small.p65


96  College & Research Libraries March 2004

 

Motivational Aspects of Information 
Literacy Skills Instruction in 
Community College Libraries 

Ruth V. Small, Nasriah Zakaria, and Houria El-Figuigui 

This study explored the motivational aspects of information literacy skills 
instruction delivered by librarians in community college libraries. Librarians 
and students at seven community colleges were interviewed and observed. 
Involvement of faculty, use of technology, and students’ on- and off-task 
behaviors also were investigated. Data analyses used Keller’s ARCS Model, 
ACRL standards, and Small and Arnone’s Motivation Overlay for Informa­
tion Skills Instruction. The majority of strategies used were to gain and main­
tain students’ attention. The range of strategies, rather than the number of 
strategies, appeared to positively affect student motivation. 

he ALA defines information 
literacy as the ability “to rec­
ognize when information is 
needed and have the ability to 

locate, evaluate, and use effectively the 
needed information.”1 Information lit­
eracy (IL) has been a “hot topic” in aca­
demic library literature for the past ten 
years with the teaching of IL skills an in­
creasingly important component in 
twenty-first-century higher education, 
central to the mission of lifelong learn­
ing.2,3 Abby Kasowitz-Scheer and Michael 
Pasqualoni have stated that the teaching 
of IL skills “requires a shift in focus from 
teaching specific information resources to 
a set of critical thinking skills involving 
the use of information.”4 They cited three 
methods currently used to deliver IL 
skills: online, in a separate course, and 

integrated across the curriculum. The lat­
ter is preferred because it ties information 
literacy to students’ other learning, 
thereby making it a just-in-time teaching 
strategy as opposed to a just-in-case one. 

The teaching of information literacy 
may be particularly critical for students 
at the community college level.5 The 
teaching of IL skills, including research 
and critical thinking skills, has been de­
scribed as a primary role of library fac­
ulty in community colleges.6 

With emphasis on IL skills instruction 
gaining importance in and centrality to 
instructional programs in higher educa­
tion, the need for research on best prac­
tice becomes essential. Instructional meth­
ods used to effectively present informa­
tion and motivate student learning are the 
focus of this study. 

Ruth V. Small is a Professor in the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University; e-mail: 
drruth@syr.edu. Nasriah Zakaria and Houria El-Figuigui are doctoral students in the School of Informa­
tion Studies at Syracuse University; e-mail: nazakari@mailbox.syr.edu and helfigui@syr.edu. The au­
thors wish to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of the community college librarians who par­
ticipated in this research study and the graduate students and practitioners who contributed to its success. 
This research study was funded by the 2001 Carroll Preston Baber Research Award from the ALA. 

96 

mailto:helfigui@syr.edu
mailto:nazakari@mailbox.syr.edu
mailto:drruth@syr.edu


 

 

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 97 

Statement of the Problem 
Charles Hayes has stated that first-year 
college students frequently lack the li­
brary research skills required to do a col­
lege-level research paper.7 The role of 
teacher has become a fundamental re­
sponsibility for librarians.8 According to 
Carla J. Stoffle, the challenge to academic 
librarians is to “learn how to be effective 
teachers and designers of assignments in 
more systematic ways than the hit-or­
miss methods in vogue today.”9 Michele 
Mednick has described academic librar­
ians as key members of instructional 
teams and instructional partners with fac­
ulty.10 This involves more than just teach­
ing IL skills so that students can complete 
assignments or solve information prob­
lems. Information literacy is more than a 
framework of knowledge and a set of 
skills, it is an attitude that reflects an in­
terest in seeking solutions to information 
problems, recognition of the importance 
of acquiring information skills, informa­
tion confidence rather than information 
anxiety, and a sense of satisfaction that 
comes from research competence. 

Ideally, therefore, effective IL skills in­
struction not only helps students acquire 
the skills they need but also stimulates 
intellectual curiosity, encourages informa­
tion-seeking and exploration behaviors, 
and sparks a passion for lifelong learn­
ing.11 It requires active learning by stu­
dents.12 However, one of the major chal­
lenges facing the IL instructor is to pro­
vide the type of active learning strategies 
and experiences that motivate students to 
learn and apply these skills.13 This study 
explores the ways in which community 
college librarians motivate students dur­
ing instruction. 

Information Literacy Skills 
The ALA describes the need for students 
to acquire IL skills (i.e., knowledge of 
techniques for accessing and evaluating 
information) as essential skills for lifelong 
learning.14 Although it is generally ac­
knowledged that community college stu­
dents need to be information literate, 
many continue to lack the skills required 

to be successful in their courses.15 In a re­
port on the roles and responsibilities of 
library faculty by the Academic Senate for 
California Community Colleges, it was 
stated that “(l)ibrary faculty instruct in in­
formation literacy skills, which include 
the ability to access, retrieve, analyze, 
evaluate and apply information. These 
skills are essential to current and lifelong 
learning processes.”16 Further, this docu­
ment cites the collaborative role of the 
community college librarian in curricu­
lum development and support “as part­
ners in the classroom, as specialists and 
facilitators in the use of information the 
retrieval for print, media, electronic and 
digital information environments.”17 

In 2000, the Association of College and 
Research Libraries (ACRL) published its 
Information Literacy Competency Standards 
for Higher Education, which identified five 
general IL standards with a number of 
performance indicators for each standard. 
These standards are: 

1. The information-literate student 
determines the nature and extent of the 
information needed. 

2. The information-literate student 
accesses needed information effectively 
and efficiently. 

3. The information-literate student 
evaluates information and its sources 
critically and incorporates selected infor­
mation into his or her knowledge base 
and value system. 

4. The information-literate student, 
individually or as a member of a group, 
uses information effectively to accom­
plish a specific purpose. 

