Emergency Remote Library Instruction and Tech Tools: A Matter of Equity During a Pandemic


ARTICLE 

Emergency Remote Library Instruction and Tech Tools 
A Matter of Equity During a Pandemic 
Kathia Ibacache, Amanda Rybin Koob, and Eric Vance 

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | JUNE 2021  
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i2.12751 

ABSTRACT
 
 

During spring 2020, emergency remote teaching became the norm for hundreds of higher education 
institutions in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Librarians were suddenly tasked 
with moving in-person services and resources online. For librarians with instruction responsibilities, 
this online mandate meant deciding between synchronous and asynchronous sessions, learning new 
technologies and tools for active learning, and vetting these same tools for security issues and ADA 
compliance. In an effort to understand our shared and unique experiences with emergency remote 
teaching, the authors surveyed 202 academic instruction librarians in order to answer the following 
questions: (1) What technology tools are academic librarians using to deliver content and engage 
student participation in emergency remote library sessions during COVID-19? (2) What do 
instruction librarians perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of these tools? (3) What digital 
literacy gaps are instruction librarians identifying right now that may prevent access to equitable 
information literacy instruction online? This study will deliver and discuss findings from the survey as 
well as make recommendations toward best practices for utilizing technology tools and assessing 
them for equity and student engagement. 

INTRODUCTION 

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has had important repercussions for university libraries. All 
library services, including information literacy instruction, moved online in a matter of days, 
creating a wave of needs that required immediate response. With the closure of university 
campuses all around the world, academic libraries encountered an unprecedented test of their 
adaptation abilities. Although online education has been around for many years, widespread use 
of the remote classroom may have been unprecedented for many librarians until the spring of 
2020. This type of online learning, as Charles Hodges et al. explain, is significantly different from 
the otherwise established domains of online and distance learning because it is unplanned, 
rushed, and happening in the midst of a crisis.1 As they note, “emergency remote teaching has 
emerged as a common alternative term” to differentiate from standard online education prior to 
the pandemic.2 The authors recognize the different and sometimes overlapping personal and 
professional impacts COVID-19 has had on our communities, both inside and outside of the 
classroom. 

Rather than broadly assessing emergency remote teaching, the authors are looking at what Jody 
Greene, referring to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, calls “specific technological tools and 
flexible teaching practices.”3 This paper is concerned with issues of equity, student engagement, 

Kathia Salomé Ibacache Oliva (kathia.ibacache@colorado.edu) is Romance Languages 
Librarian, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado Boulder. Amanda Rybin Koob 
(amanda.rybinkoob@colorado.edu) is Literature and Humanities Librarian, Assistant 
Professor, University of Colorado Boulder. Eric Vance (eric.vance@colorado.edu) is Associate 
Professor of Applied Mathematics and Director of LISA (Laboratory for Interdisciplinary 
Statistical Analysis), University of Colorado Boulder. © 2021. 

mailto:kathia.ibacache@colorado.edu
mailto:Amanda.RybinKoob@colorado.edu
mailto:Eric.Vance@Colorado.EDU


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 2 

and technology tools that could be used to facilitate library instruction during emergency remote 
teaching. The authors seek to answer the following questions: (1) What technology tools are 
academic librarians using to deliver content and engage student participation in emergency 
remote library sessions during COVID-19? (2) What do instruction librarians perceive as the 
strengths and weaknesses of these tools? (3) What digital literacy gaps are instruction librarians 
identifying since COVID-19 that may prevent equitable access to information literacy instruction 
online? 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Technology tools facilitated a quick transition online in March 2020, enabling librarians to interact 
with students despite the move to emergency remote teaching. However, this fast transition and 
its associated learning curve accentuated issues of student engagement including equity and 
accessibility. There is a dearth of existing literature on teaching and learning online during times 
of great societal stress, with some notable exceptions, including a recent piece about university 
closures and moving to online classes during student-led protests in South Africa from 2015 to 
2017.4 As such, this literature review considers some of the barriers that contribute to inequitable 
information access in online learning, as well as digital literacy definitions. Here we consider both 
ongoing challenges to equitable online access and specific challenges for the current COVID-19 
pandemic. 

Barriers to Equitable Student Access in Online Learning 
Equity in academic libraries is widely represented in the scholarship through topics including 
disability, race, class, and salary gaps among librarians.5 However, as our ongoing pandemic 
illustrates, there is a strong need for more literature regarding students’ equitable online access to 
information during times that call for emergency remote teaching. 

The issue of equity may be considered in terms of external and internal challenges, which affect 
students differently. External barriers include low bandwidth and lack of devices. Some 
researchers advise letting students communicate through chat instead of a webcam, since webcam 
use increases bandwidth consumption.6 Understandably, colleges may need to provide computers 
and wireless hotspots to students who lack access to computers or to the Internet.7 Moreover, a 
2018 Pew Fact Tank publication noted that 15 percent of homes with school-age students (6–17 
years old) do not have access to high-speed connection, and this digital divide particularly affects 
teens and their ability to be involved with homework.8 Although this data focused on school-age 
students, these issues probably affected some college students during the pandemic. 

Students may also be experiencing internal barriers such as language differences, lack of self -
regulation, lack of previous educational experience, and stress, all of which may affect academic 
performance. For example, one study found that language barriers challenged international 
students during remote web conferences with librarians.9 Another study of international students 
showed that their academic success relied significantly on a variety of internal characteristics, 
such as self-regulation.10 Additionally, a survey of students taking online courses showed that 
previous educational experience, including with online learning or within a given discipline, 
supported completion of those courses.11 Moreover, stress is an internal barrier for students that 
may have external causes and is likely affecting librarians, faculty, and students during COVID -19. 
Scholars note that stress changes peoples’ use of technology, and this stress manifests differently 
depending on individual identity markers, such as gender and experience.12 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 3 

Technology Tools, Digital Literacy, Student Engagement 
In addition to barriers to equitable access, the digital age that has characterized the late 20th and 
21st centuries, has prompted the advent of multiple technology tools that may be used in online 
library sessions, including emergency remote library instruction. These tools are meant to 
facilitate instruction and engagement, but they require students and instructors to be comfortable 
with technology. In the case of higher education, this level of comfort involves digital literacy 
competencies that surpass what is known as traditional textual literacy.  

The American Library Association’s (ALA) Digital Literacy Task Force defines digital literacy as 
“the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and 
communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills.”13 During the pandemic, 
the technical and cognitive skills of library instructors and students may be compromised due to 
stress as well as individual situations and specific environments. 

One of the technical challenges for remote library sessions stems from the need for instructor s to 
use tools to achieve flexibility and hybridity. Librarians Steven J. Bell and John Shank, addressing 
the challenges of new technologies for librarianship, coined the term “blended librarian” in 2004 
to denote a librarian who combines traditional skills with those involving knowledge of hardware 
and software as applied in the teaching and learning process.14 The concept of the “blended 
librarian” may be outdated, but it encompasses the notion that librarians are expected to be 
comfortable with technology. Again, librarians are now facing the mandate of presenting 
information literacy and library resources online, navigating between and facilitating the use of 
multiple technology tools and formats. It is worth considering how well our tools meet this 
mandate. 

