430

Instructional Preferences of First-
Year College Students with Below-
Proficient Information Literacy Skills: 
A Focus Group Study

Don Latham and Melissa Gross

Don Latham is Associate Professor and Melissa Gross is Professor in the School of Library & Information 
Studies at Florida State University; e-mail: dlatham@fsu.edu, mgross@fsu.edu. © 2013 Don Latham and 
Melissa Gross

The Attaining Information Literacy Project has focused on identifying 
first-year college students with below-proficient information literacy skills, 
gaining an understanding of those students’ self-views and perceptions of 
information literacy, gaining an understanding of their instructional experi-
ences and preferences, and developing an intervention that will address 
their instructional needs. Focus groups were conducted with students 
with below-proficient skills to determine their instructional preferences. 
The findings from the focus groups indicate that students place a high 
value on personal relevance in the knowledge and skills they are learning, 
and they prefer a combination of demonstration and hands-on activities, 
interaction with the instructor and other students, and the availability of 
supplemental instructional materials in the form of handouts. In addition, 
they feel that incentives to participate in instruction are crucial and that a 
number of communication strategies are needed to advertise effectively 
the availability of instructional sessions. 

nstruction librarians face 
many challenges in develop-
ing and delivering effective 
information literacy instruc-

tion for college students. One of the 
biggest challenges is how to motivate stu-
dents so that they are receptive to learning 
new skills. In the case of the standalone 
workshop, students often fail to see the 
relevance of the instruction to their aca-
demic work or their personal lives, and 
the resulting lack of interest and low moti-
vation create obstacles to learning.1 In the 
case of the instructional session integrated 

within a content course, students still may 
be hampered by low motivation as is often 
the case when people are responding to 
imposed queries.2 A particularly difficult 
challenge to overcome is the student who 
comes to college with below-proficient 
information literacy skills. As research has 
shown, students with below-proficient 
skills tend to greatly overestimate their 
abilities3 and thus to believe that they 
are “above average” and do not need 
information literacy instruction. 

The Attaining Information Literacy 
Project has sought to address these chal-

crl-343



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  431

lenges. This three-year, IMLS-funded proj-
ect4 has focused on identifying first-year 
college students with below-proficient 
information literacy skills, gaining an 
understanding of those students’ self-
views and perceptions of information 
literacy, gaining an understanding of their 
instructional experiences and preferences, 
and developing an intervention that will 
address their instructional needs. Semis-
tructured interviews were conducted with 
students with below-proficient informa-
tion literacy skills to gain an understand-
ing of their perceptions of and experiences 
with information literacy in both imposed 
and self-generated information-seeking 
tasks. The findings from the interviews 
indicated that students tend not to think 
of information literacy as a discrete set of 
skills, yet they describe their own skills in 
finding, evaluating, and using informa-
tion as being above average. Moreover, 
they prefer the Internet and people as 
resources, but they place little emphasis 
on information quality.5 The data gath-
ered in the interviews provided valuable 
context about students’ perceptions of and 
experiences with information literacy and 
information seeking. Focus groups were 
then conducted with a different set of 
students with below-proficient skills to 
gather data about their experiences with 
and perceptions of information literacy in 
imposed and self-generated information-
seeking tasks and to compare that with 
the data gathered in the interviews. The 
primary purpose of the focus groups, 
however, was to determine students’ in-
structional preferences. This paper reports 
the findings from the focus groups con-
ducted with students who demonstrated 
below-proficient skills on an objective, 
standardized test of information literacy6 
and discusses implications for designing 
instruction for such students as well as 
directions for future research. 

First-year community college students 
were chosen for this study for a variety of 
reasons. Community colleges have seen 
steady increases in enrollment in recent 
years; among the more than 1,100 com-

munity colleges in the United States, there 
has been an increase in enrollment of ap-
proximately 15 percent from 2008 through 
2010 alone.7 Community college students 
comprise nearly half of the undergraduate 
students in the United States,8 and ap-
proximately 40 percent of these students 
will transfer to four-year colleges.9 The in-
structional needs and preferences of these 
students regarding information literacy, 
therefore, are of great interest to instruc-
tion librarians at both community colleges 
and four-year institutions. In addition, 
community college students present spe-
cial challenges. Most community colleges 
have open admissions policies, intended to 
provide broad access to higher education. 
As a result, community college students 
demonstrate a wide variance in terms 
of their previous academic preparation. 
About half of these students are “first time 
in college” students, and approximately 40 
percent enroll in remedial courses.10 

Review of Select Literature
The American Library Association’s 
Presidential Committee on Information 
Literacy in its 1989 report defined the 
information-literate individual as some-
one who “must be able to recognize when 
information is needed and have the ability 
to locate, evaluate, and use effectively 
the needed information.”11 In response 
to the Committee’s call for action, the 
Association of College and Research 
Libraries developed the Information Lit-
eracy Competency Standards for Higher 
Education, further refining the definition 
and delineating specific skill areas. Ac-
cording to this definition, someone who 
is information literate is able to: 

• Determine the extent of informa-
tion needed; 

• Access the needed information 
effectively and efficiently; 

• Evaluate information and its 
sources critically; 

• Incorporate selected information 
into one’s knowledge base; 

• Use information effectively to ac-
complish a specific purpose; and 



432  College & Research Libraries September 2013

• Understand the economic, legal, 
and social issues surrounding the 
use of information, and access 
and use information ethically and 
legally.12 

For instruction librarians, ensuring that 
students meet these standards is no easily 
achieved feat, for research indicates that 
many students enter college without these 
skills and many do not gain these skills 
during their college experience. Project 
Information Literacy, for example, found 
that college students report difficulty in 
conducting research and especially in 
finding materials.13 In a subsequent study, 
they found that college students describe 
themselves as competent at finding and 
evaluating information but reported 
difficulties in determining what kind of 
information is needed and how much.14 

Studies using more objective measures 
of information literacy skills suggest 
that students may not be as competent 
as they report. The Educational Testing 
Service, for example, found that, of 3,000 
college students and 800 high school 
students, only 13 percent demonstrated 
proficiency in information literacy on the 
ICT (Information and Communication 
Technology) Literacy Assessment.15 In a 
study of 51 first-year students at a research 
university, 45 percent scored as below 
proficient on the Information Literacy Test 
(ILT), a standardized, computer-based 
test involving four of the five ACRL Stan-
dards.16 In a similar study of 578 first-year 
students at two community colleges, 88 
percent scored as below proficient on the 
ILT.17 Some students clearly recognize 
deficiencies in their information literacy 
preparation. A survey of 900 college stu-
dents, for example, found that 40 percent 
of them indicated they had “some gaps” 
in their research skills.18 Other research, 
however, has shown that students with 
below-proficient information literacy 
skills levels tend to greatly overestimate 
their information literacy skill levels and 
are unable to recalibrate their self-views 
even after taking an information literacy 
test.19 Such students, because they do not 

recognize their deficiencies, are unlikely 
to seek help to improve their skills, nor are 
they able to recognize expertise in others.20 
In other words, these students are the least 
likely among college students to approach 
a librarian for help in finding, evaluating, 
and using information. Moreover, if forced 
into instruction, these students probably 
will have little motivation to learn skills 
they believe they already possess.

