. The usefulness of these student skills is in keeping with those reported by Hrycaj and Russo, and Manuel, Beck, and Molloy.¹⁹

Moving from the theoretical into the practical realm, we asked the faculty what types of library research instruction they had taken advantage of in the past four years and what they might be interested in using in the future.

As seen in table 1, nearly 41 percent of the faculty who responded to the survey have never used library instruction. Of those who have, the most popular method of instruction (42 percent) was in-library instruction, while nearly one-fourth of the faculty indicated that a librarian had provided instruction in their classroom. The next most-used methods were librarian-created class guides, students voluntarily attending an out-of-class session, online tutorials/podcasts, video conferencing, and librarian presence in Elearning, WMU’s learning management system.

Since two-fifths of the responding faculty have not used library instruction in the past four years, there appears to be a disconnect between the reported value that instructors place on students’ library research proficiencies as discussed above and the actual use of library instruction to teach these skills. This phenomenon was mentioned in other library studies including Hrycaj and Russo, and Singh.²⁰ So why are faculty not availing themselves of library instructional services? When asked, the response given most often was that they were unaware of the service. The next most-cited reasons were that they did not want to give up class time and that library instruction was not relevant in their courses; some faculty indicated that they preferred to teach research concepts themselves. Overall, similar reasons were also reported by Maynard, Hardesty (1995), Leckie and Fullerton, and Feldman and Sciammarella (2000).²¹

The final grouping of responses reflected a “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) philosophy, described by Hrycaj and Russo, and Thomas, ²² encompassing the belief that students have learned the concepts in an earlier class, that it is the students’ responsibility to learn research skills on their own, or that students indicated that they already knew how to conduct library research. Regarding this final reason, some faculty admitted in their comments that while their students claimed they knew how to research, this assumption was, as one respondent said, not “well founded.” Another remarked, “Students think they know what to do (graduate students) and it is often late into the semester that I discover they really have no clue.” Is this phenomenon self-perpetuating? In 1986, Mellon reported that students were reluctant to inform their instructors that they really did not know how to conduct library research. Some of the reasons included were “ … a feeling that other students were competent at library use while they alone were incompetent, that this lack of competence was somehow shameful and must be kept hidden, and that asking questions would lead to a revelation of their incompetence.”²³ These student perceptions could be the subject of a stimulating dialogue with faculty, and an opportune occasion to promote library instruction to faculty.

To advance the University’s IL initiative, we asked faculty what types of instruction would be of interest to them in the future. Table 2 shows that online class guides generated the most interest, followed by an equal amount of interest in online instruction such as tutorials or podcasts and a thirty-minute session by a librarian in their regular classroom. Next, they indicated interest in their students voluntarily attending an out-of-class session, bringing their class into the library for instruction, and a longer than thirty-minute librarian visit to their classrooms. The two formats chosen the least often were video conferencing and having a librarian participate in Elearning.

It is interesting to note that the types of instruction that faculty most prefer do not infringe too much on their closely guarded instruction time. For the most part, faculty appear to be interested in asynchronous and technologically driven library instruction. Having a librarian embedded in Elearning was the notable exception to this pattern. It was the least preferred method even though it does not detract from instructional time. This may be influenced in part because not all faculty are conversant with Elearning and may not use it in their classes; in fact, of those faculty who have used Elearning, nearly half were either somewhat or very interested in having a librarian participate in their online course. It is possible that faculty and librarians have different ideas of what is involved in having a librarian embedded in Elearning. While most WMU librarians would envision filling a supplementary or temporary role in Elearning, some faculty may imagine that librarians would constitute an “outside” presence in their day-to-day instructional transactions that might challenge their authority and autonomy as the course instructor. This reflects what Farber (2004) wrote about faculty culture in general “that most faculty members don’t feel comfortable sharing their classes with others. They’re used to—and enjoy—the control, the independence they have.”²⁴ In any case, with the consistent expansion of online instruction across academe, this potential avenue for library instruction needs to be further studied and developed.

