Evidence Summary
Learners with Low Self-Efficacy for Information Literacy Rely on Library
Resources Less Often But Are More Willing to Learn How to Use Them
A Review of:
Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. W. (2013). Distance learners’ self-efficacy
and information literacy skills. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6): 517-521.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.008
Reviewed by:
Dominique Daniel
Humanities Librarian for History and Modern Languages
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan, United States of America
Email: daniel@oakland.edu
Received: 6 May 2014 Accepted: 19 Aug. 2014
2014 Daniel.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objectives – To determine whether there is a relationship
between self-efficacy (i.e., confidence) regarding information literacy skills
and self-efficacy for distance learning; and to compare the use of electronic
resources by high and low information literacy self-efficacy distance learners
and their interest in learning more about searching.
Design – Online survey.
Setting – A small public university in the United States of
America.
Subjects – Undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in one
or more online courses. Most respondents were in their twenties, 76% were
female, 59% were undergraduates, and 69% were full time students.
Methods – Students were asked six demographic questions,
eight questions measuring their self-efficacy for information literacy, and
four questions measuring their self-efficacy for online learning. All
self-efficacy questions were adapted from previous studies and used a one to
five Likert scale. The response rate was 6.2%. Correlational analysis was
conducted to test the first two hypotheses (students who have higher
self-efficacy for information seeking are more likely to have higher
self-efficacy for online learning and for information manipulation).
Descriptive analysis was used for the remaining hypotheses, to test whether
students who have higher information literacy self-efficacy are more likely to
have high library skills (hypothesis three) and are more interested in learning
about how to use library resources (hypothesis four). Among respondents high
information literacy self-efficacy and low self-efficacy groups were
distinguished, using the mean score of information literacy self-efficacy.
Main Results – There was a significant correlation between
self-efficacy for information seeking and self-efficacy for online learning (r
= .27), as well as self-efficacy for information manipulation (r = .79).
Students with high information seeking self-efficacy were more likely to use
library databases (28.72%), while low self-efficacy respondents more often
chose commercial search engines (30.98%). However those respondents were more
likely to be interested in learning how to use library resources.
Conclusion – Distance students with higher self-efficacy for
information seeking and use also had higher self-efficacy for online learning.
It is important to encourage such self-efficacy since studies have shown that
it relates to better information literacy skills and a higher ability to be
self-regulated learners. Confident learners process information, make effective
decisions, and improve their learning more easily. Furthermore many respondents
in this survey had little or false knowledge of how to use appropriate resources
for their learning needs. This points to the need for effective library
instruction. This study also shows that low self-efficacy students would like
to have library instruction, especially to help them plan specific research
assignments.
Commentary
Research about self-efficacy, namely people’s
judgments about their ability to complete tasks and succeed, has long been of
interest to librarians who seek to engage students in information literacy (IL)
instruction. This study examines the self-efficacy levels of online learners,
and especially the relationship between self-efficacy in IL and in online
learning – a form of learning that requires strong self-regulation from
students. Particularly interesting is the finding that lower IL self-efficacy students
are generally more motivated to learn about it. Thus self-efficacy may have
important implications for students’ motivations to learn, and for librarians’
design of online instructional objects. In their survey, Tang & Tseng
measured self-efficacy by asking respondents to agree or disagree with
statements about their own abilities. This is an easy method, but the
reliability of the scales used is not mentioned.
This study suffers from several weaknesses. First, it
relies on a dated and incomplete literature review. For example, it uses a 2000
study to provide evidence that instruction sessions boost self-efficacy
regarding the use of electronic resources (Ren, 2000). Furthermore it ignores
the numerous studies that indicate negative relationships between self-efficacy
and achievement, including recent research from the Attaining Information
Literacy Project on student self-views, which shows that self-efficacy is
stronger among students with lower abilities and is not a predictor of success
(Gross & Latham, 2012). Although they do not target distance learners, such
findings complicate the picture shown by the studies cited in the literature
review, and even contradict it.
One
limitation of this study is that it connects self-efficacy to actual skills or
improved performance without testing the skills. For
hypothesis three, the authors assume that higher self-efficacy students have
superior library skills because they selected library resources more often in
the survey question about their go-to resources. While this
choice is intriguing, a self-selected answer about preferred resources does not
measure library skills, rather awareness of library resources.
Furthermore,
the authors perhaps overstate the link to research that finds that individuals
with higher self-efficacy learn more easily. A statement
from Kurbanoglu (2003) that high self-efficacy results in self-regulated
learning – quoted once in their article and later repeated in conjunction with
their own study results (p. 519, 520) –– leads the
authors to conclude that improving self-efficacy leads to better learning