Designing effective instruction involves 
incorporating a number of pedagogical 
strategies. Chickering and Gamson iden-
tify seven principles of good practice in 
developing and delivering instruction to 
undergraduate students. These principles 
include (1) interaction between instructor 
and students, (2) collaboration among 
students, (3) active learning, (4) feedback 
from the instructor, (5) time on task, (6) 
high expectations, and (7) complementary 
teaching strategies designed for multiple 
learning preferences.21 Gagne et al. iden-
tify nine events of learning, which include 
gaining the students’ attention, orienting 
them to the learning context (objectives 
and connection to prior learning), deliv-
ering content, facilitating practice, and 
providing feedback and assessment.22 
Burgstahler advocates the use of the 
principles of Universal Design of Instruc-
tion (UDI) in developing instruction that 
is accessible to all students. Among these 
principles are ensuring a comfortable class 
climate, fostering interaction between the 
students and the instructor, using mul-
tiple methods to deliver content, offering 
multiple means of access for information 
resources and technology, and provid-
ing regular feedback from the instructor 
along with regular assessment of student 
progress.23  

One of the crucial elements in design-
ing and delivering effective instruction is 
motivation. Keller developed the ARCS 
Model of Motivational Design as a way of 
systematically incorporating motivation 
into instructional development.24 Based 
on expectancy-value theory, the ARCS 
Model specifies four conceptual categories 
that should be part of all instruction: (1) 



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  433

gaining and holding Attention, (2) demon-
strating Relevance, (3) instilling Confidence, 
and (4) providing a sense of Satisfaction. 
Drawing on the work of Keller, Small has 
argued for the importance of using such a 
framework to design information literacy 
instruction,25 and Small and Arnone have 
developed the Motivation Overlay for 
Information Skills Instruction as a way of 
accomplishing just that.26 Similarly, Crow, 
drawing on the work of Deci and Ryan, 
has posited Self-Determination Theory 
(SDT) as a way of designing information 
literacy instruction that appeals to certain 
psychological principles related to intrin-
sic motivation.27 These three principles are 
autonomy, one’s desire to undertake a task; 
perceived competence, the belief that one is 
able to accomplish a task; and relatedness, 
one’s need to feel connected to the social 
world in which one is situated. Beile and 
Boote, in two studies, report that students’ 
self-efficacy (that is, their belief in their 
ability to perform successfully) and their 
library skills were increased through 
library skills instruction.28 And Bruce 
discusses the importance of the personal 
relevance frame for informed learning. 
According to this frame, “[i]nformation 
literacy is learned in context”; “[v]aluable 
information is information that is useful to 
the learner”; and “[l]earning is about find-
ing personal relevance and meaning.”29 
Motivation to learn a new skill or acquire 
new knowledge, then, strongly depends 
on the learner’s perceived relevance of 
the skill or knowledge to her/his personal 
circumstances.

Yet it is not clear that simply building 
motivation into instruction is enough for 
all students. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, 
identified through research conducted 
in the field of psychology, suggests that 
people with low skills in a given knowl-
edge domain are unlikely to recognize 
that their skills are deficient, are unlikely 
to benefit from feedback received from 
an objective test of their skills, and are 
unlikely to recognize expertise in oth-
ers.30 The Dunning-Kruger Effect has been 
shown to pertain in the domain of infor-

mation literacy skills, such that students 
with below-proficient information literacy 
skills report being “better than average” in 
their skill levels.31 In designing informa-
tion literacy instruction for these students, 
motivational models, such as ARCS, may 
be ineffective. It is difficult to gain and 
sustain the attention of, demonstrate 
relevance to, and provide satisfaction for 
students who believe they already possess 
the skills in question. Moreover, instilling 
confidence in students’ ability ironically 
may work against them in that it does 
nothing to help them recalibrate their 
inflated self-estimates of their abilities.32

What many of the motivational models 
fail to emphasize is the importance of 
systematically investigating students’ 
prior experiences with and perceptions of 
instruction. An approach that would fa-
cilitate such an investigation is offered by 
phenomenography, a research methodol-
ogy developed in the field of education in 
the 1970s. Phenomenography is interested 
in a subject’s experiences with and percep-
tions of a particular phenomenon, with 
the focus being on the relationship between 
the subject and the phenomenon.33 In the 
area of information literacy research, 
Bruce has made use of this methodologi-
cal approach in her investigation of col-
lege administrators’ conceptions and per-
ceptions of information literacy,34 as have 
Gross and Latham in their research with 
first-year college students’ perceptions 
of information literacy in both imposed 
and self-generated information-seeking 
contexts35 and Maybee in his research 
with undergraduate students’ perceptions 
of information use.36 Most pertinent to 
the current study are Gross and Latham’s 
previous studies in which they found, 
through interviews with below-proficient 
students, that these students tend to think 
of information seeking as a product rather 
than a process, demonstrate a preference 
for people and the Internet as sources for 
information, see self-generated informa-
tion tasks as more interesting and more 
open than imposed information tasks, 
describe their own skill levels as “above 



434  College & Research Libraries September 2013

average,” and report that what they have 
learned about information seeking is 
largely self-taught.37 These findings sug-
gest that instruction librarians face special 
challenges in providing effective informa-
tion literacy instruction to students with 
such conceptions of information literacy 
and perceptions of their own skill levels. 

Research Questions
This study sought to address the gap in 
knowledge about the instructional experi-
ences and preferences of first-year college 
students with below-proficient informa-
tion literacy skills. As such, focus groups 
were conducted with first-year communi-
ty college students with below-proficient 
information literacy skills to gain an 
understanding of their experiences with, 
perceptions of, and preferences related to 
instruction. Specifically, the investigators 
posed the following research questions:

1. What are students’ conceptions of 
IL for self-generated information 
seeking?

2. What are students’ conceptions 
of IL for imposed information 
seeking?

3. Do students’ conceptions of the 
skills necessary to be a competent 
information seeker vary for self-
generated and imposed informa-
tion seeking?

4. What are students’ instructional 
preferences?

5. What do students say would 
motivate them to attend an IL 
instructional session?

6. What do students say are the best 
ways for the library to advertise 
the availability of IL instructional 
sessions?

Method
First-year students at two community 
colleges were recruited via classroom 
solicitations to take the Information 
Literacy Test (ILT), a standardized test 
of information literacy developed at 
James Madison University and used by 
many other colleges and universities in 

the United States and abroad. The In-
formation Literacy Test is a web-based, 
multiple-choice test that assesses stu-
dents’ abilities in four of the five ACRL 
information literacy competency stan-
dards. The standard that is not assessed 
is number four, the ability to use infor-
mation.38 Students who achieve a score 
of 90 percent or higher are considered 
to have “advanced” information literacy 
skills; those who score between 65 and 
89 percent are considered to have “profi-
cient” skills; and those who score below 
65 percent are considered to have below-
proficient skills.39 From those who scored 
in the below-proficient range on the ILT, 
students were recruited to participate in 
six focus groups—three at each of the 
two community colleges. Focus groups 
were chosen because they encourage 
social interaction and allow for the ef-
ficient collection of rich data with high 
face validity.40 Moreover, the interaction 
that occurs among participants in focus 
groups often leads to insights that would 
not occur in individual interviews.41 The 
use of focus groups is a well-documented 
method of data collection in the library 
and information science field.42 

Each focus group lasted approximately 
90 minutes, food and drink were pro-
vided, and each student was paid $30 for 
participation. A facilitator led each focus 
group, while an assistant took notes on a 
large flip pad. The sheets of notes were 
posted so that participants could see 
them throughout the session. Each ses-
sion was audio recorded. During the ses-
sion, participants were asked to describe 
their information-seeking process when 
looking for information for personal use 
(self-generated information seeking) and 
to describe their process when looking 
for information for a school assignment 
(imposed information seeking). They were 
then asked to discuss whether the skills 
needed for each kind of task were the same 
or different, and what name, or term, they 
would give to these skills. They were then 
asked to describe instructional experi-
ences that they found particularly effec-



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  435

tive, to discuss their preferences related 
to modes of instruction, to comment on 
what would motivate students to attend 
an instructional session on information 
skills, and to describe the best ways to 
advertise such instructional opportunities. 
The focus group questions are provided 
in the appendix. 

The notes from the flip pad sheets 
were transcribed into typewritten form 
for analysis. In addition, the audio re-
cordings were transcribed. Working from 
the transcripts, the researchers coded 
each focus group session, identifying 
common themes as well as taking note 
of the variety and range of responses. 
The coding was cross-checked against 
the notes from the flip pad sheets. The 
c o n s t a n t  c o m p a r a t i ve  m e t h o d  wa s 
used for coding, by which data were 
compared to generate categories and to 
define the properties of each category, 
and data were compared to the emerg-
ing categories. All data were coded, and 
categories were generated until they 
became “theoretically saturated”: that is, 
no additional categories emerged from 
the data analysis.43

Findings
Demographics 
Sixty-five students with below-proficient 
scores on the ILT were recruited to partici-
pate in the six focus groups. Of these, 37 
(56.9%) were female and 28 (43.1%) were 
male. The students were fairly equally 
distributed across the two community 
colleges, with 30 students (46.2%) partici-
pating from one college and 35 students 
(53.8%) from the other. A wide variety of 
majors was represented among these stu-
dents, with the most prevalent being busi-
ness (18.5%), nursing and allied health 
(13.8%), STEM (10.8%), social science 
(9.2%), and general studies (9.2%). Other 
majors represented included communica-
tion, criminal justice, education, fine arts, 
performing arts, film, and physical edu-
cation. Several students (4.6%) reported 
their major as “undecided.” 