Although remote learning may be more amenable to some learners than others, there is consensus 
on the benefits of using technology for teaching and learning even if a learning curve exists for 
instructors. For example, researchers examining school support for classroom technology found 
that teachers supported enhanced technology integration even if it surpassed their own 
technology skills.15 

Notwithstanding the benefits perceived by teachers, there are also some drawbacks in the use of 
technology in the classroom, especially for distance learning. Digital technologies researcher 
Jesper Aagaard, reporting part of a study on “technological mediation in the classroom” refers to 
two processes: “outside in,” where students use educational technologies to acquire knowledge in 
the classroom, and “inside out,” where students use technology tools to withdraw from the 
classroom visiting non-related websites.16 For instruction librarians, student engagement is 
paramount; therefore, redirecting students who leave the digital classroom is important, though it 
can be difficult to know when this occurs. 

A number of reasons could explain why students may disengage in a distance learning setting, one 
of them being the lack of digital literacy. Moreover, the belief that higher education students in the 
21st century are technologically savvy may be misleading. Citing Mark Prensky, who originated 
the terms “digital native” and “digital immigrant,” Wan Ng explains that the phrase “digital 
natives” describes those people born in 1980 and after whose lives have been shaped by 
technology.17 Ng found that while the students in his study were very comfortable with 
technologies such as word processor software, YouTube, and Facebook, they were not as 
comfortable using technologies to create content.18 There may be a digital literacy divide between 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 4 

knowing and using a technology for social media and using a technology to create online content 
such as web pages and blogs. Similarly, Ng found that when presented with unfamiliar technology, 
students spent less time learning the new technology and instead focused on preparation of 
content.19 This finding may be of concern to instruction librarians who use a myriad of tools 
during emergency remote teaching. 

It is important to consider that these digital literacy divides could stem from factors not related to 
a student’s age group. Researchers Ellen Johanna Helsper and Rebecca Envon question the notion 
that a person may be called a digital native if they were born after 1980. These authors state that 
there are variables other than generational differences that could define a person as a digital 
native, such as gender, education, experience, and interaction with technology.20 Therefore, even 
when people grow up in technological environments, they may not be considered digital natives. 

To minimize a gap in equity, lecture design, even for one-time library sessions, offers an 
opportunity to think of technology tools that could increase students’ participation and prompt 
learning. David Ellis, studying classroom resources to enhance student engagement, notes that 
Padlet, a Web 2.0 technology, supports interaction and learning.21 Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni, 
reviewing another Web 2.0 technology, Playposit, as a video tool for language instruction, states 
that it “can support learning in language classrooms” if used in a lecture design that includes 
relevant questions.22 

Lecture design applies to all types of settings: in person, flipped, and distance learning. 
Approaches should be applied consistently to help students become more digitally literate and 
bridge equity issues where possible. Jurgen Schulte et al., providing examples of “new” librarian 
roles in a science curriculum, note that digital literacy enables better learning. 23 In the case of 
emergency remote teaching, instruction librarians may promote digital literacies through the use 
of technologies that increase students’ engagement and their “outside in” participation in the 
teaching and learning process. Considering these challenges, the authors seek to identify the 
strengths and weaknesses of technology tools used by librarians and the digital literacy gaps that 
may prevent access to equitable library instruction. 

METHODS 

Instrument 
The authors used a six-question Qualtrics survey approved by the Institutional Review Board at 
the University of Colorado Boulder. The survey was open for two weeks, between May 10 and May 
24, 2020. It is worth noting that the questions were specific to this timeframe, and some responses 
indicated that instruction librarians were still finishing up spring semester 2020. The survey 
received 202 responses. However, the number of responses to each question varied as answers 
were not required. The data collected were both quantitative and qualitative, reflecting 
respondents’ practices, perceptions, and personal knowledge. 

Respondents answered two multiple-choice and four free-text questions. For the multiple-choice 
questions, participants could choose all the options that applied and enter their own choice as 
well. The multiple-choice questions gathered data on the technology tools that librarians used to 
deliver content or to engage with students during COVID-19. These questions distinguished 
between content delivery platforms (like Zoom) and technology tools used for student 
engagement (like Padlet). The technology tools included in the multiple-choice questions were 
chosen based on the authors’ knowledge of their potential relevance to instruction librarians. The 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 5 

final four qualitative questions collected information about respondents’ perceptions of strengths 
and weaknesses of technology tools, as well as digital literacy gaps identified during COVID -19 and 
other challenges to equitable instruction. Qualtrics provided a report, which the authors organized 
in a spreadsheet used to analyze the data and create the figures. 

The following survey questions were asked: 

1. What content delivery technology have you used to create your distance learning library 
sessions during COVID-19? 

2. What technology tools have you used to enhance student engagement in your distance 
learning library sessions during COVID-19? 

3. What are the strengths of the technology tools you’re using right now? 
4. What are the weaknesses of the technology tools you’re using right now? 
5. What digital literacy gaps have you identified in your students since COVID-19 closures? 

ALA’s Digital Literacy Task Force defines digital literacy as “the ability to use information 
and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, 
requiring both cognitive and technical skills.” 

6. What other challenges exist in your ability to effectively provide equitable information 
literacy instruction during this time? 

Please see appendix A for the complete survey instrument. 

Participants 
The survey was distributed through email to five listservs associated with academic libraries and 
library organizations: The Seminar on the Acquisition of Latin American Library Materials 
(SALALM) listserv, Information Literacy Instruction Discussion listserv, the Library Instruction 
Roundtable (LITA) listserv, the LITA Instructional Technologies Interest Group listserv, and the 
Literature in English discussion list. These organizations were chosen due to their connection with 
library instruction in academic libraries and the authors’ subject specialty affiliations (Romance 
Languages and English and American Literature). 

Grounded Theory Approach 
The data for questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 were analyzed using a basic grounded theory approach, where 
the authors collected themes and patterns from the responses rather than approaching the data 
with pre-existing hypotheses.24 Based on their observations, the authors categorized responses 
according to an agreed-upon set of keywords. In addition, after coding the data separately, the 
researchers examined every answer together to ensure consistency and reliability. A mixed-
methods survey with a grounded theory approach to analysis allowed for a larger number of 
responses than qualitative interviews. The survey format also allowed for quicker solicitation and 
analysis of data, given the urgency of the topic and the authors’ desire to provide 
recommendations to colleagues in a timely manner. 

FINDINGS 

Popularity of Technology Tools 

Figure 1 shows respondent selections from the list of content delivery tools provided by the 
authors. A large number of respondents used LibGuides as a content delivery tool during COVID -
19, followed closely by the video conferencing tool Zoom. However, although LibGuides and Zoom 
displayed a substantial amount of concurrence among the respondents, fewer than half of the 

https://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/ili-l
https://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/lirt-l
https://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/lirt-l
https://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/lita-insttechig
https://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/les-l


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 6 

respondents used the rest of the technology tools shown in figure 1. These data suggest that a 
large number of the respondents were able to deliver library instruction via synchronous learning 
through Zoom or by providing resources asynchronously via LibGuides, and thus had the 
opportunity to have at least some engagement with students. 