5. The information-literate student 
understands many of the economic, legal, 
and social issues surrounding the use of 
information and accesses and uses infor­
mation ethically and legally.18 

Students must learn to locate, evalu­
ate, and use information in all forms and, 
typically in education contexts, these 
skills are taught and/or reinforced by li­
brarians. Burdick emphasizes the impor­
tance of information skills instruction that 
develops both ability (i.e., knowledge and 
skills) and desire (i.e., motivation).19 

http:motivation).19
http:legally.18
http:courses.15
http:learning.14
http:skills.13
http:dents.12


 

98 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

The Importance of Motivation 
Maureen Kilcullen has stated that “Know­
ing what motivates students and how 
they learn is essential to teaching critical 
thinking skills in library users… . Think­
ing about motivation and learning theo­
ries while planning library instruction 
may well help instruction librarians be­
come better teachers.”20 Student-centered 
teaching methods such as problem-based 
learning and inquiry learning are most ef­
fective for teaching IL skills in a way that 
is integrated with curriculum content, 
structure, and sequence.21 

In a study exploring the use of moti­
vational strategies in instruction in higher 
education, Ruth V. Small, B. M. Dodge, 
and X. Jiang found that attention-gaining 
strategies such as variety, surprise, and 
novelty were most effective in generating 
interest and preventing learning bore­
dom.22 They also found that instructional 
technologies that do not capture students’ 
attention and are not directly relevant to 
the content and goals of the instruction 
may actually promote learning boredom. 

Small, Dodge, and Jiang also looked at 
the role of instructors in stimulating stu­
dent motivation. They found that learn­
ers perceived their instructors as having 
the primary responsibility for motivating 
them. This means that instructors are ex­
pected to design strategies into their in­
struction that enhance learner interest and 
reduce learner boredom. This study looks 
at the librarian’s role as teacher in the 
community college environment and the 
strategies that librarians use to motivate 
their students during IL skills instruction. 

To date, research on and development 
of IL skills instruction have focused almost 
exclusively on content (the research pro­
cess) or learning outcomes, with little or no 
attention paid to presentation methods that 
influence student motivation. Although 
some research has been done on the effec­
tiveness of specific motivational teaching 
methods and strategies in K–12 classrooms 
and school library media centers, little re­
search has been done to date that examines 
the use of motivators within the unique 
context of IL skills instruction in higher 

education.23 In fact, little is known about the 
type and number of motivators that appear 
to be most effective in stimulating students’ 
task engagement in and enjoyment of the 
research process. 

Carol C. Kuhlthau is one of the few re­
searchers to recognize the importance of 
motivation in information science re­
search.24 However, her research focused on 
(1) the feelings and attitudes of students 
as they proceed through the research pro­
cess and (2) more general elements of suc­
cessful IL programs, rather than on spe­
cific instructional interventions to improve 
student motivation. For example, she de­
scribed the “exploration stage” of research 
as the most difficult for students because 
they encounter information that is “incon­
sistent and incompatible and does not 
match what they already know.”25 Yet, 
some educational researchers suggest that 
some uncertainty and incongruity are use­
ful for stimulating curiosity and interest.26 

Therefore, a modest amount of uncertainty 
may motivate students during the research 
process, whereas too much uncertainty 
will likely cause anxiety and frustration. 

In a study that investigated which fac­
tors college students considered to be most 
effective in avoiding and causing boredom, 
Small, Dodge, and Jiang found that stu­
dents perceived their instructors to be the 
primary source of their learning interest 
and boredom.27 The factors students con­
sidered most likely to cause learning bore­
dom were a dry, monotone delivery style; 
repetition of information students already 
knew; the presentation of irrelevant infor­
mation; and a lack of variety of teaching 
methods. The researchers also found that 
the most effective factors students cited for 
preventing learning boredom were oppor­
tunities for student participation and in­
teraction; relevant content; the use of hu­
mor; instructor enthusiasm; and a variety 
of teaching methods. 

Small studied the motivational strate­
gies used by elementary and middle 
school library media specialists (LMSs) 
during IL skills instruction using John M. 
Keller ’s ARCS Model of Motivational 
Design as the basis for analysis.28,29 The 

http:boredom.27
http:interest.26
http:search.24
http:education.23
http:sequence.21


Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 99 

ARCS Model consists of four requisite 
components to motivating instruction: (1) 
gaining and sustaining [A]ttention to the 
instruction by stimulating curiosity and 
interest, (2) providing the [R]elevance 
(importance, value) of the learning, (3) 
building learners’ [C]onfidence in their 
abilities to succeed at the learning task, 
and (4) promoting the potential for learn­
ing [S]atisfaction. Keller broke each of the 
ARCS components into three subcompo­
nents, each of which suggests a wide 
range of motivational strategies to incor­
porate into instruction (some examples 
are given). 
• Attention 

o Perceptual Arousal (A-PA) (e.g., an 
incongruous or unexpected event, humor, 
novelty) 

o Inquiry Arousal (A-IA) (e.g., ques­
tioning, problem-solving activities) 

o Variability (A-V) (e.g., change of 
pace, format, or media) 
• Relevance 

o Goal Orientation (R-GO) (e.g., speci­
fication of learning objectives, present 
value, and future use of learning) 

o Motive Matching (R-MM) (e.g., con­
tent and examples that relate to learners’ 
previous learning and experiences, posi­
tive role models, learning choices) 

o Familiarity (R-F) (e.g., concrete and 
familiar language and examples) 
• Confidence 

o Learning Requirements (C-LR) (e.g., 
clearly specified criteria for successful 
learning or performance) 

o Success Opportunities (C-SO) (e.g., 
an attainable challenge, practice oppor­
tunities) 

o Personal Control (C-PC) (e.g., shared 
control of the pace or amount of content 
presented) 
• Satisfaction 

o Natural Consequences (S-NC) (e.g., 
opportunities to immediately use newly 
acquired knowledge or skill in a real or 
simulated setting) 

o Positive Consequences (S-PC) (e.g., 
provide positive feedback and reinforce­
ments that will sustain the desired behav­
ior, unexpected rewards) 

o Equity (S-E) (e.g., maintain consis­
tent standards and consequences for 
learning accomplishments). 