RQ 1: IL in Self-generated Information-
Seeking Tasks
Students were asked what they did when 
they needed to find information to make 
personal decisions, such as making a 
purchase or planning a trip, and what 
skills were needed to do that successfully. 
Students mentioned a variety of sources 
that they might consult, but the two most 
prevalent were people and the Internet, 
including Wikipedia. Other possible 
sources identified were stores (in the case 
of making a purchase), advertisements, 
television, magazines, newspapers, and 
past experience (that is, their own previ-
ous experience). Specific people who were 
mentioned as possible sources included 
parents (often “mom”), family, friends, 
experts, salespeople, and technicians. In 
relation to planning a trip or gathering 
information about a product, one student 
said, “I would probably just go to the In-
ternet or brainstorm with friends,” while 
another reported, “I would use the Inter-
net to compare to see what brands offer 
what at what price.” One student said, “I 
[would] explore my options and then ask 
my mama what I should do.” As for why 
they would consult people, students cited 
several reasons based on their relationship 
with the people: convenience, a comfort-
able and familiar relationship, and shared 
interest. Other reasons were related more 
to characteristics possessed by the people 
related specifically to the information need 
at hand. Students valued certain people for 
their knowledge, experience, and/or opin-
ions. One student, for example, stated that 
s/he “would go to the store that they sell 
[the product] at and ask them what they 
think about it.” Another said that in plan-
ning a trip s/he would “go by hearsay and 
people, the comments that people made if 
they have gone there or done that.”

In terms of the skills students saw as 
necessary for being successful informa-
tion seekers with self-generated queries, 
a number of skills were mentioned, which 
can be grouped into four basic categories. 
Some of these skills are what librarians 
might consider standard traits of an 



436  College & Research Libraries September 2013

information-literate individual (though 
the students themselves did not use that 
term). For example, students discussed 
the importance of understanding the 
information need, the ability to match 
the question or need to the right sources, 
computer skills, research skills, search 
skills, and specifically database search 
skills. One student, for example, noted 
that “[f]irst thing you do is figure out 
what you need or want.” Another said 
that it was important to be “a good scav-
enger hunter.” 

Evaluation as a discrete skill was men-
tioned in relation to evaluating a product, 
such as a computer. Other skills might be 
described as social skills: the term “social 
skills” was used along with communica-
tion and the ability to ask questions. One 
student stated that “you just got to have a 
lot of people skills, be willing to ask ques-
tions when you go in the store.” Another 
set of skills involved various cognitive 
characteristics, such as thinking skills, 
and the ability to make sense of a situa-
tion. Other skills in this category included 
math skills, organization skills, and 
planning skills. Finally, yet another set of 
skills that were identified might best be 
described as life management skills. These 
were self-discipline, time management, 
and money management (again, in rela-
tion to making a purchase). One student 
said, “I don’t think there really [are] many 
skills other than common sense.”

Students also discussed the basis on 
which they would evaluate informa-
tion that they found in self-generated 
information-seeking tasks. In terms of 
evaluating sources, students mentioned 
the importance of being able to recognize 
bias in a source, the need for currency, 
and the importance of reliability. They 
also emphasized the importance of con-
sulting multiple sources to compare and 
(possibly) confirm the information found. 
The students mentioned other criteria 
related to the relevance of the content of 
particular sources in helping them make 
decisions about a pending purchase. For 
example, they indicated that they valued 

sources that presented opinions, ratings, 
and reviews, as well as pros and cons and 
industry standards. According to one stu-
dent, for instance, “[W]hen you are buying 
a car stereo or computer you figure out 
like pros and cons of each thing and then 
maybe…look at some reviews of different 
products and stuff like that from differ-
ent websites and see what other people 
think.” Other criteria that were discussed 
related more to the characteristics of the 
product itself—things such as affordabil-
ity, brand, product features, and personal 
preference. One student commented that 
s/he would “just do what my mom always 
taught me to do…you just look for the 
cheapest thing you could find.” 

RQ 2: IL in Imposed Information-Seeking 
Tasks 
Students were asked what they did when 
they needed to find information to fulfill 
a class assignment. Again, students men-
tioned a variety of sources, especially the 
Internet and people. One student said 
that s/he “would go to the Internet, get an 
opinion, and search it, and I would plan 
out how I’d want the paper or assignment 
to be worded.” In addition, students re-
ported that they used a number of differ-
ent reference sources, such as style guides, 
encyclopedias, and dictionaries, as well 
as newspapers, magazines, and library 
databases. One student, for instance, 
commented that “the database from our 
library has been very, very helpful, being 
able to make sure [the source] is repu-
table and that it is based on research and 
has been proven.” The library itself was 
mentioned as a source as was the book-
store. Other sources were more course 
related—for example, sample papers 
and class notes. And field, or original, 
research that they themselves conducted 
was noted by some students as a source 
of information. 

In terms of which people they used 
as sources, students mentioned various 
family members (mothers, fathers, sib-
lings, cousins, and, in the case of older, 
nontraditional students, their own chil-



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  437

dren). Friends and roommates were also 
identified as sources. Some of the people 
consulted were school or even course 
specific: instructors, tutors, librarians, and 
classmates. As for why they consulted 
certain people, students discussed vari-
ous characteristics that can be grouped 
into three broad areas, which are not, of 
course, mutually exclusive. Some were 
consulted for their expertise, identified 
as knowledge, experience, and opinions. 
One student explained that “if you know 
someone who has a particularly large 
amount of knowledge about that subject, 
you can talk to them.” Some were consult-
ed because they offered particular kinds 
of help, such as the ability to interpret an 
assignment or provide feedback (on the 
students’ work or ideas). And some were 
consulted because they offered a com-
fortable level of familiarity—specifically, 
convenience of access, a close relation-
ship, and/or compatibility. 

When asked what skills students need 
to be successful in seeking information to 
fulfill class assignments, students noted a 
number of skills that can be divided into 
four basic categories. Cognitive skills 
included reading, comprehension, writ-
ing, and problem solving. Information 
literacy skills included Internet, library, 
research, and computer skills. As one 
student said, “Actually, most times we 
use the Internet and it requires com-
puter skills.” Other information literacy 
skills included understanding the topic 
and formulating appropriate questions, 
brainstorming, the ability to evaluate 
sources, note taking, and knowing how 
to cite sources and avoid plagiarism. One 
student emphasized that it was important 
to “[k]now exactly what you’re looking 
for and like, if you’re writing a paper or 
something, know your subject.” Life man-
agement skills were mentioned as well, 
and included organization and planning 
skills, determination and perseverance, 
patience, time management, motivation, 
the ability to develop interest in a topic 
or project, and the ability to engage in 
reflection. One student commented, 

“Yeah, I mean if I had to write a paper, 
I hope it would be something I liked, I 
was interested in.” Finally, social skills 
and communication skills were also 
mentioned as important traits to have. As 
one student explained, you have to “[u]se 
communication skills when you’re asking 
someone about something; you want to 
make sure you say the right things and 
get what you want.”

As far as evaluating sources was 
concerned, students focused on the im-
portance of credibility and currency and 
stressed avoiding sources like Wikipedia 
and Internet sources that were “dot 
coms.” One student noted that s/he would 
check out books in the library “because I 
don’t trust everything that’s on the Inter-
net.” In addition, students reported that 
they judged sources on the amount of con-
tent offered and stated that they looked 
for multiple viewpoints and felt that it 
was important to have multiple sources. 
For example, one student noted that “if 
you are doing comparing, contrasting, 
you need to know both sides, like details 
on both sides.” 