Figure 1 also shows that more respondents used Snagit and Screencast-o-matic to create videos 
than PlayPosit. Similarly, a little over one-eighth of respondents used the graphic design tool 
Canva to create content, although this tool had better usage than Adobe Illustrator, which was 
only used by one respondent. In addition, the communication software Google Hangouts was 
largely not used by respondents. The authors listed Formative and Pear Deck in the survey options 
as well, but these were not selected by any respondents (not shown in figure 1). 

 

Figure 1. Respondent selections to question 1: What content delivery technology have you used to 
create your distance learning library sessions during COVID-19? 

Figure 2 represents the tools used by the 95 respondents who selected Other and entered 
additional tools in a free-text box in question 1. Tools mentioned, such as WebEx, Camtasia, 
Panopto, and Kaltura Capture, were used for video conferencing but to a lesser extent than Zoom. 
Similarly, only six respondents reported using Narrated PowerPoint. Interestingly these tools 
were still used by more people than PlayPosit. Respondents mentioned a wide array of other 
technology tools in the free-text box (see appendix B); however, none of these tools were used 
individually by more than three respondents. 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 7 

 

Figure 2. Other content delivery technology used to create distance learning library sessions during 
COVID-19. 

The survey also asked about technology tools used for student engagement in distance learning 
library sessions during COVID-19. The authors distinguish these tools from content delivery tools, 
as they are often utilized in conjunction with some of the tools mentioned in figure 1 to facilitate 
student interaction. Figure 3 shows that, among the tools listed by the authors, respondents 
preferred the application Google Forms, found in Google Drive and Google Classroom, as more 
than one-third of respondents indicated they used this application to enhance student 
engagement. Although representing fewer than half of the respondents, 18 more people selected 
Google Forms over Poll Everywhere, the tool with the second-best representation. 

Moreover, Poll Everywhere and Padlet, two online tools that enable student participation through 
custom-made polls and post-it boards, were each utilized by about one-fourth of participants. The 
game-based learning platform Kahoot was used by nearly one-fifth of respondents, and 
Mentimeter, another interactive platform allowing students to answer multiple-choice and open-
ended questions, was used by 11 respondents. Less than five percent of the respondents used the 
interactive technology tools Flipgrid, AnswerGarden, Jamboard, Mural, Slido, and Socrative. No 
respondents indicated they used Pear Deck, Google Drawings, Quizalize, GoSoapBox, and Yo 
Teach! (not shown in figure 3). 

In addition, 42 respondents entered the names of technology tools they used to enhance student 
engagement in the Other free-text option. Similar to the responses in the free-text answer for 
question 1, respondents provided a broad list of technology tools. Two of the tools listed displayed 
a higher number of concurrences: eight respondents mentioned Zoom polls and four mentioned 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 8 

Springshare Libwizard. An additional 20 tools were used by just one participant each (see 
appendix C). 

 

Figure 3. Respondent selections to question 2: What technology tools have you used to enhance 
student engagement in your distance learning library sessions during COVID-19? 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Technology Tools 
Instruction librarians also described the perceived strengths of the technology tools they used. 
Figure 4 shows that a little less than half of the respondents agreed “easy to use” was an important 
consideration for technology tools, making it the most frequently mentioned strength. Responses 
showed interest in ease of use for librarians, students, and faculty alike. For example, respondents 
included the phrases “our learners were comfortable with them,” “it’s easy to get started,” and 
“everyone already knows Zoom.” 

In addition, nearly one-fourth of participants selected the strength “interactive/collaborative” 
followed at a distance by the strength “flexible,” which dropped dramatically to 15 percent. In fact, 
the number of respondents who noted “interactive/collaborative” was almost quadruple the 
number of respondents who mentioned the less popular choices “supported by IT” or “captioning 
functionality.” Fewer than 19 participants acknowledged that it was important for the technology 
tools to enable remote instruction, include recording functionality and screen-sharing 
functionality, and to be able to enhance communication. Only 11 participants wrote that it was 
important for the tool to be readily available. 

Respondents referred to other strengths not included in figure 4 due to their infrequency. 
Nonetheless, some of these strengths offer unique insights. For example, four respondents noted 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 9 

that they favor free tools. In addition, three respondents stated that it was beneficial to repurpose 
content created with technology tools. Two respondents mentioned that they preferred tools that 
do not require download and/or account creation. Another respondent mentioned that mo bile-
friendly tools were most helpful for engaging students. 

 

Figure 4. Respondent answers to question 3: What are the strengths of the technology tools you’re 
using right now? 

Respondents also shared their observations around technology tool weaknesses. Figure 5 shows 
that several perceived weaknesses were the inverse of strengths from figure 4, including that tools 
were “difficult to use” or “not interactive or engaging.” Figure 5 also indicates that respondents 
were divided as to the most significant weaknesses. In fact, not even one-fourth of respondents 
selected the most frequent response, “not interacting or engaging,” displaying a lack of 
concurrence. The second most-repeated weakness referred to bandwidth requirements, with 27 
respondents worrying about the lack of requisite Internet access. 

The authors joined together seven weaknesses mentioned by respondents as “other functional 
limitations.” These weaknesses included “lack of screen capture,” “connection failures,” “lack of 
captioning,” “lack of recording capabilities,” “limited sharing screen,” “freezing video,” and “video 
quality.” Each of these specific limitations was only mentioned a couple of times, but together 
these functional limitations were mentioned by 17 respondents. 

Again, there were some specific weaknesses mentioned by only a few respondents. Some of the 
highlights included tech overload or too many tools to choose from (two respondents), computer 
storage requirements (three respondents), and that the tools are not flexible enough or easy to 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 10 

integrate into other systems such as Canvas or LibGuides (four respondents). Two people 
observed that the tech tools they used had no weaknesses. 

Interestingly, 18 respondents included keywords and phrases in their answers (not shown in 
figure 4) that were not directly related to tool weaknesses, but rather described other issues 
affecting teaching and learning in a remote setting. These included students lacking computer s or 
having only cell phones (seven respondents), students’ limited technology skills or attitudes about 
remote learning (six respondents), students’ home setups (three respondents), and limited 
familiarity with the tools among teaching faculty (two respondents). These kinds of responses 
illustrate the wide range of interconnected factors impacting librarians’ experiences engaging 
with students and technology during COVID-19. 

Finally, 26 percent of librarians answering this question mentioned some weaknesses related to 
Zoom (not shown in figure 5). To illustrate, some comments included “active learning in zoom [sic] 
is difficult . . .”; “Zoom recordings take up a lot of space and our college is running out of room . . .”; 
“Zoom doesn’t work as well when using WIFI [sic], as opposed to connecting through a network”; 
“it is easy to zone out and not pay attention to zoom [sic]”; “with Zoom it is difficult to interact 
with students on a one-to-one basis as they breakout [sic] to conduct research”; and “students 
tend to not have cameras on . . . and it’s hard to tell if they are actually paying attention.” These 
observations may show that while respondents favor using tools like Zoom, they are also aware of 
important limitations. 

 

Figure 5. Respondent answers to question 4: What are the weaknesses of the technology tools you’re 
using right now? 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 11 

Digital Literacy Gaps 
Beyond describing the technology tools used, respondents were asked to identify digital literacy 
gaps that they noticed in students during COVID-19 closures. As stated above, the authors defined 
digital literacy in the survey question according to the ALA Digital Literacy Task Force definition. 
Still, answers to this question provoked a wide range of responses as seen in figure 6. The most 
frequently recurring response was that digital literacy gaps were the same as those perceived 
before the pandemic, although only 25 respondents agreed on this. 