Other researchers have used the ARCS 
Model as a framework for categorizing 
motivational strategies used in instruction, 
but only Small has applied it to IL skills in­
structional contexts, specifically the K–8 li­
brary setting.30,31 Her study found that al­
though these librarians used a large num­
ber of motivational strategies (averaging 24 
strategies per lesson), the strategies were 
overwhelmingly designed to capture and 
maintain attention and interest (more than 
half of all strategies were questioning or 
problem-posing strategies used at the be­
ginning or during the lesson) and only a 
few were intended to demonstrate the value 
of learning information skills, inspire stu­
dents’ confidence in their research ability, 
and ensure satisfaction with the students’ 
research results and skills learned, equally 
important motivational outcomes. 

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation 
The literature identifies two general cat­
egories of motivational orientations: in­
trinsic and extrinsic.32 Students with an 
intrinsic (or internal) orientation find sat­
isfaction from simply participating in a 
learning experience that stimulates their 
curiosity and interest, promotes their feel­
ings of competence or control, and/or is 
inherently pleasurable.33 Instructors who 
encourage an intrinsic orientation create 
challenging learning situations that allow 
students to have some control over their 
learning and promote feelings of compe­
tence and mastery. 

Students with an extrinsic (or external) 
orientation are motivated to learn or per­
form by such things as rewards and in­
centives. Instructors who encourage an 
extrinsic orientation create a learning en­
vironment where students pursue a learn­
ing task because it provides satisfaction 
in the form of some type of external mo­
tivator or reward (e.g., a prize, verbal 
praise, a high grade) that is independent 
of the activity itself and controlled by 
someone other than the student (e.g., a 
teacher, a computer system). 

http:pleasurable.33
http:extrinsic.32


100 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

FIGURE 1

The Motivation Overlay for Information Skills Instruction
 

Research Stages Beginning During Ending 
Information Definition Exploration Presentation
skills Selection Collection Evaluation

Planning Organization 
Motivational
goals 

Generate interest in
the research process 

Establish importance
of information skills 

Build confidence in
research ability 

Maintain interest in
the research process 

Promote value of
information skills 

Reinforce confidence
in research ability 

Encourage ongoing
confidence in
research ability 
Promote satisfaction
in research accom-
plishments 
Motivate continuing
information exploration 

Related Expectancy/value Expectancy/value Expectancy/value
motivational Need Need Attribution
theories Curiosity Flow Curiosity

Attribution Attribution Social learning
Social learning Social learning 

Cognitive evaluation theory identifies 
two types of rewards: those intended to 
control and those intended to provide 
meaningful information.34 The more con­
trolling the reward (e.g., “Finish this ex­
ercise and you can leave”), the more it de­
creases existing intrinsic motivation. The 
more informational the reward (e.g., “Be­
cause you have worked hard and mas­
tered these research skills, you can use the 
rest of the period to explore additional re­
sources on the Web”), and the closer it is 
tied to the task itself, the more the reward 
increases feelings of competence and self-
determination and enhances existing in­
trinsic motivation. 

Marshall found that when teachers used 
intrinsic motivators (i.e., tied learning suc­
cess to the student’s efforts and abilities), 
there was a higher rate of on-task behavior 
and higher motivation toward the task.35 

Teachers who encourage an extrinsic ori­
entation tend to (1) be more controlling and 
authoritative, (2) present feedback in a con­
trolling (rather than informational) manner, 
and (3) avoid providing students with 
choices in how they learn and study.36 Ex­
trinsic rewards, particularly those unrelated 

to the learning task, can have a detrimental 
effect on intrinsic motivation.37 

Building on the work of Small, Keller, 
and Kuhlthau, Small and Arnone devel­
oped the Motivation Overlay for Informa­
tion Skills Instruction.38,39 (See figure 1.) The 
Motivation Overlay synthesizes existing IL 
models into eight basic IL skills (which 
roughly correspond to the first four ACRL 
standards) over three general time periods. 
Nine motivational goals are associated with 
each time period and related skills. 

Subsequently, Small and Arnone iden­
tified a variety of motivational techniques 
that they suggested formed an educator ’s 
“motivation toolkit,” that is, a set of mo­
tivational interventions for K–12 IL in­
struction that addresses specific motiva­
tional goals and research skills at each of 
the three stages of the research process. 
Research is needed to identify such inter­
ventions for IL instruction at the college 
level that help to reduce the level of anxi­
ety students often experience and to mo­
tivate positive feelings and attitudes dur­
ing the research process. 

This study represents an initial attempt 
to document the types of motivational strat­

http:motivation.37
http:study.36
http:information.34


Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 101 

egies used by community college librarians 
during instruction and to examine their 
impact on students. The Motivation Over­
lay was used as a framework for identify­
ing on which research stages and informa­
tion skills the instruction is focused. 

The Role of Collaboration 
Successful collaboration is based on com­
mon goals, a shared vision, and a climate 
of trust and mutual respect.40 To be moti­
vated to collaborate, all participants must 
see personal value in collaborating and 
believe they have the capability to be suc­
cessful collaborative partners. 

Collaboration between librarians and 
professors is essential to the success of IL 
skills instruction. Students will respond to 
instruction in which their professor’s voice 
and objectives are visible, that is, where 
the instruction is connected to the curricu­
lum and tied to course activities and/or 
assignments.41 Christine Susan Bruce ex­
tended that connection to life experiences 
and professional contexts.42 This requires 
active collaborative planning and delivery 
of instruction by both partners. This study 
documented the level of involvement of 
faculty in IL skills instructional delivery 
in community college libraries. 