RQ 3: Comparison of IL Skills in Self-
generated vs. Imposed Information-seeking 
Tasks
Students generally agreed that the skills 
required to be successful information 
seekers were both similar and different 
in self-generated versus imposed tasks. 
Similar skills included cognitive skills, 
specifically comprehension, problem-
solving skills, decision-making skills, the 
ability to engage in original thought, and 
common sense. Traditional information 
literacy skills that applied in both infor-
mation-seeking contexts included under-
standing the topic or question, research 
skills, computer skills, similar sources, 
and the ability to evaluate sources. For 
example, one student said, “So what’s in 
common is you have to use a computer, 
but the way they’re different is because 
there is different things on the computer 
you have to do for the assignment.” 
Another agreed, stating that the two tasks 



438  College & Research Libraries September 2013

involved “[m]ostly the same skills due to 
the fact that computers are the number one 
place to find information.” And yet another 
student noted that both tasks, whether one 
is conducting research for an assignment 
or investigating a product to purchase, 
involve “[u]sing problem-solving skills 
because you are making sure they are 
either credible sources or that they are a 
good type of brand.” Students also identi-
fied a number of life management skills as 
being common to both kinds of informa-
tion seeking: planning, organization, time 
management, attention to detail, patience, 
determination, discipline, perseverance, 
and being goal oriented. The only specific 
social skill mentioned was communica-
tion. One student summed it up like this: 
“I think [both kinds of tasks are] the 
same…in certain skills, but the way you 
use the skills for each thing is different.”

The differences that were identified 
related less to actual skills and more 
to the affective dimensions of the two 
different information-seeking contexts. 
Imposed tasks were done for someone 
else, had deadlines, were constrained, 
and were compulsory. As such, they were 
considered to be work, static, boring, 
and more serious. Self-generated tasks, 
by contrast, were done for oneself, had a 
more flexible timeline, were more open, 
and were voluntary. As such, they were 
considered to be pleasurable, dynamic, 
and fun. One student said, “One [type 
of task] is working; one is pleasure.” An-
other noted, “One is for yourself and the 
other one is for your teacher.” One student 
commented, “You’re probably just a little 
bit more enthusiastic about like research-
ing going on a cruise or like something 
you’re going to buy for yourself,” while 
another noted, “People don’t like writing 
papers.” These sentiments were echoed 
in other comments, such as “Yeah…you 
don’t really invest yourself this much in 
an assignment.” Yet another put it this 
way: “[O]ne is something that I want to do 
and the other is something I have to do.” 

The differences in skills that were 
mentioned included the assertion that 

imposed tasks require comprehension 
skills whereas self-generated tasks re-
quire common sense. The different tasks 
were seen as having different goals and 
therefore requiring different planning 
processes, different sources, and different 
use of sources and resulted in different 
products (papers, for instance, versus 
decisions). One student felt that it would 
be “odd to go to your friends and ask 
about [a school assignment],” but another 
reported, “I know sometimes when I am 
writing a paper, I’ll call my mom or I’ll call 
my coach, and I get really good insight 
because everyone has different opinions.” 
Some students also saw a difference in the 
types of sources they might consult for 
the different tasks. As one student said, 
“For one you use a website like Google, 
a search engine; for the other use a data-
base.” Overall, imposed tasks were seen 
as being more constrained, while self-
generated tasks were seen as being more 
open. One student stated, “[W]hen it’s for 
school you have guidelines and things 
you have to follow like you have to follow 
a path or whatever and the other one you 
can kind of go wherever you want and 
choose whatever you want.” 

When asked what this set of skills 
should be called, students suggested a 
wide variety of terms, most of which fo-
cused on a narrow rather than a broad set 
of skills. For example, some of the terms 
suggested included “planning,” “decision 
making,” “computer skills,” “communi-
cation skills,” “analysis,” “research,” and 
“problem solving.” When asked whether 
they were familiar with the term “infor-
mation literacy,” they said that they had 
not heard the term prior to taking the 
Information Literacy Test. 

RQ 4: Instructional Preferences
Students were asked to recall courses in 
which they felt they had learned a lot and 
to consider the teaching techniques and 
materials used in those courses. Not sur-
prisingly, teacher characteristics figured 
prominently in students’ responses. These 
characteristics related to the teacher’s atti-



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  439

tude toward students, attitude toward the 
material, and overall personality. Students 
expressed a preference for teachers who 
care about their students, are able to relate 
to students, respect students’ opinions, 
and are helpful. One student explained, “I 
think I learn better if the teachers, profes-
sors, like show that they care about their 
students and stuff because I’ve had teach-
ers that don’t care and it just makes me not 
want to be there and not want to learn.” 
Another student mentioned admiring a 
certain math teacher because “she gives 
everyone a chance to ask questions and…
she breaks it down and goes slow with 
everyone and she always picks back up if 
someone needs help with something.” In 
addition, some students reported a prefer-
ence for easy teachers, while others said 
that they preferred strict teachers because 
with a strict teacher “you’re gonna learn 
a lot because you will be scared to play 
in that class.” They also indicated that 
they appreciate teachers who are passion-
ate and enthusiastic and demonstrate a 
positive attitude about the material. One 
student, for example, recalled a favorite 
history teacher who “was really into it. 
We could tell that he liked the subject 
and [the class] was more interesting.” 
Another remembered a particularly effec-
tive psychology teacher: “He just taught 
with such enthusiasm and he made me 
interested in psychology. He made me 
want to do good in that class.” In terms 
of overall personality, students stated that 
they enjoy teachers who are outgoing, 
have a sense of humor, and are “sassy” 
and “cool.” One student noted that such 
traits rub off on the students themselves: 
“Yeah. I love that [attitude]; it gave you 
like energy and some oomph.” 

Students also identified a number of 
teaching techniques they considered effec-
tive in fostering learning and in making a 
class “fun.” Some were related more to the 
delivery of course content, and included 
such things as demonstrations, the use of 
real-life, relevant examples, the incorpora-
tion of stories into lectures, and the stimu-
lation of thought. One student expressed 

preference for a teacher who “will give 
you an example but then…help you do 
it and critique it…then give you a chance 
to do it yourself.” According to students, 
effective teachers also make use of supple-
mental materials and activities such as 
games, visual aids, videos, handouts, and 
field trips. Students liked having a choice 
in terms of assignments and/or topics. One 
student praised a teacher who “gave us 
opportunities to do whatever we wanted 
to learn, like we could tell him what we 
want to do, like if we wanted to read a cer-
tain book, he would let us read that book.” 
Other techniques were more focused on 
student interaction. Students stated that 
they liked the opportunity to get personal 
attention from the teacher, specifically to 
get feedback from the teacher, and they 
appreciated the opportunity to ask ques-
tions and engage in open discussions. 
They also liked the opportunity to make 
presentations in class, work with other 
students in small groups, and participate 
in peer tutoring sessions. One student 
noted, “I always remember information 
that I actually stood up and presented to 
the class as opposed to information that I 
just turned in; for some reason presenting 
it seemed to stick in my mind.” Another 
described the effectiveness of peer editing 
groups in an English class: “… to get your 
grade you do not rely only on yourself 
but on your cohort groups.…I think that 
actually helps because in the real world 
you have to deal with all different types 
of people.” Students valued the opportu-
nity to gain hands-on practice with the 
knowledge and skills being taught. Some 
students mentioned computer use in class, 
laboratory work, work study experiences, 
and job shadowing as especially useful. 
One student recalled a high school class 
in which “each one of us had our own 
computer, so we could use whatever we 
wanted from the computer, which really 
helped a lot.”

By the same token, students had 
strong feelings about teaching techniques 
that they have found ineffective. Such 
techniques include lectures that offer no 



440  College & Research Libraries September 2013

ing out loud, drawing pictures, and using 
color coding. Several students described 
themselves as being “tactile,” “hands-on,” 
and “visual” learners.