Digital literacy gaps observed by respondents included “lack of tech skills in general,” “problems 
evaluating information online,” “ineffective search strategies,” “difficulty communicating online,” 
“problems using library resources in general,” “problems using online resources,” “problems using 
library databases,” and “understanding citation and plagiarism.” The second-biggest category, 
“lack of tech skills in general,” included varied responses such as “some of my students lack a basic 
understanding of . . . browsers, upload/download, URL versus link, activate/enable a feature etc.”; 
“students have trouble navigating multiple windows”; and “students are having a hard time trying 
something new which involves more than a single click or two.” Eleven other respondents noted 
that it was too early to evaluate digital literacy gaps during emergency remote teaching. 

One respondent offered insight about the possibility that librarians missed gaps because they 
were not able to meet with all students. As they stated, “students who have access and are in 
contact with librarians seem to have adequate skills. I don’t know how many students simply lack 
internet access, and I don’t know how many need the library and don’t figure out how to access 
it. . . .” Ideas for reaching more students who may not have access to in-class library sessions are 
mentioned in the Recommendations section below. 

When asked about digital literacy gaps, some respondents mentioned student experiences during 
COVID-19 that were not directly related to digital literacy and therefore are not included in figure 
6. However, the authors considered this information relevant because it provided insight into 
perceived challenges students faced. The authors separated such responses into two g roups: 
external challenges and internal challenges. External challenges mostly involved technology 
access rather than digital literacy per se, with 22 respondents mentioning lack of tech access as a 
barrier or gap. It is worth noting that respondents mentioned this lack more than any individual 
digital literacy gap shown in figure 6. Fifteen respondents also noted that students may lack 
internet access at home, while five percent mentioned a home environment that was not ideal or 
conducive to learning. Although these external challenges are not explicitly related to digital 
literacy, the fact that they are mentioned here may indicate that respondents perceived these 
challenges as interrelated during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Internal challenges included concepts that may be seen as related to digital literacy but are not 
explicitly included in the ALA Task Force definition. In fact, many of these challenges had to do 
with pandemic-specific difficulties such as “emotional issues” arising during COVID-19 (10 
respondents). Five respondents worried about information overload, while two respondents each 
mentioned that students were less likely to ask for help and more likely to have problems 
following directions during emergency remote learning. 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 12 

 

Figure 6. Respondent answers to question 5: What digital literacy gaps have you identified in your 
students since COVID-19 closures? 

The last survey question asked respondents to reflect on any other challenges that may have 
impacted their ability to effectively provide equitable library instruction during emergency 
remote learning. Figure 7 displays an array of responses, including some related to technology 
tools, home environments, and institutional support. Nonetheless, technology access from home 
was perceived as the most important challenge (39 respondents) followed closely by internet 
issues (35 respondents). For both challenges, the authors included responses that specified lack of 
tech access for students, teaching faculty, or instruction librarians. Many respondents d id not 
specify who lacked access. However, one could argue that lack of access by any of those three 
groups may impede connection and student engagement. 

Other challenges such as home environment, fewer library instruction sessions, communication 
barriers with students, lack of student engagement, no time to plan, emotional distress, and issues 
with synchronous or asynchronous instruction affected 11 percent or less of respondents each. 
Additionally, the data indicated that librarians perceived more communication barriers with 
students (14 respondents) than with faculty (nine respondents). 

In figure 7, “Asynchronous/Synchronous” refers to problems encountered by respondents that 
had to do, in general, with the unique challenges of presenting content online either 
asynchronously or synchronously. For example, respondents mentioned being unsure whether 
students were engaging with asynchronous content. They also mentioned being asked by faculty 
to use one format over another, despite librarian preferences. One respondent focused specifically 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 13 

on the need for flexibility when addressing equity: “Asynchronous instruction does not allow the 
real time adaptation to student needs (cognitive and technical).” 

Even though figure 7 relates to challenges experienced in providing equitable library instruction, 
respondents showed that there was also an emotional factor surrounding these challenges . Two 
revealing responses to the question about challenges included “my kids running around in the 
background, not having an actual office, being expected to work 40 hours a week while 
homeschooling and running a household” and “some students [are] more or less in shock from the 
pandemic; some students have illness in the family; some students have economic issues, some 
students just don’t learn well with online learning only.” Other comments stated personal 
challenges, such as the “stress of living in [the] epicenter of [a] global pandemic” and “my own 
mental and emotional capacity.” 

 

Figure 7. Respondent answers to question 6: What other challenges exist in your ability to effectively 
provide equitable information literacy instruction during this time? 

Because there was often little consensus among responses, the authors created word clouds for all 
four qualitative questions (figure 8). Each of these questions showed students at the center of 
instruction librarians’ responses, which is not surprising given their roles and the subject of this 
survey. The purpose of emergency remote teaching and learning is, at its core, to continue to 
connect students with resources and to engage them in their learning, even and especially when it 
is challenging to do so. Still, it is meaningful to see students at the heart of these data. 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 14 

 

Figure 8. Word cloud visualization for each qualitative question answer set. 

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS 

Many of the challenges encountered while analyzing data had to do with creating meaningful 
keyword codes for the qualitative survey questions. This coding was challenging because 
respondents expressed varied experiences and opinions and there was no significant consensus 
regarding tools used, tool weaknesses, digital literacy gaps, or other challenges. In contrast, 
respondents frequently referred to students’ lack of technology and internet access, even when 
the question at hand did not explicitly address this. These challenges speak both to the varied 
experiences of and institutional responses to COVID-19, as well as perceived lack of tech or 
internet access among students as a primary barrier to effective emergency remote teaching.  

Further, while some questions signaled a clear answer, others required interpretation. To 
illustrate, respondents used the term “accessibility” inconsistently. Some respondents used this 
term to refer to accessibility for students with disabilities, and others used it to refer to 
“availability.” Therefore, the authors employed contextual clues to determine meaning. 
Regardless, if the meaning remained unclear, then these answers were not considered for coding. 

Similarly, respondents didn’t always use the same language to describe the same concepts. For 
example, a participant noted that “The technology we have is limited to lecturing and answering 
questions and providing documents and videos online. We don’t have polls enabled . . . .” The 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 15 

authors interpreted this to mean that the technology tools didn’t allow for robust engagement 
with students, though the respondent didn’t specifically mention the word “engagement.” Again, if 
context or meaning was unclear, those responses were not coded. 

Another challenge occurred in analyzing responses to question 6: What digital literacy gaps have 
you identified in your students since COVID-19 closure? Some respondents appeared to be 
unfamiliar with the term “digital literacy,” even though a definition was provided within the 
question. Some respondents referred to hardware access, home environment, tech access, or 
psychological stress rather than explicitly reflecting on digital literacy gaps as included in ALA ’s 
Task Force definition. These responses could indicate either confusion around the definition of 
digital literacy or, as suggested above, the perception of all these factors being codependent or 
interrelated. 