The Importance of Technology 
In 1998, Stoffle stated that for effective 
learning to take place in higher education, 
librarians must learn to integrate new 
technologies into the IL instructional pro­
gram, using technology effectively to de­
liver instruction to students.43 Technology 
also has become a vital tool for accessing 
a wide variety of electronic resources; 
thus, technology fluency goes beyond just 
learning how to use a computer to sophis­
ticated searching and evaluation skills. 

Although technology cannot be con­
sidered the total solution to low student 
learning motivation, P. Sallman asserted 
that “carefully used in a well-developed 
unit designed around the needs of stu­
dents, (technology) can provide just what 
the doctor ordered to help motivate stu­
dents and enhance learning for everyone 
involved.”44 Technology may be used to 

deliver the instruction (e.g., PowerPoint 
presentation) and/or used as the content 
focus of the lesson (e.g., searching data­
bases). This research study builds on 
Small’s work and the work of Small and 
Arnone by exploring how and what tech­
nology is used by community college li­
brarians and if and how that technology 
affects student motivation. 

Research Questions 
This study explored the use of motiva­
tional strategies in IL skills instruction by 
community college librarians (CCLs). 
Research questions explored were: 

1. What background knowledge and 
experience influence information literacy 
skills instruction by CCLs? 

2. At the community college level, 
which of the ACRL Information Literacy 
Standards and Motivation Overlay’s re­
search stages and IL skills receive the 
most/least emphasis during information 
literacy skills instruction? 

3. What motivational techniques are 
used by community college librarians 
(CCLs) in their information literacy skills 
instruction, and how do those techniques 
differ from those used by school librarians? 

4. What task engagement and infor­
mation-seeking behaviors are exhibited by 
community college students as a result of 
specific motivational techniques used dur­
ing information literacy skills instruction? 

5. How do students perceive the mo­
tivational quality of their information lit­
eracy skills instruction? 

6. What is the level and extent of com­
munity college faculty participation in 
information literacy skills instruction, and 
how does participation/nonparticipation 
affect student motivation? 

7. In what ways do community col­
lege librarians use technology in informa­
tion literacy instruction, and does the use 
of technology subsequently affect student 
motivation? 

Setting 
“The Community College library that of­
fers a well structured but flexible library 
instructional program provides an aca­

http:students.43
http:contexts.42
http:assignments.41
http:respect.40


102 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

demic learning tool that enhances and sig­
nificantly contributes to student suc­
cess.”45 Community college libraries were 
chosen for study because: 

• Their primary mission focuses on 
the teaching and learning of IL skills.46 For 
example, D. M. Smith has reported that 
her community college library delivers 
approximately two hundred IL work­
shops a year, reaching more than 50 per­
cent of the student body.47 

• Their student body is typically 
more varied and diverse in terms of needs 
and learning styles (e.g., more part-time 
students, more nondegree seekers, larger 
representation of racial and ethnic minori­
ties and students with disabilities).48 

• There is generally greater teacher– 
librarian collaboration, participation in in­
structional planning and delivery, and 
acceptance of librarians as teaching equals 
than at other academic institutions.49 

• There has been greater acceptance 
by community college librarians of the in­
tegral role of information technologies in 
FIL skills instruction than at other higher 
education institutions.50 

Methods 
Investigating the use of motivational tech­
niques and strategies used by community 
college librarians requires repeated obser­
vations over extended periods of time. This 
study involved observations of ten teach­
ing episodes of ten librarians at seven com­
munity college libraries over a one-year 
period. The seven community colleges were 
located in Pennsylvania (1), New York (3), 
Connecticut (1), California (1), and Utah (1). 

A team of seven student observers from 
a graduate program in library and infor­
mation science was recruited and trained 
to conduct observations and pre- and 
postobservation interviews and to record 
and report observation and interview data. 
The lead researcher reviewed each obser­
vation for quality and completeness and 
to ensure consistency across observations. 

To obtain the geographically widest pos­
sible range of sites, the researcher recruited 
graduate students from both the campus-
based and distance graduate student body 

of the researcher’s academic unit to serve 
as observers. This required the develop­
ment and implementation of Web-based 
training for all observers. Using WebCT, a 
flexible, integrated online tool used mostly 
in distance learning, each observer partici­
pated in the data collection training, which 
included (1) general procedures; (2) specific 
directions for conducting preobservation in­
terviews, observations, student interviews, 
and postobservation interviews; (3) ex­
amples of two completed observations to 
serve as models; and (4) all data collection 
forms. (See the appendix.) 

Observers conducted pre- and 
postobservation interviews with each li­
brarian. The preobservation interview pro­
tocol was developed to gather demographic 
data, including information about the col­
lege, the students, the library, and the pro­
fessional preparation and experience of 
each participating librarian (e.g., Describe 
the type and range of students who attend 
your college) and some preliminary infor­
mation about the instructional program 
(e.g., What topic or topics do you teach most 
frequently?). Following completion of each 
observation, the observer conducted a 
postobservation interview with each par­
ticipating librarian that focused on teach­
ing philosophy, attitudes toward technol­
ogy, preferred teaching methods, and col­
laborative instructional planning with fac­
ulty (e.g., What is your general teaching 
philosophy? What are some of your favor­
ite/most frequently used teaching tech­
niques?). A brief interview protocol was 
developed to explore feelings and percep­
tions of one randomly selected student from 
each observed lesson. The questions asked 
students to categorize the lesson in terms 
of interest and confidence building and to 
describe its benefits. For example, one ques­
tion asked, What was the most important 
thing you learned in the instruction you just 
received? 

Each observer was assigned to a single 
community college library in order to track 
performance of the same instructor(s) over 
time. Librarians were selected for partici­
pation in this study on the basis of the fol­
lowing criteria: They had (1) an estab­

http:institutions.50
http:institutions.49
http:disabilities).48
http:skills.46


Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 103 

lished, instructional program in which li­
brary and information skills are regularly 
taught to community college students and 
(2) at least one year of experience teaching 
IL skills in a community college library. 