RQ 5: Motivations to Attend IL Instruction
Students were asked what would moti-
vate them to attend an information litera-
cy instructional session. They mentioned 
incentives as a very important issue and 
identified a number of possible incentives. 
Students said they would be likely to at-
tend such a session if it were required, or 
if it offered course credit, extra credit, an 
opportunity to improve their grades, or 
food. One student expressed the impor-
tance of requiring attendance: “Well, I 
know me, personally when my professor 
says, ‘Oh, it’s optional, you don’t have to 
come in, you don’t have to do it,’ it’s like 
what’s the point in doing it? I’d rather you 
not tell me it’s optional.” But another ex-
pressed the opposite viewpoint: “Because 
you have the choice, it makes you want to 
go, because, man, I have a choice to go and 
I can make plenty of points. That’s a good 
choice.” For some students, it was a mat-
ter of the perceived benefit they would 
gain from attending such an instructional 
session. One student, for example, said, 
“What would make me want to go if it 
was like a class that was kind of like what 
I was already taking and it would just 
help me out more; then I would go if I had 
like really bad grades [and] I needed to 
bring them up.” Another stated, “No one 
wants to do anything unless you person-
ally benefit from it.” Students said that 
they would also be motivated to attend 
if they felt they needed the skills, if they 
had a personal interest in the topic, or if 
they had a friend in the class. One student 
mentioned the importance of the class be-
ing appealing: “If I don’t like the class at 
first, I am not going to show up even if it 
does give me extra credit.” Students also 
discussed the importance of scheduling, 
stating that they would be interested if 
the sessions were short and available at a 
variety of times and in a convenient loca-
tion. Other important factors mentioned 

interaction, are boring and/or confusing, 
involve the teacher just reading from 
notes, are presented in a monotone voice, 
and show low teacher involvement in the 
material. While generally not liking the 
straight lecture format, students were also 
unimpressed with courses where ques-
tions were allowed to dominate the class. 
They also did not like courses where no 
supplemental materials were provided, 
nor did they like courses where the focus 
was on rote memorization. Interestingly, 
most of these students expressed a strong 
dislike for online courses. Instead, they 
preferred face-to-face classes that were 
small and offered opportunities for per-
sonal tutorials. One student, an exception, 
stated that s/he did not mind online class-
es because “I feel like society has turned 
to computers anyway, so you should get 
used to communicating back and forth 
online.” But more typical reactions were: 
“I like hands-on; I think online classes are 
the stupidest things ever made”; “I don’t 
like online instruction because I don’t 
pay attention, because I…want to be on 
Facebook, and I do other things”; “I mean 
online classes are a joke, and I hate my 
[online] math lab with a passion”; and 
“when you have an online class you’re 
thinking I technically don’t really have 
to do this, because this is just online.” 
Students said that they preferred small 
face-to-face classes for a variety of rea-
sons: “because I think you can ask more 
questions”; “I can talk to the teacher, you 
know your surrounding classmates, so if 
you have a question you can ask them”; 
and “I think [peer] tutorials help a lot, like 
working with someone in the class that 
you can level with and [they] can help 
you, and you can help them.” 

In terms of their own learning tech-
niques, students mentioned a variety of 
practices and preferences. A number of 
them discussed the importance of having 
interest in the topic. They also described 
various methods they use to learn new 
material: participating in discussions, 
taking notes, making note cards or flash 
cards, creating and playing games, read-



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  441

were the perceived usefulness of the 
class, the teacher’s reputation, and the ef-
fectiveness of the instructional strategies. 
One student, for example, noted that “[i]t 
helps maybe to get the class up and move 
around and get into groups and talk and 
share their thoughts and stuff like that.” 
Another said, “I would want to go to 
class if we had projects planned or there 
was a really hands-on class like full of 
activities.” Students said they would not 
be likely to attend an information literacy 
instructional session if they felt they al-
ready had the skills and/or they felt the 
class had no personal relevance to them. 

RQ 6: Advertising IL Instructional 
Sessions
Students were also asked about the best 
ways for the library to communicate in-
formation to them about the availability of 
information literacy instruction. Students 
offered a variety of options, which can be 
grouped into three main categories. An-
nouncements made within the context 
of particular courses were felt to be espe-
cially effective. Several means were iden-
tified, including announcements made in 
class, information included on the course 
syllabus, and postings on the course web-
site. Other print-based advertisements 
mentioned were handouts or flyers, post-
ers, and (free) T-shirts. Several electronic 
media outlets were identified as possi-
bilities: radio advertisements, e-mails, text 
messages, phone calls, school websites, 
and television spots. One student noted, 
“I drive a lot so I always like listening to 
the radio, and I especially like an adver-
tisement about students at [my college]; 
I mean, I think, I go to school here, so I 
want to know what’s going on.” Another, 
however, explained, “There really isn’t 
any way to reach me. The way I find out 
about stuff like this is like friends and fam-
ily, I guess word of mouth.” When asked 
to discuss what within advertisements 
would catch their attention, students 
focused on a number of elements related 
to effective graphic design, such as bold 
letters, images, colors, and legible, concise 

messages. Others mentioned using music 
in the advertising and emphasizing the of-
fer of incentives such as free food or extra 
credit. Creating an “information literacy 
mascot” was mentioned as one possibility, 
as was holding a contest among students 
to design the best poster to advertise infor-
mation literacy instruction. Students also 
felt that the use of attention-getting words 
would be important and effective. Some 
possibilities included “urgent,” “free,” 
“mandatory,” “important,” “good news,” 
and “please read.” Several suggested the 
use of meaningful motivational messages 
based on the intended outcomes of the ses-
sion: “Stop failing your classes now”; “Get 
better grades”; and “Write a better paper.” 
Finally, it was suggested that prominently 
featuring incentives in the advertising was 
crucial. These incentives included money 
(students who participated in this research 
project were paid), food, extra credit, free 
passes, and prizes. The key to successful 
communication for many of these students 
is, as one student stated, “[i]f it looks cool, 
if it’s flashy,” to which another student 
added, “[i]f it relates to like the majority 
of the age group in the school.” 

Discussion
Self-generated vs. Imposed Information-
seeking Experiences
Students were asked about their in-
formation-seeking experiences in both 
self-generated and imposed tasks for 
the purpose of (a) orienting them to the 
topic of information skills and (b) eliciting 
responses that could then be compared to 
the findings from the interviews, which 
focused on students’ perceptions of and 
experiences with information literacy. As 
found in the interviews,44 students tend to 
prefer the Internet and people as sources 
of information, both in self-generated 
and imposed tasks. With self-generated 
information seeking, students typically 
said that they turned to search engines, 
known websites, and people with whom 
they were comfortable, such as parents, 
other family members, and friends. They 
sometimes also consulted “experts,” for 



442  College & Research Libraries September 2013

example, people who sell a particular 
product who are familiar with the fea-
tures and the like. Comfort level, trust, 
and convenience are key considerations 
in the people whom students choose as 
sources in self-generated information-
seeking tasks. With imposed tasks, such 
as school assignments, students are more 
likely to go to instructors or tutors or 
classmates—in other words, people they 
perceive as having some level of expertise 
in the topic and some familiarity with the 
parameters of the assignment. Interest-
ingly, the students did not mention librar-
ians as people they typically turned to 
when they had personal or school-related 
information needs. In terms of nonpeople 
sources, students still prefer the Internet 
for imposed tasks, but they also mention 
using “library sources,” such as data-
bases, books, and periodicals. It is not 
clear, however, whether these additional 
sources are used because of the type or 
quality of the information they offer or 
because they are required or strongly 
preferred by instructors. 

In terms of the skills needed to be suc-
cessful information seekers, students see 
the skill sets as similar for both self-gen-
erated and imposed information-seeking 
tasks. They tend to place a great deal of 
emphasis on search skills—finding the in-
formation needed—regardless of the task, 
and they see computer skills as closely 
related to, and in some cases as synony-
mous with, effective search skills. Students 
also recognize that cognitive skills are 
important too, particularly the ability to 
think critically about the topic or informa-
tion need at hand. Social skills, especially 
communication skills, are needed in terms 
of being able to interact successfully with 
other people as potential sources, ask them 
questions, and understand and respond to 
their feedback. Students recognize that 
management skills are crucial in being 
able to manage one’s time and organize 
the information found in searches. These 
students are able to discuss the variety of 
skills needed to be considered a success-
ful information seeker. However, it is not 

clear that students think of these skills as 
a discrete or coherent set of skills, nor is it 
clear that they think possessing these skills 
is anything special. Students are not famil-
iar with the term “information literacy,” 
which raises the question of whether 
the term is being used by librarians and 
teachers/faculty in K–12 schools and in 
institutions of higher education. The wide 
variety of terms students offered as a way 
of describing information skills indicates 
that their conceptions of these skills vary 
widely as well. It is possible that the lack 
of a term that resonates with students is 
hampering their ability to conceptualize 
information literacy as a skill set.