Limitations of the study included the design of the survey itself. For example, respondents 
received a list of tools for questions 1 and 2, which may have meant that they were more likely to 
select these than to remember other tools that they used and add them to the Other category 
accordingly. Questions 3 through 6, in contrast, did not include any multiple-choice options, which 
may have limited the thoroughness of responses. For example, the average number of responses 
to question 3 was 2.08 strengths mentioned per respondent. We think it is likely that respondents 
would have indicated more strengths had they been presented with a list rather than only a free-
text box. 

The authors also did not define the difference between content delivery tools and tools for student 
engagement in the survey. For this reason, there was some overlap noted in the responses for 
questions 1 and 2. Also, respondents mentioned tools for engagement that were sometimes 
features of content delivery tools, such as WebEx whiteboards and LMS discussion forums. The 
vast landscape of tools used meant that our survey could not account for all possible 
manifestations of technology for content delivery and student engagement. 

DISCUSSION 

Questions 1 and 2: Technology Tools Instruction Librarians Are Using to Deliver Content and Engage 
Students 

The instruction librarians that answered the survey have widely used technology tools such as 
LibGuides and Zoom in their library seminars during COVID-19. However, as data show, librarians 
have also used many other technology tools to create and deliver emergency remote library 
sessions during COVID-19, due perhaps to the wide array of tools available. While LibGuides and 
Zoom exhibit a high percentage of usage, this result was expected because LibGuides is a well-
known tool used by academic librarians and, according to the company, Zoom became more 
prominent as a tool during COVID-19.25 The relatively low usage of Adobe Illustrator is also 
somewhat predictable because this tool not only requires a subscription, but also may have a 
higher learning curve than other free graphic editor and design programs. 

Data raised some further questions about the role of Information Technology (IT) departments. 
Are instruction librarians reaching out to their respective universities’ IT departments to learn 
about technology tools available to them and vice versa? Are IT offices willing and able to provide 
training via video conferencing if in-person training is not available due to the pandemic? Do IT 
departments offer enough promotion to advertise these tools? These questions are not addressed 
in this manuscript but are important avenues for further research. Only six percent of respondents 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 16 

recorded “supported by IT” as a strength of the technology tools they were using. This shallow 
percentage may appear striking but could be understood under the premise that as the pandemic 
set in across the United States and instruction librarians rushed to prepare and present online 
sessions, librarians relied on the tools that were most familiar to them instead of learning a new 
technology tool. The data from this survey would seem to corroborate this, as so many 
respondents chose “ease of use” as an important strength. 

One interesting detail that is worth addressing about the tools is that respondents mentioned 
Other more than they selected the options the authors provided, which may imply that either the 
authors did not include the most-used tools or that the number and/or variety of tools is so wide 
that it is difficult to reach a consensus. One wonders if the tools mentioned in Other had been 
included as part of the listed options, the number of respondents using these tools would be 
higher. 

Questions 3 and 4: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Tools as They Affect Student Engagement 

The authors wanted to know what tools respondents had used to enhance student engagement. 
Data show that Google Forms is the tool that most of the respondents have used for this purpose. 
However, fewer respondents used tools that are purposely designed to increase interaction in 
online sessions, such as Kahoot and Mentimeter, which do not even require a fee for using their 
basic features. 

Respondents’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of tools they have used provided 
useful information. In terms of tools strengthening student engagement, the responses were not as 
conclusive, as 40 of 150 respondents found these tools interactive or collaborative, and an even 
lower number of these respondents thought of these tools as flexible or helpful to enable remote 
instruction. One could argue that ADA capabilities are features that may facilitate student 
engagement. However, when respondents were asked about the strengths of technology tools they 
had used, accessibility was not often mentioned as a strength. 

Moreover, data showed that only eight respondents referred to ADA problems and three of them 
voiced concern over captioning capabilities, which is considered a relevant ADA feature. There 
was no mention of alt text for images, screen-readable and software-neutral file formats, or the 
importance of user ability to change the color and font setting in their devices to see the content. 
In fact, only three respondents specifically mentioned issues with videos in terms of their audio 
quality, lack of auto closed-captioning, and freezing images. 

Respondents noted wide-ranging effects of tool weaknesses on both instruction librarians and 
students. To illustrate, the weaknesses “time intensive,” “not designed for teaching,” and “no 
feedback or assessment” likely affected instruction librarians at a personal level as they prepared 
for and assessed their teaching. In contrast, the weaknesses “ADA problems,” “not interactive or 
engaging,” “difficult to use,” and “makes communication difficult” might primarily impact students. 
Other concerns respondents stated that may influence student engagement included poor 
bandwidth, which affects internet access and causes connection issues. For example, even if 
librarians try to improve the video quality in Zoom by disabling the higher definition option, or 
start a session with audio conferencing only, which will decrease the amount of bandwidth 
needed, students with poor bandwidth may still not be able to engage. Therefore, in situations of 
emergency remote learning, if students lack bandwidth or an appropriate home environment, 
learning and engaging may become a challenge. 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 17 

Questions 5 and 6: Digital Literacy Gaps and Equitable Instruction 
A number of factors affect the ability to provide equitable library instruction on the librarian side 
and to engage with equitable library instruction on the students’ side. One of these factors is home 
environment, including access to computers, good bandwidth, or an appropriate working station. 
Our data specify that 15 respondents perceived “home environment” as a challenge when 
providing equitable library instruction. In addition, some respondents noticed home environment 
issues when asked about digital literacy gaps in relation to shared spaces and lack of computers 
and access. 

It’s possible that equity issues increased during the COVID-19 shutdown, which raises the 
question of whether there is a correlation between the issues affecting students, librarians, and 
faculty. Data showed that of 139 participants, a little over one-fourth of them considered “tech 
access from home” and “Internet issues” as challenges in the ability to provide equitable library 
instruction. These challenges, along with “emotional issues,” were perceived to affect not only 
students but also librarians and faculty. Although responses recorded librarians’ perceptions on 
equity issues, often including their own experiences, data revealed that respondents presumed 
faculty and students were having similar issues. 

Data also exhibited that respondents perceived other challenges, such as “fewer library sessions” 
and “student lack of engagement,” that may affect students directly. Fewer library sessions are a 
challenge that may be further addressed forthwith. However, students’ lack of engagement is a 
difficulty that may require thoughtful outreach, collaboration with mental health offices at the 
campus level, and reflective and inclusive lecture design. 

These challenges may have a negative impact on receiving an equitable learning experience. In 
fact, less commonly acknowledged gaps may, in some ways, be more important than those 
frequently mentioned. A well-known gap can be addressed because there is consensus that the 
gap exists and poses a barrier to equity in education. Unnoticed or overlooked gaps, in contrast, 
are more difficult to address but may be no less important as barriers to equitable education. 
Equity issues may also arise as a result of lack of digital literacy skills in students. 

Students with higher digital literacy are deemed to perform better in an emergency remote library 
instruction setting, may be more prone to stay in tune and engaged with the lesson, and have less 
emotional stress by feeling confident. However, as Wan Ng explains above, those recognized as 
digital natives may not necessarily have digital literacy, even if they are comfortable with social 
media tools.26 Data do not tell us the age of students; regardless, digital literacy gaps were 
detected by respondents. These perceived gaps in digital literacies (evaluating information, 
communicating online, applying search strategies, using library resources and databases, 
understanding plagiarism and citation, and using online resources) are important for librarians to 
address during emergency remote learning. 