Before any data were collected, it was 
discovered that many community college 
libraries utilized two or more librarians as 
instructors. This differed from the K–8 li­
brary setting in which, typically, only one 
LMS serves the entire school and teaches 
IL skills to all students. To ensure that there 
are enough observations at each site and 
to avoid data collection that was too dis­
tributed resulting in very few observations 
per librarian instructor, it was decided to 
limit the number of librarians observed at 
any one site to two; therefore, observers at 
three sites had to extend their observations 
and interviews to two librarians. 

Moreover, it was discovered that, un­
like K–8 schools where IL skills lessons 
were conducted regularly each week, most 
of the instruction in community college 
libraries was done at specific times of the 
year (e.g., at the beginning of the year as 
an orientation). Because of this and some 
scheduling issues, the schedule of obser­
vations for some observers had to be ex­
tended over an entire academic year. 

Two coders (information specialist 
practitioners) served as independent rat­
ers for coding observation data. They 
were the same coders who coded obser­
vation data for the 1999 Small study; 
therefore, they were experienced in cod­
ing these particular types of data. Two 
doctoral students in information transfer 
served as research assistants. One per­
formed content analyses on all interview 
data, and the other focused on observa­
tion data only, analyzing the use of tech­
nology, participation of faculty, and on-
and off-task behaviors of students. 

Procedures 
After conducting a preobservation inter­
view with the instructional librarian, each 
observer was directed to observe ten ran­
domly selected UL skills lessons in their 
entirety, looking at a variety of topics and 
classes of students. Due to scheduling 

problems, the time frame for collecting 
data was extended to a full academic year. 

In addition to identifying the subject 
and length of each lesson, the size and 
makeup of the class, and the learning en­
vironment (e.g., library, classroom, com­
puter cluster), observers’ note-taking fo­
cused on the following: the librarian; gen­
eral instructions; the number and type of 
verbal and written interactions; question­
ing and feedback strategies; presentation 
methods; use of technology, media, and 
materials; and nonverbal communication. 
At approximately ten-minute intervals 
during the session, the observer was 
asked to shift focus, recording number, 
type, and level of student on-task (e.g., 
interacting directly with the assigned ac­
tivity, responding to a question) and off-
task (e.g., talking to each other on topics 
unrelated to the instruction, reading un­
related materials) behaviors. When each 
observed lesson had been completed, 
each observer randomly selected one stu­
dent from each lesson to interview. 

After all the data were collected, typed, 
and submitted to the lead researcher, all 
narratives were reviewed and all motiva­
tional strategies were identified and 
coded by two trained independent raters. 
The content of the sixty-nine student in­
terviews was coded and analyzed. Data 
were analyzed using content analysis and 
descriptive statistical methods. 

Results 
Data were collected through observations 
and interviews with librarians and stu­
dents. Ten librarians at seven community 
colleges were observed by seven trained 
observers (two librarian participants were 
observed at three of the sites). A total of sev­
enty observations and student interviews 
were completed; however, data from one 
observation and student interview were lost 
through computer malfunction, making a 
total of sixty-nine observations and student 
interviews available for analysis. 

The lead researcher reviewed all of the 
observation data and extracted all teach­
ing strategies that were then given to the 
two coders. The two coders assessed the 



104 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

overall lesson according to ACRL informa­
tion literacy standards, motivation stages, 
and information skill(s) taught, and coded 
each strategy by ARCS components and 
subcomponents. Each coder initially rated 
the data independently, and then the two 
coders compared ratings. Where differ­
ences occurred, the coders discussed and 
attempted to resolve them. All differences 
were resolved, making interrater reliabil­
ity 1.00. The research assistants analyzed 
the coding results using descriptive statis­
tics and performed content analyses on the 
librarian and student interviews. 

Background Information 
Two of the community colleges in the 
study were located in urban areas, three 
in suburban areas, and two in rural ar­
eas. Student populations ranged from 
small (2,232) to large (25,000), with an 
average of 9,683 students per college. Stu­
dents ranged in age from a recent high 
school graduate to older adults. Classes 
observed included first- and second-year 
students from a wide variety of academic 
disciplines, including English, writing, 
nursing, psychology, modern languages, 
art, education, reading (remedial En­
glish), anthropology, sociology, political 
science, and freshman study skills. Some 
students were enrolled in a certificate pro­
gram, some were pursuing an associate 
degree, and others were just taking 
courses to acquire new knowledge or 
skills as nonmatriculated students. 

The years of professional service as li­
brarians ranged from one year to twelve, 
with an average of five years. This is in 
contrast to the Small study in which the 
years of service for K–8 LMSs ranged 
from three to thirty-three, with an aver­
age of eleven years. This is consistent with 
the large number of school LMSs nearing 
retirement. 

The libraries at the different community 
college research sites offered three to twenty 
classes on information literacy every week, 
with an average of five classes. Among 
these, the number of classes taught by the 
librarian participants ranged from one to 
ten per week, with an average of two 

classes. At some of the community colleges, 
there were specific times during the year 
where several class visits were scheduled 
in a short time period and other times where 
few or no class sessions were scheduled. 
Therefore, some observers completed their 
observations within a few months; others 
took almost a year to complete them. 

Most of the libraries described their 
instructional programs as falling into 
three main categories: 

• bibliographic instruction, where 
presentations range from the use of li­
brary resources to research strategies ap­
propriate to a particular subject area; 

• tailored instruction (classes re­
quested by faculty or individual consul­
tation); 

• introduction to research (e.g., 
gather background information about a 
topic). 

Some of the community colleges also 
offer computing literacy classes where 
students learn Internet basics. When 
asked about the most frequently taught 
topics by themselves, almost all librarians 
mentioned searching the library catalogs, 
databases, electronic journals, and the 
Internet. They cited the focus of these ses­
sions as ways to access these information 
systems, the research process, search 
strategies, and evaluation criteria for in­
formation retrieved. 