Students report that they do engage in 
evaluation of sources in both self-gener-
ated and imposed information tasks. This 
finding is somewhat different from what 
was learned in the interviews, in which 
students indicated that information qual-
ity was not a major concern—or, if it was, 
it was largely a consideration imposed by 
the instructor.45 In the focus groups, with 
both kinds of tasks, students state that 
they look for relevance, currency, and 
reliability in evaluating sources found. 
In addition, with imposed tasks, they 
feel that they should avoid Wikipedia 
and “dot com” Internet sources. Though 
not explicitly stated, it seems quite likely 
that this concern is a mandate given by 
instructors rather than students’ per-
sonal preferences. Also, with imposed 
tasks, students mention the desirability 
of having multiple sources and multiple 
viewpoints represented in those sources. 
Again, it seems likely that this directive 
comes from instructors. A common as-
signment, for example, is to write a paper 
on a particular issue, presenting the pros 
and cons of that issue. 

Generally speaking, in comparing 
self-generated and imposed information-
seeking tasks, students see the skill sets 
as similar but the affective dimensions 
as different. Imposed tasks are seen as 
more constrained (by instructor expecta-
tions) and self-generated as more open. 
Interestingly, while there is wider range of 



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  443

possible sources students could consult in 
self-generated information seeking, they, 
in fact, tend to rely primarily on people 
and freely available web resources (such 
as sites found through Google, or known 
sites like Wikipedia and YouTube); rarely 
do they consult databases, books, or peri-
odicals for self-generated tasks. 

Quality of sources is considered to be 
a more important issue in imposed tasks, 
largely because the instructor dictates 
that source quality should be evaluated. 
Self-generated tasks, not surprisingly, are 
considered to be both more fun and more 
interesting, and there is greater motiva-
tion to do the research and find useful 
sources. With imposed tasks, there tends 
to be less interest and less built-in moti-
vation; students complete them because 
they have to, not because they especially 
want to. These findings are very much 
in agreement with the findings from the 
interviews in regard to students’ percep-
tions and motivations associated with the 
two kinds of information-seeking tasks.46 
These findings also underscore the im-
portance of the personal relevance frame 
for students, who indicate that they are 
more motivated by and more interested 
in information that is useful and learning 
that is meaningful to them personally.47

Instructional Preferences
Students were asked to recall a class in 
which they felt engaged and felt that 
they learned a lot, and then to describe 
the characteristics of that class and/or in-
structor. The purpose of the question was 
to determine what instructional strategies 
students found most effective. It is clear 
from their responses that students prefer 
a combination of strategies, particularly 
demonstration and the opportunity for 
practice—as one student said, “Show me, 
and then let me do it.” This suggests that 
information literacy instructional sessions 
should be held in computer classrooms 
where computers are available to both the 
instructor and students. While a classroom 
with a single computer and LCD projector 
would facilitate demonstration, it would 

not allow for hands-on practice. Students 
also expressed a strong preference for a 
high degree of interaction—with the in-
structor and with other students. They felt 
that they learned most effectively when 
they had the opportunity to ask questions 
in a comfortable environment and when 
they received constructive feedback on 
their work. In addition, many of them 
stated that they enjoyed working with 
other students and indicated that they of-
ten learned from other students’ questions 
and comments. This desire for a high level 
of interactivity suggests that instructional 
sessions be kept relatively small. While in 
theory the size of such sessions would be 
restricted only by the number of available 
computers, in practice it seems that an op-
timal size would be 16–20. This class size 
would allow the instructor to interact with 
all of the students, respond to questions, 
and provide ongoing feedback. It would 
also allow for students to work collab-
oratively and to learn from one another’s 
experiences, questions, and comments. If 
such a small class size is not possible, it 
would be advantageous for the instruc-
tor to have an assistant who could walk 
around the room and provide feedback 
to students as they worked on search ac-
tivities. Finally, students also expressed a 
desire for handouts, something that might 
seem a bit old-fashioned in today’s digital 
learning environments. But it should be 
recognized that many students like to 
have something tangible that they can take 
away with them to help them recall specif-
ic techniques and information learned in 
the session. While it is true that handouts 
can be placed on websites, it is also clear 
that many students prefer to have these 
supplemental materials “pushed” to them 
rather than having to remember where 
the materials are and access and print 
them on their own. Overall, the fact that 
students expressed strong preferences for 
multiple instructional strategies—includ-
ing demonstration, practice, interaction, 
collaboration, and feedback—confirms 
findings from the work of Chickering and 
Gamson, Gagne et al., and Burgstahler.48 



444  College & Research Libraries September 2013

It is not surprising to hear that students 
value entertaining, engaging, enthusiastic 
instructors who demonstrate concern for 
students. Those characteristics have been 
the hallmarks of effective teaching for a 
long time and in many different contexts, 
and these findings confirm Small, Dodge, 
and Jiang’s finding that students view their 
instructor as the single most important mo-
tivational factor in their learning.49 People 
generally like to listen to and interact 
with interesting, passionate people. It is 
perhaps also not surprising that students 
appreciate instructors who use personal 
examples and work hard to make the ma-
terial relevant to their students’ personal 
lives. This finding too supports Bruce’s 
notion of the personal relevance frame as 
playing a key role in motivating students 
to learn.50 What is somewhat surprising 
is the general aversion most students ex-
press to online learning. In the age of the 
Internet with all the talk of “Millenials”51 
and “Digital Natives,”52 it is tempting to 
assume that all young people are computer 
savvy and prefer being online to interact-
ing face to face, but this is an oversimpli-
fied view. For one thing, not all college 
students are spending vast amounts of 
time online. Those who live in rural areas, 
for instance, with Internet access issues 
may only use computers when they are 
on campus. But even for those who do use 
computers frequently, they seem to make 
a distinction between what they like to 
do online—such as participating in social 
media—and things they do not like to do 
online—taking a class or even just complet-
ing a tutorial. While some students in the 
current study said that they like, and even 
prefer, online learning, many more said 
explicitly that they do not. Online learn-
ing is considered impersonal, one-way, 
and unable to inspire much motivation. 
This is an important finding for librarians, 
instructors, and administrators who may 
be making faulty assumptions about the 
preferences and behaviors of the students 
they serve. By the same token, the findings 
of this study may indicate that the partici-
pants had been exposed to a very limited 

kind of online instruction—perhaps online 
tutorials that provided no opportunities 
for practice, interaction, collaboration, or 
feedback. 

Motivation and Communication
Incentives are crucial motivators for stu-
dents, and it seems that students will be 
most likely to attend an information lit-
eracy instructional session if it is required 
and/or if it offers college credit. The 
question of whether required attendance 
would be an effective motivator for every-
one, though, remains an open one. While 
some students clearly need the incentive 
of mandatory participation, others feel 
that having the option to attend is actually 
a greater motivator in that it facilitates 
self-efficacy by empowering them to 
make the decision themselves. The oppor-
tunity to improve their grades, by earning 
extra credit and/or by enhancing the skills 
needed to be successful in their courses, 
is also a powerful incentive, again sug-
gesting that extrinsic motivation is a key 
factor in getting students to participate in 
information literacy instruction. Motiva-
tion is also influenced by the reputation 
of the class and the instructor. A class 
that is convenient, in terms of times of-
fered and location, and that is known to 
be helpful and interesting, but relatively 
short, is seen as desirable. Likewise, an 
instructor known for being entertaining, 
lively, and genuinely concerned about 
student success can be a significant factor 
in students’ being motivated to attend 
an instructional session. These findings 
suggest that perhaps the most effective 
strategy to motivate students to attend 
information literacy instruction is the 
“stick and carrot” approach, making the 
session a requirement but also ensuring 
that it is engaging and useful. 