Last, the lack of consensus may be explained by the complexity of the concept of digital literacy. It 
is possible that many of these gaps existed before, but librarians recognized them as new during 
emergency remote learning. One response illustrates this idea: “the closure has prompted many 
more students to request help in every step of the digital literacy process. I’m not sure if students 
typically ask each other, or their professors/instructors. Regardless, it’s exposed that not all 
students know things I’d assumed they did.” Whether these gaps are new or not remains unclear, 
as evidenced by another respondent who stated, “Nothing new to the COVID era.” 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 18 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

These recommendations seek to address some of the issues that arose in the data, especially those 
regarding equity and emergency remote library instruction. To illustrate, one respondent summed 
up the current situation while also posing a question that appears valuable: “Not all of our 
students have the same access to stable technology and internet, nor do they all respond to online 
teaching strategies in the same ways. How do we create equitable and accessible learning 
opportunities?” While the authors do not have all the answers, based on the analysis of the data 
and emerging themes, some recommendations may help instruction librarians move forward 
through the COVID-19 crisis. 

Technology and Equity 
The authors realize that a budget is essential for the implementation of recommendations that 
may reduce both inequitable access to information and lack of digital literacy. Nonetheless, the 
recommendations below intend to offer guidance on ways to improve equitable access, digital 
literacy, and student engagement during emergency remote library sessions. 

One external digital barrier for students engaging in emergency remote library sessions was the 
lack of equipment at home, possibly due to economic hardship. University libraries could provide 
kits containing a Chromebook, webcam, microphone, Wi-Fi hotspot, and headphones to increase 
equitable access. Access to this equipment may help students feel supported and understood, with 
a sense of dignity. These offerings should be in coordination with other campus units who may 
provide similar services, such as Student Affairs and IT departments. Likewise, a coordinated 
marketing and outreach effort at the campus level may enhance the visibility of equipment 
available for student use. 

As stated above, “ease of use” rose to the top as the most-frequently mentioned technology tool 
strength, which is understandable given the many stressors educators and students may be 
experiencing during COVID-19. However, it is important to keep in mind that tools should be “easy 
to use” not just for librarians and teaching faculty, but especially for students. Nonetheless, given 
the difficulty of assessing instructional technology and library information literacy sessions right 
now, it is challenging to know whether students find the technology tools that librarians choose 
truly “easy to use.” 

Compounding the perception that tools are easy to use is the possibility that tools may not be ADA 
accessible. Though the survey did not ask about accessibility explicitly, and while the authors  did 
not vet the tools listed in the survey for their accessibility features, the authors wonder how many 
tools are fully accessible to all learners. Instead of choosing tools for their perceived ease of use, a 
further recommendation is to move beyond valuing what’s easy to critically reflect on whether 
tools are fully accessible to students with visual or hearing impairments or learning differences. If 
the answer is no or unclear, perhaps using basic content delivery tools that are vetted for 
accessibility features is the better option. It is recommended to follow best practices for using 
those tools (for example, by referring to guidance from campus IT departments). 

If instruction librarians consider themselves “blended,” or perhaps even so well-versed in 
technology that a term like “blended librarian” is no longer needed, they should also prioritize 
flexible, responsive, and intentional use of technology in their lecture design. If a tool that they 
assumed would be easy to use for all students is proving challenging for some, librarians should 
have alternative options and extra support at the ready. They may also ask themselves whether 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 19 

use of a technology tool furthers the learning process and outcomes of the course, or if technology 
is added for its own sake. 

In addition, avoiding use of extra tools and technology that does not genuinely enhance lecture 
goals and priorities may help students avoid stress related to technology, which could further 
students’ emotional well-being during this fraught time. Being clear with students about which 
tools will be used and for what purpose may help students who would otherwise struggle with 
layered content delivery and engagement tools. A glossary of these tools, along with when and 
how they’ll be used and links to technical support, could be a helpful support document for 
students. 

Communication and Equity 
It is worth exploring librarian, student, and faculty communication not explicitly focused on 
technology. Some respondents mentioned outreach and connection challenges that have less to do 
with technology and more to do with other stressors and limitations. For example, some librarians 
reported receiving fewer requests for information literacy sessions or library support than usual, 
and some speculated that this was because of the quick move to emergency remote learning, lack 
of time to plan, and the possibility that a library session was “extra” and faculty were trying to 
simplify. 

There are several ways to address this challenge. Librarians can attempt to meet students and 
faculty where they are by offering multimodal learning opportunities, including both synchronous 
and asynchronous offerings (Zoom meetings, prerecorded videos, tutorials/quizzes, Canvas 
discussion posts, and LibGuides are a few options). It is also paramount to make sure librarians 
are reachable at the point-of-need, which may mean extended weekend and evening hours on the 
virtual Ask-a-Librarian desk. Also imperative is ensuring that virtual services, as well as 
consultation request links and/or email addresses, are clear and visible to students and faculty on 
the library’s website. 

Some survey respondents mentioned that communication with faculty was difficult, and this may 
have contributed to fewer instruction requests. While it is understandable that faculty may have 
been less responsive to librarian outreach for a variety of reasons, there are some ways to 
encourage faculty communications. For example, librarians could provide simple, bulleted lists 
with updated information on services and offerings, individual attention (focused on specific 
classes and topics), and options, acknowledging that some faculty will simply not want to share 
classroom time during emergency remote teaching. 

Librarians can also work to bridge the disconnect between IT and their departments by 
proactively reaching out to learn about best practices not only for technology use, but also for ADA 
accommodations. Even when information literacy sessions are requested, faculty may not always 
share student accommodation needs. Librarians can ask for help from IT or other units on campus 
(such as Centers for Teaching and Learning) to make sure that their communication techniques 
are aligned with inclusive, user-centered approaches to teaching and learning with technology. 

As professionals in a unique role serving both students and faculty, librarians may also check in on 
a person-to-person basis with both groups. Acknowledging that we are people with mental and 
physical health needs working together in difficult circumstances is one way of connecting with 
students and faculty in an authentic way. Emergency remote teaching and learning is different 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 20 

from typical remote or online learning and being clear about that might also help everyone adjust 
expectations and extend compassion. 

Professional Development and Personal Support 
While emergency remote teaching and learning may not seem like the best time for professional 
development, it is important to acknowledge that librarians deserve support in navigating this 
unprecedented time. Even as we clearly want to help students who may be especially vulnerable 
during COVID-19, there is a sense of being overwhelmed, and librarians may not always know 
where to start. While there are online webinars and discussions that provide advice about how to 
best help students during COVID-19, the authors recommend a more specific approach targeting 
digital literacy gaps and support systems for librarians. 

In reviewing survey responses to perceived digital literacy gaps and other challenges, it became 
clear that not all librarians are well-versed in digital literacy concepts. If librarians have time to 
take one approach to professional development as it relates to instruction and information 
literacy, the authors recommend learning more about digital literacy competencies and thinking 
critically about how emergency remote library instruction design can address those competencies 
and potential gaps. 