Lessons averaged sixty-four minutes in 
length, ranging from twenty-five minutes 
to two hours. The average number of stu­
dents per lesson was sixteen, with students 
per lesson ranging from four to thirty-five. 

Research question #1. What background 
knowledge and experience influence informa­
tion literacy skills instruction by CCLs? 
In pre- and postobservation interviews, 
librarians were asked a number of ques­
tions about their personal teaching phi­
losophy, methods, and backgrounds. 
When asked how and from whom they 
learned to teach, half the librarians (5) 
stated that they held teaching degrees. 
This is contrary to Kilcullen’s statement 
that “(f)ew librarians learn to teach by 
formal coursework”51 The other five 
stated that they learned to teach by watch­



 

 
 

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 105 

ing others (e.g., supervisor, faculty, col­
leagues), reading material on teaching, or 
just doing it over time, which is consis­
tent with the literature.52 

When asked to share their teaching 
philosophy, librarians mentioned establish­
ing a friendly, comfortable environment as the 
most important method for facilitating 
learning in the classroom. Sharing knowl­
edge through a collaborative learning environ­
ment and hands-on teaching also were 
prominently mentioned. Well preparedness 
and enthusiasm of the instructor were cited 
as highly important for stimulating inter­
action and improving student perfor­
mance. When asked about their most fre­
quently used teaching techniques, nine of 
ten liked to demonstrate (e.g., teaching by 
example) and then immediately get students 
to practice the task. Other teaching tech­
niques cited were use of humor, interactivity, 
use of current events, and positive reinforce­
ment techniques (e.g., candy). Most of these 

descriptors are consistent with what stu­
dents cited as strategies used by instruc­
tors that motivate learning.53 Librarians 
believed that these techniques (1) help stu­
dents retain knowledge and skills, (2) 
make the library a comfortable and 
friendly environment (and thus a place to 
do research), (3) promote different ways 
of learning (e.g., visual, hearing, tactile) to 
increase students’ attention span, and (4) 
make the librarian’s job interesting, grati­
fying, and self-motivating. 

All librarians viewed the current value 
placed by the profession on teaching IL 
skills as essential, especially with wide­
spread student use of the Internet and 
subsequent information overload as com­
mon factors they had observed. Some li­
brarians mentioned the need to have a 
required class to keep students actively 
involved; others suggested that these 
skills should be taught at the high school 
level. One librarian mentioned the need 

FIGURE 2

ACRL Standards Addressed in Observed Lessons
 

# 
o

f 
L

es
so

n
s 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 
1 2 3 4 5 

ACRL Standards 

Key:	 1=The information-literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.
2=The information-literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.
3=The information-literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and
incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
4=The information-literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information
effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
5=The information-literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues
surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. 

http:learning.53
http:literature.52


 

 
 

106 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

FIGURE 3

Information Skills Addressed in Observed Lessons
 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

# 
o

f 
L

e
s

s
o

n
s 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Information Skills 

Key: 1=Definition; 2=Selection; 3=Planning; 4=Exploration; 5=Collection; 6=Organization;
7=Presentation; 8=Evaluation 

to get students working on their own to 
acquire such skills. 

When asked what they liked best about 
teaching, the librarians most often cited 
“students,” especially students who are 
motivated and active in the classroom. The 
second best thing mentioned about teach­
ing was sharing knowledge and helping 
students. Some librarians mentioned the 
satisfaction they experienced when they 
linked their instruction to students’ needs 
and felt they were learning right along 
with the students. The aspects of teaching 
librarians least liked were apathetic stu­
dents, time constraints, lack of resources, 
and the politics of higher education. 

Research question #2. At the community 
college level, which of the ACRL Information 
Literacy Standards and Motivation Overlay’s 
research stages and information literacy skills 
receive the most/least emphasis during infor­
mation literacy skills instruction? 
A total of sixty-nine lesson observations 
were analyzed for this study. Each lesson 
was assessed in terms of which of the nine 
motivational goals from the Motivation 
Overlay for Information Skills Instruction 
were addressed. 

Coders categorized each lesson in 
terms of the five ACRL IL standards. (See 
figure 2.) The most commonly addressed 
standard was the second standard (The 
information-literate student accesses 
needed information effectively and effi­
ciently). Analysis also revealed that the 
fourth standard (The information-literate 
student, individually or as a member of a 
group, uses information effectively to ac­
complish a specific purpose) and the fifth 
standard (The information literate-stu­
dent understands many of the economic, 
legal, and social issues) were seldom ad­
dressed. 

The observed lessons were analyzed to 
determine which of the eight IL skills 
from the Motivation Overlay for Informa­
tion Literacy Skills Instruction were ad­
dressed. (See figure 3.) Results indicate 
that most lessons focused mainly on plan­
ning and exploration skills, and only a 
few addressed presentation and evalua­
tion skills. Grouping information skills by 
research stage indicates that 54 percent of 
the lessons focused on the “beginning” 
stage, 45 percent targeted the “during” 
stage (particularly the earlier phases), and 



 

 

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 107 

only one percent addressed the “ending” 
stage of the research process. (See figure 
4.) 

Research question #3. What motivational 
techniques are used by community college li­
brarians (CCLs) in their information literacy 
skills instruction, and how do they differ from 
those used by school librarians? 
A total of sixty-nine lesson observations 
were completed in this study as compared 
to eighty-four lesson observations in the 
earlier Small study. From the sixty-nine 
narratives, a total of 1,423 ARCS strate­
gies were extracted. (See figure 5.) 