Class and instructor reputation are 
conveyed largely via word of mouth, and 
indeed this is one of the strategies students 
frequently mentioned as an effective way 
of communicating/advertising information 
about instructional sessions. An equally 
effective means of communication is for 



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  445

instructors and tutors to provide informa-
tion about instructional sessions, via class 
announcements, statements on course 
syllabi, postings on course websites, and 
other such means. Beyond recommen-
dations—either from other students or 
from instructors and tutors—students do 
not agree on a single effective means of 
communicating with them. While some 
prefer text messages, others state that they 
would delete any messages from people 
or entities that they do not know. By the 
same token, while some students feel that 
e-mail from the library or college is an 
effective way of contacting them, others 
report rarely using e-mail or ignoring 
messages that appear to be mass mailings. 
Again, the notion that all young people are 
constantly online or “plugged in” needs 
to be reconsidered; simply because they 
themselves may frequently engage in 
texting with friends and family members 
does not mean that they wish to receive 
texts (or e-mails or tweets) from people 
and organizations they do not know. Per-
haps because of the highly visual nature 
of our culture, students do pay attention 
to eye-catching advertisements. (Several 
students in the study described themselves 
as “visual learners.”) Colorful, attractively 
designed visuals, with attention-getting 
words and a clear identification of in-
centives, are felt to provide an effective 
means for advertising instruction. As with 
instruction itself, some students feel that 
an interactive dimension—for example, 
an information literacy poster contest or 
an information literacy mascot—is highly 
desirable with advertising too. Overall, 
the fact that there is no single best way 
to communicate or advertise information 
literacy instructional sessions suggests that 
a variety of outlets should be used. Clearly, 
the key is to engage students through effec-
tive communication and advertising and 
through the content and pedagogy of the 
instructional session itself. 

Conclusions
The findings of the present study indi-
cate that students with below-proficient 

information literacy skills prefer people 
and the Internet as sources in both self-
generated and imposed information-
seeking tasks. They consider the skills 
needed with both kinds of tasks to be 
similar, although it is not clear that they 
think of information skills as a discrete 
skill set or as anything special. Students 
are more motivated to complete self-
generated tasks because they consider 
them to be more open and more inter-
esting, while they see imposed tasks as 
more constrained and much less interest-
ing. In terms of instruction, they prefer 
a combination of demonstration and 
hands-on practice, and they like to have 
opportunities for interaction both with the 
instructor and with other students. They 
recognize the importance of incentives 
in motivating them to attend informa-
tion literacy instructional sessions, and 
they feel that a variety of communication 
strategies should be used in advertising 
such sessions. While the results of the 
current study are not generalizable, they 
may offer useful guidance for develop-
ing information literacy instruction and 
establishing additional research agendas. 

Implications for Practice
The findings of this study provide a frame-
work that librarians and instructors can 
use to develop and deliver information 
literacy instruction. In responding to the 
needs of students with below-proficient 
information literacy skills, it is important 
to design instruction that incorporates 
demonstration and hands-on practice. 
This suggests that instruction should 
be held in a computer lab with at least 
one computer available for every two 
students. Because students like to work 
together and learn from one another, it 
is desirable to allow students to work 
in pairs—or even threes. While this will 
facilitate interaction among students, it 
is also desirable to create an environment 
in which the instructor is able to interact 
with students and provide feedback on 
the various activities students are doing. 
This suggests that instructional sessions 



446  College & Research Libraries September 2013

should be kept relatively small, say, 16 to 
20 students. However, the more important 
consideration is the student-to-instructor 
ratio so that effective feedback can be pro-
vided to students as they work on learning 
activities. Assistants (including student 
assistants) could be used as a way of 
achieving this level of student-instructor 
interaction in larger classes. Instruction 
developed for online delivery should in-
corporate these same elements of practice, 
interaction, collaboration, and feedback. 

In terms of content, students are clearly 
more motivated with self-generated 
information-seeking tasks, so it might 
make sense to begin with topics related 
to students’ personal information needs 
and incorporate activities that would 
allow students to increase their informa-
tion literacy skills using a topic in which 
they already had a built-in interest. Such 
an approach would make use of Bruce’s 
personal relevance frame and would also 
promote self-efficacy by allowing stu-
dents to develop their own topics. Also, 
as the findings indicate, students prefer 
people and the Internet as information 
sources. Why not draw on students’ famil-
iarity with the Internet and begin by fo-
cusing on what they (think) they already 
know? Instruction could be developed 
to enhance students’ existing Internet 
search and evaluation skills, even if they 
are rudimentary, and then build on those 
skills in future instructional sessions. Fi-
nally, supplemental materials in the form 
of handouts, etc., should be provided so 
that students can review what they have 
learned in the session and apply it to in-
formation seeking both in their personal 
lives and for school assignments. 

Information literacy instruction may be 
offered as an optional, standalone work-
shop (or series of workshops), or it may be 
integrated into content courses in support 
of assignments, such as research papers; in 
some institutions, instruction is offered in 
both formats. In the case of optional work-
shops, simply making instruction available 
is not enough. Students need incentives to 
attend, and such incentives should be con-

sidered as instruction is being developed. 
Getting faculty/instructor buy-in is clearly 
important in that making information liter-
acy instruction required was identified by 
the students in the current study as being 
one of the most effective incentives. Other 
possible incentives are college credit or ex-
tra credit within other classes. Advertising 
is also crucial in getting students to attend 
information literacy instruction. Again, 
faculty/instructor buy-in is important, as 
recommendations or announcements by 
instructors and tutors were identified by 
students in this study as effective ways of 
advertising instructional sessions. Aside 
from that, the findings of the present study 
suggest that it is necessary to use a variety 
of communication strategies in letting 
students know about the availability and 
value of information literacy instruction. 
In the case of information literacy instruc-
tion that is integrated into content courses, 
students presumably have the incentive to 
attend, given that attendance is probably 
required by the instructor. Nevertheless, 
physical presence does not ensure intellec-
tual engagement. Again, in designing and 
delivering instruction, librarians should 
recognize that students are more likely to 
be motivated to learn if they understand 
the relevance of the content; have oppor-
tunities for practice, interaction, and col-
laboration; and receive helpful feedback. 

Implications for Research
The current study focused on first-year 
community college students with below-
proficient information literacy skill levels. 
Additional research is needed into wheth-
er instructional sessions developed using 
the feedback from these students would, 
in fact, effect positive change in students’ 
information literacy skills. How can 
these strategies best be incorporated into 
instructional design? What measures are 
most useful in determining the efficacy of 
these strategies?53 Are the same strategies 
effective in providing information literacy 
instruction to students with proficient 
skills who wish, or need, to enhance their 
skill levels? 



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  447

Other populations are worthy of study 
as well. First-year students at four-year 
colleges and universities should be stud-
ied. In addition, it would be interesting to 
know whether upperclassmen have the 
same instructional preferences as the first-
year students in the present study. Gradu-
ate students would be another useful 
population to investigate, as would high 
school and even middle school students. 
Additional research might focus on popu-
lations outside of school, such as parents 
of school-aged children or senior adults. 
It would be worth knowing whether in-

structional preferences vary according to 
age, educational level, past instructional 
experiences, or socioeconomic status. 

The current study is one step to-
ward gaining a greater understanding 
of the instructional needs of first-year 
college students with below-proficient 
information literacy skills. The feedback 
gathered from these students provides a 
framework for developing information 
literacy instruction aimed at addressing 
their needs by helping them to achieve the 
skills they need to be successful students 
and successful adults in the 21st century. 

Appendix

Focus Group Questions 
1. Let’s talk about what students do when they need information to make personal deci-

sions such as buying a computer or a car stereo or planning a trip for spring break. 
• What do students usually do? What skills do they need?

2. Now let’s talk about what students do when they need information to fulfill course 
assignments. Such assignments usually involve writing a paper on a particular 
topic; comparing and contrasting opinions about something; solving a problem; 
or investigating a research question. 
• What do students usually do to fulfill such assignments? What skills do they need?

3. How are these skills the same? How are they different?
4. What overall term could we use to describe these skills?
5. Think back to a course in which you learned a lot. Describe what most helped you 

in learning the skills and knowledge in that class.
• Think of materials such as books, handouts, computer tutorials.
• Think of teaching techniques such as demonstrations, hands-on practice, lec-

ture, individual tutorials.
6. When you learn something, do you prefer personal tutorials, small classes, online 

instruction, or some combination of these?
7. What would make students WANT to attend an instructional session to learn the 

information skills necessary to fulfill assignments? What would make students 
decide NOT to attend?

8. What is the best way for students to find out about these instructional sessions? 
9. What would best catch the attention of students and motivate them to read infor-

mation about these instructional sessions?

Notes

 1. See, for example, Ruth V. Small, B.M. Dodge, and X. Jiang, “Dimensions of Interest and 
Boredom in Instructional Situations,” in Proceedings of Annual Conference of Association for Edu-
cational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1996; and Ruth V. Small, Nasriah 
Zakaria, and Houria El-Figuigui, “Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 
in Community College Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 65 (2004): 96–121.