Of course, stresses of the pandemic are impacting librarians as well as faculty and students. It is 
important that we connect with colleagues and support systems during this time. One option 
might be to form a community with colleagues to determine best practices for use of technology in 
instruction among other relevant topics (examples at the authors’ library include anti-racist 
actions and a caregiver’s support group). Librarians should also prioritize their own health 
(mental and physical) and stress management. The recommendations are everywhere but bear 
repeating: connect with family and friends, exercise, take time away from the computer, and make 
sure to rest. Librarians should be kind to themselves and their colleagues and offer or ask for 
support when needed. 

CONCLUSION 

As of spring 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet over. It remains unclear whether and when 
academic library instruction will return to the old normal. The data collected and analyzed during 
this paper, as well as the discussion and recommendations, can inform how instruction librarians 
respond to student needs and challenges as everyone continues to cope with life during 
emergency remote learning. Especially compelling are the data shared about the strengths and 
weaknesses of technology tools used to enhance student engagement in library instruction. These 
data provide parameters that may help other instruction librarians make decisions when choosing 
a technology tool and be prepared to troubleshoot when issues arise. 

A concerning data revealed that digital literacy, as defined by ALA’s Digital Literacy Task Force, is 
a subject that may not be widely understood by instructors. Although our pool of respondents was 
small, instruction librarians may need a broader understanding of what digital literacies look like 
in practice when dealing with emergency remote teaching and a diverse student population. While 
instruction librarians’ experiences and perceptions are one important piece of the puzzle, 
especially in acknowledging shared challenges, it is important to recognize that students may have 
needs, digital literacy or otherwise, that educators are missing. Though assessment is difficult 
right now, reflection and attention to the whole student experience is necessary. Working with 
colleagues on campus to provide technology, including laptop computers and Wi-Fi hotspots, as 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 21 

well as evaluating our content delivery and engagement tech tools for ADA accessibility, are 
examples of ways that instruction librarians can connect students with unmet needs to resources 
during this difficult time. Examining instruction librarians’ ongoing response to the pandemic, 
while challenging, will help libraries become more emergency-responsive and better able to meet 
the needs of diverse students in the 21st century. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

We would like to thank Moria Woodruff from the University of Colorado Boulder Writing Center 
for her help revising this manuscript. 

  



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 22 

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

Distance Learning During a Pandemic: A Matter of Equity 

We are curious to hear about your experiences of library instruction during the abrupt shift to 
online learning. In particular, we are researching librarians’ use of technology tools for online 
content delivery and student engagement during COVID-19.This survey should take less than ten 
minutes to complete. Your answers will be anonymous. Please do not include personally 
identifiable information. Participation in the survey indicates your consent for us to use the data 
collected in a forthcoming research paper about using online technology tools to teach 
information literacy or library seminars during COVID-19. The survey will be open through 
Sunday, May 24th. Thank you for your participation!   

Q1 What content delivery technology have you used to create your distance learning library 
sessions during COVID-19? Select as many as apply. 

Zoom  

Microsoft Teams    

Libguides  

Course Management System (e.g., Canvas)  

Formative  

Pear Deck  

Adobe Illustrator  

Snagit  

Screencast-o-matic   

PlayPosit  

Google Hangouts  

Google Classrooms   

Canva (graphic design tool)   

Other 
 

 

 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 23 

Q2 What technology tools have you used to enhance student engagement in your distance 
learning library sessions during COVID-19? Select as many as apply.  

Padlet   

AnswerGarden   

Kahoot!  

Mentimeter  

Flipgrid  

Slido  

Socrative   

Jamboard   

Pear Deck  

Mural   

Google Drawings   

Google Forms   

Quizalize  

GoSoapBox  

Poll Everywhere  

Yo Teach!   

Other 
 

 

 

Q3 What are the strengths of the technology tools you’re using right now?  

 

 

 

Q4 What are the weaknesses of the technology tools you’re using right now?  

 

 

 

  



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 24 

Q5 What digital literacy gaps have you identified in your students since COVID-19 closures? ALA’s 
Digital Literacy Task Force defines digital literacy as “the ability to use information and 
communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring 
both cognitive and technical skills.”  

 

 

 

Q6 What other challenges exist in your ability to effectively provide equitable library instruction 
during this time?  

 
 

 

  



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 25 

APPENDIX B: TOOLS MENTIONED BY THREE OR FEWER RESPONDENTS, QUESTION 1, OPTION 
OTHER 

Ninety-five respondents answered Other to question 1: What content delivery technology have 
you used to create your synchronous and asynchronous distance learning library sessions during 
COVID-19? 

Tool name Type of tool Number of respondents 

BlueJeans Online meetings 3 

Google Meet Online meetings 3 

Jing / TechSmith Capture Screen capture 3 

Blackboard Ensemble Video creation 2 

iMovie Video editing 2 

Guide on the Side Interactive tutorials 2 

Kapwing Video and image editing 2 

LibChat Communications service 2 

Piktochart Graphics editing 2 

TechSmith Relay Video creation 2 

ThingLink Multimedia editing 2 

Adobe InDesign Desktop publishing 1 

Adobe Photoshop Graphics editing 1 

Adobe Premiere Pro Video editing 1 

Amazon Chime Communications service 1 

Audacity Audio editing 1 

Chat (in general) Communications service 1 

Clideo Video editing 1 

FastStone Capture Screen capture 1 

Genially Interactive content creation 1 

Google Sheets Web-based spreadsheets 1 

GoToMeeting Online meetings 1 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 26 

Tool name Type of tool Number of respondents 

Microsoft Bookings Scheduling 1 

Microsoft Stream Video sharing 1 

Powtoons Video creation 1 

Pressbooks Content Management 1 

Prezi Video Video creation 1 

Qualtrics Surveys 1 

QuickTime Multimedia editing 1 

ScreenFlow Video editing and screen capture 1 

Springshare Libwizard Interactive tutorials and forms 1 

Telephone Communications service 1 

VideoScribe Animated video creation 1 

Vimeo Video sharing 1 

WhatsApp Communications service 1 

  



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 27 

APPENDIX C: TOOLS MENTIONED BY ONE RESPONDENT, QUESTION 2, OPTION OTHER 

Forty-two respondents answered Other to question 2: What technology tools have you used to 
enhance student engagement in your distance learning library sessions or courses during COVID -
19? Each tool was used by only one respondent. 

Tool name Type of tool 

Articulate Storyline Interactive e-learning modules 

Calendly Scheduling 

Camtasia Video editing and screen recording 

Canva Quizzes Quizzes 

Google Voice Communications service 

H5P Programming language for websites 

Handout (not a technology tool) 
 

HTML/CSS Programming language for websites 

Knight Lab Tools Storytelling 

LMS discussion forums Discussions 

Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation platform 

Microsoft Word Word processor 

Nearpod Interactive lessons 

Parlay Discussions 

Qualtrics Surveys 

Remind Communications service 

SpeakPipe Communications service 

Twine Storytelling 

VoiceThread Video, voice, and text commenting 

WebEx whiteboard Drawing tool 

  



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 28 

ENDNOTES 
 

1 Charles Hodges et al., “The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online 
Learning,” EDUCAUSE Review (2020), https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-
difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning. 

2 Hodges et al., “The Difference.” 

3 Jody Greene, “How (Not) to Evaluate Teaching During a Pandemic,” Chronicle of Higher Education 
(2020), https://www-chronicle-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/article/How-Not-to-Evaluate-
Teaching/248434. 