A comparison of the results of this 
study with the Small study revealed con­
sistent patterns across ARCS components. 
(See table 1.) Attention strategies com­
prised more than one half (754, or 53%) 
of all strategies used by both groups. The 
amount of relevance (341, or 24%) and 
confidence (278, or 20%) strategies was 
approximately even. The fewest strategies 
used were satisfaction strategies (50, or 
4%). In addition, it was found that CCLs 
used proportionately fewer overall moti­
vational strategies and incorporated more 
relevance and confidence strategies and 
fewer attention and satisfaction strategies 
per site than the K–8 LMSs. However, the 
general number of strategies (most for 

FIGURE 4
Research Stages Addressed in

Observed Lessons 

1 
54% 

2 
45% 

3 
1% 

Key: 1=Beginning stage; 2=During stage;
3=Ending stage 

attention, least for satisfaction, relevance 
and confidence about the same) was the 
same for both settings. 

An analysis by site found the total 
number of motivational strategies used 
ranged from 99 to 292. (See table 2.) The 
mean number of strategies ranged from 
9.9 at site 7 to 29.2 at site 4. The average 
overall number of strategies per lesson 
was 22.2. Librarians at sites 5 and 7 incor­
porated the fewest number of motiva-

FIGURE S

Overall Distribution of ARCS Strategies by Category (n = 1,423)
 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

# 
S

tr
at

eg
ie

s 

A R C S 

ARCS Components 



108 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

TABLE 1

Comparison of CCL and LMS Use of Motivational Strategies
 

ARCS Strategy Type CCL Mean (n = 7) LMS Mean (n = 8)
Attention 754 (53%) 108 1,136 (56%) 142
Relevance 341 (24%) 49 331 (16%) 41
Confidence 278 (20%) 40 299 (15%) 37
Satisfaction 50 (4%) 7 260 (13%) 33 
Total 1,423 (101%)* 204 2,026 (100%) 253 
* Does not equal 100% due to rounding error 

tional strategies into their lessons; the li­
brarian at site 4 incorporated the most. 

A further breakdown of ARCS strate­
gies by site indicates that the percentage 
of strategies used was relatively consis­
tent across sites, with the most strategies 
being attention strategies, the least num­
ber of strategies being satisfaction strate­
gies, and relevance and confidence strat­
egies about even. (See table 3.) This is con­
sistent with the Small study. 

A closer look at the subcomponents of 
the attention strategy in table 4 reveals that 
slightly less than half of the strategies used 
were categorized as perceptual arousal (e.g., 
novelty, humor, enthusiasm, emphasizing 
important information). The remainder of 
the attention strategies were split almost 
evenly between inquiry arousal (e.g., prob­
lem solving, questioning) and variability 
(e.g., variety of media, student grouping, 
teaching methods). The emphasis on per­
ceptual arousal strategies is consistent with 
what CCLs described as their teaching phi­
losophy and favorite methods in the pre-
and postobservation interviews. 

In contrast, in the 1999 Small study, 
inquiry arousal strategies (mostly ques­
tioning) accounted for 51 percent of the 
attention strategy.54 Variability was about 
the same for both studies. 

Table 5 indicates the breakdown by 
ARCS subcomponent for each of the seven 
community college sites. It appears that the 
only subcomponents addressed to any 
high degree consistently across sites are 
relevance—goal orientation (R-GO) (e.g., 
role models, link to future goal) and confi­
dence—success opportunities (C-SO) (e.g., 

practice opportunities, summaries). It 
should be noted that analysis revealed 
very few relevance—motive matching (R­
MM) (e.g., matching examples to student 
interests) and confidence—learning re­
quirements (C-LR) (e.g., specifying learn­
ing expectations). Few or no confidence— 
personal control (C-PC) (e.g., joint setting 
of learning goals), satisfaction—natural 
consequences (S-NC) (e.g., opportunities 
to apply newly learned knowledge), and 
satisfaction—equity (S-E) (e.g., consistency 
of learning goals and lesson content) were 
addressed by CCLs. The most frequently 
addressed subcomponents were atten­
tion—perceptual arousal (A-PA) cited 348 
times, confidence—success opportunities 
(C-SO) cited 242 times, attention—inquiry 
arousal (A-IA) cited 220 times, and rel­
evance—goal orientation (R-GO) cited 208 
times. 

The fifty satisfaction strategies were 
categorized into two types of motivators: 

TABLE 2

Use of Motivation Strategies by Site
 

Mean per
Site # of Strategies Lesson 
Site 1 167 16.5
Site 2 230 25.6
Site 3 259 25.9
Site 4 292 29.2
Site 5 115 11.5 
Site 6 261 26.1
Site 7 99 9.9 
Total 1,423 22.2 

http:strategy.54


C 

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 109 

TABLE 3

Overall Distribution of AReS for Each Site
 

Site/
Strategy Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Total 

A 83 (50%) 130 (57%) 143 (55%) 160 (54%) 56 (49%) 139 (53%) 43 (44%) 754 
R 36 (22%) 59 (26%) 53 (21%) 84 (29%) 26 (23%) 61 (24%) 22 (22%) 341 

45 (27%) 29 (12%) 52 (20%) 47 (16%) 24 (21%) 57 (22%) 24 (25%) 278 
S 3 (1%) 12 (5%) 11 (4%) 1 (0.3%) 9 (8%) 4 (1.5%) 10 (10%) 50 
Total 167 230 259 292 115 261 99 1,423 

intrinsic and extrinsic. An analysis of in­
trinsic motivators (those that tie learning 
success to effort and ability) and extrinsic 
motivators (rewards and punishments not 
connected directly to learning) was per­
formed. An example of an intrinsic moti­
vator from the data is, Most of you are 
savvy Internet users so you know when it 
turns to a hand that it’s a link you can click 
on. An example of an extrinsic motivator 
is, I’ll wait for you to look at me. 