Ninety-eight percent of the faculty stated that, overall, they found library instruction useful. When asked to relate what they found beneficial about their experience with library research instruction, by far, most faculty appreciated information about the wide range of resources available and the most appropriate databases. One faculty member commented that the students “became willing to work a little harder in order to find sources very close to their interests, and were less willing to compromise and accept something more easy to find that did not quite answer their inquiry issues.” Many respondents also mentioned they liked instruction related to developing search strategies, including elements such as narrowing a topic, use of keywords, truncation, and Boolean logic. Other aspects they liked encompassed the hands-on active learning component and having the instruction tailored specifically to the course. These reasons were also mentioned in the focus groups that Manuel, Beck, and Molloy reported on in 2005.²⁵

Of note were five faculty members who mentioned they valued the instructional session not only for their students, but also for their own edification. The sessions helped them keep up-to-date with subject-specific resources in their fields, something also described by Leckie and Fullerton in 1999.²⁶ Badke (2005) underscored this when he wrote, “Faculty are recognizing that the very tools that are their stock in trade—journals, library catalogs and indexes—have not only gone electronic but have become so complex that their own research could well be hampered by their lack of knowledge… . Librarians to the rescue.”²⁷ In addition, respondents mentioned that they valued having their students learn about plagiarism, interlibrary loan, citing references, and Ask-a-Librarian services. One faculty member commented on the perils of foregoing library instruction: “I tried doing without this opportunity last semester when I had a group of … students who maintained that they did not need help using the library to search for sources. After I read their projects I regretted that choice.”

Regarding the benefits of research instruction, one graduate-course instructor wrote, “The mood in the room went from anxious to comfortable to excited and happy as the students gained skills and found sources.” When asked how library instruction could be improved, some of the more interesting suggestions were to provide the following:

• further differentiation between the public and private web
• more explanation of how to cite electronic articles
• “graduating” library instruction between beginning and advanced students to avoid redundancy
• closer collaboration between the instructor and librarian in planning a session that addresses the course’s needs
• additional discipline-specific, user-friendly online tutorials
• increased focus on evaluating sources
• grading or formal assessment of instruction, e.g., a certificate of completion of research skills

While we have already made inroads in some of these areas, these suggestions emphasize the need for continued improvement and consistency across the IL program.

A key component of this study was to examine faculty use of technology to plan effective library instructional services. Since Elearning (WMU’s learning management system) has become such a major part of college teaching, we specifically asked if faculty used Elearning in the form of an online class, a hybrid course, as a supplement to a traditional class, or not at all. As a point of reference, during the 2011 calendar year, WMU offered 10,104 classes, of which 529 were offered online, about 5.24 percent of the total offerings. The number of classes using Elearning—including as a supplement to traditional courses—has increased substantially over the last several years. Going forward, the use of this technology is expected to rise even further, since as of 2012, all WMU courses automatically have an Elearning “shell.” All faculty are now required to submit grades via Elearning and increased familiarity with the system may make it easier for more faculty to incorporate Elearning into their instruction.

As evident in figure 2, the College of Education and Human Development was, by far, the leader in using Elearning to teach online courses, with nearly 60 percent reporting that they used this method. Both the Colleges of Health and Human Services and Education and Human Development used Elearning in hybrid classes to a significant degree. In general, the most popular use of Elearning was as a supplement to face-to-face classes, with the health services faculty reporting 100 percent use, followed by business and humanities, at approximately 70 and 60 percent, respectively. The percentage of faculty teaching online or hybrid courses did not significantly vary by years of teaching, although faculty with ten or fewer years of experience were more likely to use Elearning to supplement traditional face-to-face teaching. In the category “I have never used Elearning,” there appeared to be a pattern—the longer the faculty members had taught, the less likely they were to use Elearning in their teaching at all.

The steadily increasing importance of learning management systems in higher education is documented by Green who reported that in 2000, only 14.7 percent of college courses used a learning management system, but by 2010, this number had grown to 58.6 percent. This same national report also disclosed that 66.2 percent of the colleges and universities surveyed indicated the existence of a strategic plan to implement a learning management system.²⁸ Similar to our findings, Young, reporting on another national assessment—the 2009 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE)—indicated that 72 percent of the 4,600 respondents from 50 US colleges and universities use learning management systems.²⁹

Overall, what specific technologies do WMU faculty use in their classrooms? As apparent in table 3, Elearning was, without a doubt, the most commonly used. Other popular technologies were online or embedded videos, personal webpage or WMU “homepage,” discussion boards/forums, and electronic reserves. Not as prevalent were podcasts, video conferencing, social networking sites, and blogs.