4 Laura Czerniewicz, “What We Learnt from ‘Going Online’ During University Shutdowns in South 
Africa,” PhilOnEd (2020), https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-going-online-
during-university-shutdowns-in-south-africa/. 

5 For scholarship on equity and librarianship see Joanne Oud, “Systematic Workplace Barriers for 
Academic Librarians with Disabilities,” College & Research Libraries 80, no. 2 (2019), 
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.2.169; Amanda L. Folk, “Reframing Information Literacy as 
Academic Cultural Capital: A Critical and Equity-Based Foundation for Practice, Assessment, 
and Scholarship,” College & Research Libraries 80, no. 5 (2019), 
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.5.658; Scott Seaman, Carol Krismann, and Nancy Carter, 
“Salary Market Equity at the University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries: A Case Study Follow-
Up,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 5 (2003), https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.5.390; 
Freeda Brook, Dave Ellenwood, and Althea Eannace Lazzaro, “In Pursuit of Antiracist Social 
Justice: Denaturalizing Whiteness in the Academic Library,” Library Trends 64, no. 2 (2015), 
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0048; Isabel Gonzalez-Smith, Juleah Swanson, and Azusa 
Tanaka, “Unpacking Identity: Racial, Ethnic, and Professional Identity and Academic Librarians 
of Color,” in The Librarian Stereotype: Deconstructing Perceptions and Presentations of 
Information Work, ed. Nicole Pagowsky and Miriam Rigby (Chicago: Association of College and 
Research Libraries, 2014), 149–73. 

6 Tom Riedel and Paul Betty, “Real Time with the Librarian: Using Web Conferencing Software to 
Connect to Distance Students,” Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 7, 
no. 1–2 (2013): 101, https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705616. 

7 Keith Shaw, “Colleges Expand VPN Capacity, Conferencing to Answer COVID-19,” Network World 
(Online) (2020): 1. 

8 Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin, “Nearly One-in-Five Teens Can’t Always Finish Their 
Homework Because of the Digital Divide,” Pew Research Center Fact Tank News in the 
Numbers, October 26, 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/26/nearly-
one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/. 

9 Julie Arnold Lietzau and Barbara J. Mann, “Breaking Out of the Asynchronous Box: Suing Web 
Conferencing in Distance Learning,” Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance 
Learning 3, no. 3–4 (2009): 113, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332900903375291. 

 

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
https://www-chronicle-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/article/How-Not-to-Evaluate-Teaching/248434
https://www-chronicle-com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/article/How-Not-to-Evaluate-Teaching/248434
https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-going-online-during-university-shutdowns-in-south-africa/
https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-going-online-during-university-shutdowns-in-south-africa/
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.2.169
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.2.169
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.5.658
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.5.390
https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0048
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705616
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-finish-their-homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332900903375291


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 29 

 

10 Aek Phakiti, David Hirsh, and Lindy Woodrow, “It’s Not Only English: Effects of Other Individual 
Factors on English Language Learning and Academic Learning of ESL International Students in 
Australia,” Journal of Research in International Education 12, no. 3 (2013): 248. 

11 T. V. Semenova and L. M. Rudakova, “Barriers to Taking Massive Open Online Courses,” Russian 
Education & Society 58, no. 3 (2016): 242, https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2016.1242992. 

12 Xinghua Wang, Seng Chee Tan, and Lu Li, “Technostress in University Students’ Technology-
Enhanced Learning: An Investigation from Multidimensional Person-Environment Misfit,” 
Computers in Human Behavior 105, (2020): 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106208. 

13 “Digital Literacy,” ALA Literacy Clearinghouse, accessed May 16, 2021: 
https://literacy.ala.org/digital-literacy/. 

14 Steven J. Bell and John Shank, “The Blended Librarian: A Blueprint for Redefining the Teaching 
and Learning Role of Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 65, no. 7 (2004): 
374, https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.65.7.7297. 

15 Vanessa W. Vongkulluksn, Kui Xie, and Margaret A Bowman, “The Role of Value on Teachers’ 
Internalization of External Barriers and Externalization of Personal Beliefs for Classroom 
Technology Integration,” Computer & Education 118, (2018): 79, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009. 

16 Jesper Aagaard, “Breaking Down Barriers: The Ambivalent Nature of Technologies in the 
Classroom, New Media & Society 19, no. 7 (2017): 1138, 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816631505. 

17 Wan Ng, “Can We Teach Digital Natives Digital Literacy?” Computers & Education 59, no. 3 
(2012): 1065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016. 

18 Ng, “Can We Teach,” 1071–72. 

19 Ng, “Can We Teach,” 1072. 

20 Ellen Helsper and Rebecca Enyon, “Digital Natives: Where Is the Evidence?,” British Educational 
Research Journal 36, no. 3. (2010): 515, https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227. 

21 David Ellis, “Using Padlet to Increase Student Engagement in Lectures,” in Proceedings of the 
14th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2015), ed. Amanda Jefferies and Marija Cubric 
(Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited): 195. 

22 Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni, “Playposit: Using Interactive Videos in Language Education,” 
Teaching English with Technology 18, no. 1 (2018): 106. 

23 Jurgen Schulte et al., “Shaping the Future of Academic Libraries: Authentic Learning for the Next 
Generation,” College & Research Libraries 79, no. 5 (2018): 688, 
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.5.685. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2016.1242992
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106208
https://literacy.ala.org/digital-literacy/
https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.65.7.7297
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816631505
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816631505
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.5.685


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES  JUNE 2021 

EMERGENCY REMOTE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION AND TECH TOOLS | IBACACHE, RYBIN KOOB, AND VANCE 30 

 

24 Chiara Faggiolani, “Perceived Identity: Applying Grounded Theory in Libraries,” JLIS.it: Italian 
Journal of Library and Information Science 2, no. 1 (2011): 4592, 
https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-4592. 

25 “Over 700 Universities and Colleges Now Use Zoom!” Zoom blog, July 15, 2013, 
https://blog.zoom.us/over-700-universities-and-colleges-now-use-zoom-video-conferencing/. 

26 Ng, “Can We Teach,” 1071–72. 

https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-4592
https://blog.zoom.us/over-700-universities-and-colleges-now-use-zoom-video-conferencing/

	ABSTRACT
	INTRODUCTION
	LITERATURE REVIEW
	Barriers to Equitable Student Access in Online Learning
	Technology Tools, Digital Literacy, Student Engagement

	METHODS
	Instrument
	Participants
	Grounded Theory Approach

	FINDINGS
	Popularity of Technology Tools
	Strengths and Weaknesses of Technology Tools
	Digital Literacy Gaps

	CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
	DISCUSSION
	Questions 1 and 2: Technology Tools Instruction Librarians Are Using to Deliver Content and Engage Students
	Questions 3 and 4: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Tools as They Affect Student Engagement
	Questions 5 and 6: Digital Literacy Gaps and Equitable Instruction

	RECOMMENDATIONS
	Technology and Equity
	Communication and Equity
	Professional Development and Personal Support

	CONCLUSION
	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
	APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
	APPENDIX B: Tools Mentioned by Three or FEWER Respondents, Question 1, Option Other
	APPENDIX C: Tools Mentioned by One Respondent, Question 2, Option Other
	ENDNOTES