448  College & Research Libraries September 2013

 2. Melissa Gross, “The Imposed Query,” RQ 35 (1995): 236–43.
 3. Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “Attaining Information Literacy: An Investigation of the 

Relationship Between Skill Level, Self Estimates of Skill, and Library Anxiety,” Library & Informa-
tion Science Research 29 (2007): 332–53; Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “What’s Skill Got to Do 
With It? Information Literacy Skills and Self-views of Ability among First-year College Students,” 
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in press). 

 4. Melissa Gross and Don Latham, Attaining Information Literacy: Understanding and Responding 
to the Needs of Students (2010), available online at http://attaininfolit.org [accessed 8 November 2011].

 5. Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “Experiences with and Perceptions of Information: A 
Phenomenographic Study of First-Year College Students,” Library Quarterly 81 (2011): 161–86.

 6. Lynn Cameron, Steven L. Wise, and Susan Lottridge, “The Development and Validation 
of the Information Literacy Test,” College & Research Libraries 68 (2007): 229–36.

 7. American Association of Community Colleges, Fast Facts (2012), available online at www.
aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts.aspx [accessed 22 March 2012].

 8. American Association of Community Colleges, Community College Trends and Statistics 
(2012), available online at www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/default.aspx [accessed 
22 March 2012]. 

 9. American Association of Community Colleges, Degree Attainment (2012), available online 
at www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/degreeattainment.aspx [accessed 22 March 2012].

10. Keeping America’s Promise: A Report on the Future of the Community College, eds. Katherine 
Boswell and Cynthia D. Wilson (2004), available online at www.league.org/league/projects/
promise/files/promise.pdf [accessed 22 March 2012].

11. American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report 
(1989), available online at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presiden-
tial.cfm#importance [accessed 8 November 2011].

12. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards 
for Higher Education (2000), available online at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/infor-
mationliteracycompetency.cfm#ildef [accessed 8 November 2011].

13. Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg, “Finding Context: What Today’s College Students 
Say about Conducting Research in the Digital Age,” Project Information Literacy Progress Report 
(2009), available online at http://projectinfolit.org/publications/ [accessed 22 March 2012].

14. Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg, “Truth Be Told: How College Students Evaluate 
and Use Information in the Digital Age,” Project Information Literacy Progress Report (2010), avail-
able online at http://projectinfolit.org/publications/ [accessed 22 March 2012].

15. Andrea L. Foster, “Students Fall Short on ‘Information Literacy,’ Education Testing Service’s 
Study Finds,” Chronicle of Higher Education 53, no. 10 (Oct. 27, 2006): A36.

16. Gross and Latham, “Attaining Information Literacy.”
17. Gross and Latham, “What’s Skill Got to Do With It?”
18. Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, Rising to the Challenge: Are 

High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? A Study of Recent High School Graduates, College 
Instructors, and Employers (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc.), available online at www.achieve.org/
node/548 [accessed 8 November 2011].

19. Gross and Latham, “Attaining Information Literacy”; Gross and Latham, “What’s Skill Got 
to Do With It?”

20. Melissa Gross, “The Impact of Low-Level Skills on Information Seeking Behavior: Implica-
tions of Competency Theory for Research and Practice,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 45, 
no. 2 (2005): 54–62.

21. Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Under-
graduate Education,” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 39, no. 7 (Mar. 1987): 3–7. 

22. Robert M. Gagne, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager, Principles of Instructional Design, 
4th ed. (Fort Worth, Tex.: HBJ College Publishers, 1992).

23. Sheryl Burgstahler, “Universal Design of Instruction (UDI): Definition, Principles, Guide-
lines, and Examples” (2011), available online at www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/
instruction.html [accessed 13 February 2012].

24. John M. Keller, “Development and Use of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design,” Journal 
of Instructional Development 10, no. 3 (1987): 2–10.

25. Ruth V. Small, “Designing Motivation into Library and Information Skills Instruction,” 
School Library Media Research (SLMQ Online) 1 (1998), available online at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/
divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume11998slmqo/slmqvolume1.cfm [ac-
cessed 8 November 2011].

26. Ruth V. Small and Marilyn P. Arnone, Turning Kids on to Research: The Power of Motivation 
(Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 2000).

27. Sherry R. Crow, “Information Literacy: What’s Motivation Got to Do with It?” Knowledge 



Instructional Preferences of First-Year College Students  449

Quest 35, no. 4 (2007): 48–52; Crow cites Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Intrinsic Motivation 
and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (New York: Plenum Press, 1985).

28. Penny M. Beile and David N. Boote, “Library Instruction and Graduate Professional 
Development: Exploring the Effect of Learning Environments on Self-Efficacy and Learning 
Outcomes,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research 48, no. 4 (2002): 364–67; Penny M. Beile and 
David N. Boote, “Does the Medium Matter? A Comparison of Web-based Tutorial with Face-to-
face Library Instruction on Education Students’ Self-efficacy Levels and Learning Outcomes,” 
Research Strategies 20 (2005): 57–68.

29. Christine Susan Bruce, Informed Learning (Chicago: Association of College and Research 
Libraries, 2008), 29.

30. Justin Kruger and David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in 
Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology 77, no. 6 (1999): 1121–34.

31. Gross and Latham, “Attaining Information Literacy”; Gross and Latham, “What’s Skill Got 
to Do With It?” 

32. Don Latham and Melissa Gross, “Deconstructing the ARCS Model: Designing Interven-
tions for Non-proficient Students,” Proceedings of the Treasure Mountain Conference, Charlotte, North 
Carolina, 2009.

33. Ference Marton, “Phenomenography—Describing Conceptions of the World around Us,” 
Instructional Science 10 (1981): 177–200; Ference Marton, “Phenomenography: A Research Approach 
to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality,” Journal of Thought 21, no. 3 (1986): 28–49; 
Ference Marton, “Phenomenography: Exploring Different Conceptions of Reality,” in Qualitative 
Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution, ed. David M. Fetterman (New 
York: Praeger, 1988). 

34. Christine Bruce, The Seven Faces of Information Literacy (Adelaide, Australia: Auslib Press 
Pty Ltd, 1997).

35. Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “Undergraduate Perceptions of Information Literacy: 
Defining, Attaining, and Self-Assessing Skills,” College & Research Libraries 70 (2009): 336–50; Gross 
and Latham, “Experiences with and Perceptions of Information.”

36. Clarence Maybee, “Undergraduate Perceptions of Information Use: The Basis for Creating 
User-Centered Student Information Literacy Instruction,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 
(2006): 79–85; Clarence Maybee, “Understanding Our Student Learners: A Phenomenographic 
Study Revealing the Way that Undergraduate Women at Mills College Understand Using Infor-
mation,” Reference Services Review 35 (2007): 452–62.

37. Gross and Latham, “Undergraduate Perceptions of Information Literacy”; Gross and 
Latham, “Experiences with and Perceptions of Information.”

38. Cameron, Wise, and Lottridge, “The Development and Validation of the Information 
Literacy Test.”

39. Steven L. Wise, Lynn Cameron, Sheng-Ta Yang, and Susan L. Davis, The Information Literacy 
Test (ILT) Test Manual (Harrisonburg, Va.: James Madison University, 2009).

40. Richard A. Krueger, Focus Groups (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1988).
41. Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 12th ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2009).
42. For a concise summary of the use of focus groups in LIS, see Eric C. Shoaf, “Using a Pro-

fessional Moderator in Library Focus Group Research,” College and Research Libraries 64 (2003): 
124–32.

43. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for 
Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine, 1967).

44. Gross and Latham, “Experiences with and Perceptions of Information.”
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Bruce, Informed Learning.
48. Chickering and Gamson, “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Educa-

tion”; Gagne, Briggs, and Wager, Principles of Instructional Design (4th ed.); Burgstahler, “Universal 
Design of Instruction.”

49. Small, Dodge, and Jiang, “Dimensions of Interest and Boredom in Instructional Situations.”
50. Ibid.
51. Neil Howe and Bill Strauss, Millenials Rising: The Next Generation (New York: Vintage 

Books, 2000). 
52. Marc Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” (Marc Prensky, 2001), available online 

at www.marcprensky.com/writing/ [accessed 8 November 2011].
53. The Attaining Information Literacy Project is addressing some of these research questions. 

For more information, see Gross and Latham, Attaining Information Literacy.