The faculty’s use of social networking sites may be in response to the behavior of young adults, as reported by Lenhart (2009) in a Pew memorandum, which stated that 75 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds use this technology.³⁰ Smith and Caruso (2010) indicated that 90 percent of the undergraduate students responding to an EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) survey stated that they make use of text messaging and visit social networking sites on a daily basis; furthermore, two-thirds of these students own Internet-capable mobile devices.³¹ Green, in Campus Computing 2010, reported that 85 percent of the colleges and universities surveyed maintained a formal presence on Facebook; in addition, there was a large increase in the institutional use of Twitter and YouTube from 2007 to 2010.³² It would seem that social networking only stands to rise in popularity, aided by the affordability of, and explosion in, the ownership of hand-held devices.

The technologies used least often by WMU faculty were wikis, iClickers, and RSS feeds. This is consistent with the FSSE findings that also showed relatively low use of these technologies, with 16 percent of the faculty using collaborative editing software, including wikis; 13 percent respectively using blogs and student response systems such as iClickers; and 12 percent using video conferencing or Internet phone chat such as Skype.³³ Despite the reported low use of these technologies by faculty, it appears that student use may be much higher. Smith and Caruso noted that 40 percent of students contribute to wikis, 40 percent use Skype or similar services, and 36 percent engage in blogging, although not necessarily for educational purposes.³⁴

The reported use of different technologies by discipline was somewhat surprising. We suspected that the science, engineering, and computer science faculty would be more conversant with and inclined to use different technologies in their classrooms, but this proved not to be the case. Table 4 shows that education and social sciences faculty were the highest users of a variety of technologies, followed by business, humanities, fine arts, health services, engineering/computer science, and natural sciences/mathematics.

Guidry and BrckaLorenz reported on eighteen American colleges and universities that responded to both the FSSE and the NSSE in 2009. For the most part, the data regarding faculty technology use by discipline did not match our findings. However, in both studies, education faculty were the top users of technology. In the 2009 survey, education was followed by arts and humanities, engineering, biological sciences, social sciences, and a tie between physical sciences and business.³⁵

Table 5 illustrates faculty use of specific technologies by discipline. Online or embedded videos, as mentioned earlier, were used by many faculty across all disciplines. Personal or WMU homepages were also used by a fair number of faculty, ranging from a low of 20 percent in business to 54 percent in engineering and computer science. The use of electronic reserves seemed to be discipline-specific and was employed most often by social sciences, health services, and education faculty. Despite some unenthusiastic faculty comments, there was considerable usage of discussion boards/forums—this ranged from 84 percent in education, 44 percent in social sciences, 43 percent in health services, 40 percent in business, to a low of 15 percent in engineering and computer science. Social networking was used by 43 percent of faculty in fine arts and 30 percent in business, but then interest dropped dramatically. Faculty in engineering/computer science, fine arts, and business used podcasts a fair amount, but usage of RSS feeds, wikis, videoconferencing and iClickers was relatively low across most disciplines. This provides librarians a chance to offer instruction services through different technological formats based on the technology employed by faculty in each discipline.

Of special interest was the faculty’s assessment of which technologies they found to be the most successful in their teaching. Since faculty chose to comment on different technologies, we were only able to obtain a limited number of opinions on each. Aside from Elearning, the top three technologies that faculty deemed the most successful were online or embedded videos, electronic reserves, and personal homepage or faculty homepage, with 26, 15, and 12 faculty members, respectively, reporting a positive experience, and with no one expressing a negative one. When commenting on the use of online videos, faculty used words such as “illustrative,” “motivating,” “convenient,” and “economical,” and indicated videos were useful for “changing up” the presentation and for generating discussion of controversial issues. Fifteen respondents indicated success with discussion boards/forums, but three did not. For example, one faculty member noted that the online discussion led to increased student engagement and expression, while those less enamored with this technology mentioned issues such as awkward navigation, too labor intensive for faculty to monitor, the threads in discussions simply “breaking down,” and the challenge of keeping students focused without the instructor appearing too “heavy handed.” Librarians who wish to use these technologies in library instruction, particularly in collaboration with faculty, should be mindful of these observations.

Video conferencing received some mention—eight respondents liked it, one did not. One person reported that students enjoyed the ability to Skype with an author about a book they had read in class. Another mentioned the value of video conferencing to enable student participation in international events. Although several faculty indicated success with blogs, others were not so keen. One commented that blogs were a “uniform disaster” in that they were treated like journals with very informal language and little thought given to what was posted. Another said the blogs were highly unsuccessful because “students did not take them seriously, or viewed them as one cut above social networking, and so were not written with scholarly tone and approach.” A third mentioned that blogs were difficult to grade. Regarding the use of iClickers, one respondent expressed frustration that, at the time of the survey, the institution had not selected one single type to support.