Results indicate that CCLs use more 
intrinsic motivators (28, or 56%) than ex­
trinsic motivators (22, or 44%). In contrast, 
the LMSs used only four (2%) intrinsic 
motivators compared to 256 (98%) extrin­
sic motivators with K–8 students. (See 
table 6.) It is reasonable that more extrin­
sic motivators would be required when 
teaching young children than when 
teaching adults. It is interesting that al­
most one half of all motivators used by 
CCLs were extrinsic in nature. 

An additional analysis of the twenty-
two extrinsic motivators showed that 91 
percent (20) were informational in nature 
(e.g., That’s right. In the catalog, you use 
subject headings to broaden the number 

of hits) as compared to 9 percent (2) con­
trolling (e.g., (to professor) We’re having 
a problem paying attention, so it’s good 
you’re back; (to students) Maybe you’ll 
pay more attention with your professor 
here). This result is almost identical to the 
earlier study. (See table 7.) 

Research question #4. What task en­
gagement and information-seeking be­
haviors are exhibited by community col­
lege students as a result of specific moti­
vational techniques used during informa­
tion literacy skills instruction. 

A total of 997 on- and off-task behav­
iors was recorded by the observers over 
the sixty-nine lessons. (See table 8.) Most 
of those (653, or 65%) were on-task behav­
iors, but more than a third (343, or 35%) 
were off-task behaviors. Examples of re­
corded off-task behaviors include students 
playing games on a cell phone, reading a 
magazine, and talking among themselves. 

During one lesson at site 5, students 
asked the librarian to speak louder be­
cause they could not hear her. She re­
sponded that she could not and that they 
should move closer. Most did not move 
and, probably because they could not hear 

TABLE 4

Number of Overall Strategies for Each Attention


Subcomponent for eeL and LMS
 
Subcomponents of Attention # Strategies by CCL # Strategies by LMS 
A - IA (Inquiry Arousal) 
A - pA (perceptual Arousal) 
A - V (Variability) 

220 (29%) 
350 (46%) 
186 (25%) 

581 (51%) 
287 (25%) 
268 (24%) 

Total 756 1,136 



  
   

   
 

  
  

   
 

    
 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

 

   
  

 
  

  
 

   
  

  
   

 
 

  
   
   
   
  
   
   

   
  

    
   
  
   
   
   
 

   
  

  
    
   
  

   
    
   
   
  
   
   
   
  
 

   
    
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
    
    
   
   
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
    
   
    

  
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
    
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
  
    
   
   
  
  
   
    
   
   
   
   
  

   
    
    
  
   
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
    
    
  
  
   

   
 

   
 

   
 

   
 

   
 

   
 

   
�

   
 

  
  

  
   

 
  

   
 

  
   

 
 �

   
 

  
   

 
  

   
 

  
   

 

E 
��

 \
 

i9 
9.=

 9o
= o

 �
U 

Uo
e 

o=
 = 

=�
 =

.IU
oe

 o
= =

 
o  

9 

110 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

   
 

  
   

  
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
   

 
o

 
 

  
 

 
  
 

 
 N

 
 

  
 

 
  

  N
  

  
 

 
  
  

OO
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

V
 
 

 
 

 O 
 

 
 
 

  
 

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

   
  

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
 

 
   

 
 

  
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 7 

 
 

 
 

  
  

  
 

 
  

 
 

  
 

 
  

   
  

  
 

 
  

   
 

  
 

 
  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
   

 
O

O
 
 

 
O

O
O

O
   

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

   
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
   

  t
 

 
   

 
 

   
 

 
   

 
 

   
 

 
   

 
 

  
 

 
  

    
  

 
  
  
  

 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

task behaviors in the 
Small study. In that 
study, overusing a par­
ticular motivation strat­
egy, such as asking 
multiple questions in a 
row or giving too many 
of the same kinds of ex­
ample, was a cause of 
students’ off-task be­
haviors. 

In general, the sites 
with the fewest off-
tasks behaviors seemed 
to be ones where the 
librarian(s) interacted 
frequently with the stu­
dents during the ses­
sion, where students 
had a hands-on assign­
ment during the lesson, 
and where there were 
enough computers to 
accommodate all the 
students. 

An analysis by site 
revealed that six of the 
seven sites had a 
higher proportion of 
on-task than off-task 
behaviors. One of 
those, site 4, was al­
most evenly split be­
tween on- and off-task 
behaviors. At site 4, 
the librarian was good 
at using examples and 
injecting humor from 
time to time. How­
ever, throughout all 
ten sessions, students 
appeared restless, 

what she was saying, many decided to bored, and inattentive. The librarian ap­
do other things rather than pay attention peared to be trying to review too many 
to the lesson. resources, interacting more with the com-

Many of the off-task behaviors across all puter than with the students. The librar­
sites seemed to occur when the librarian ian also was observed to be teaching at a 
performed repeated Web searches. The re- fast pace. At one point, the librarian had 
sults were that students became bored and to tell the professor that the class was not 
restless and, in some cases, literally fell paying attention and the professor 
asleep. This appears to correspond to one warned the student that they would be 
of the teacher behaviors that triggered off- graded for the class. 



 

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 111 

TABLE 6

Components of Satisfaction Strategies
 

Satisfaction Strategies Total CCL Total LMS 
Intrinsic Motivators 28 (56%) 4 (2%)
 
Extrinsic Motivators 22 (44%) 256 (98%)
 
Total 50 (3.5%) 260 (13%) 

Site 1 was the only site that recorded a 
higher number of off-task behaviors (108, 
or 58%) than on-task behaviors (79, or 
42%). Off-task behaviors ranged from rest­
lessness to whispering and laughing to 
getting up and going to the water foun­
tain. The observer’s notes also described 
the following off-task behaviors that oc­
curred when the librarian was either 
speaking or waiting for a slow connection: 

A cell phone belonging to a student 
sitting at the back of the room starts 
to ring. The student gets up and 
leaves the room to answer the call. 

A pager goes off. The student re­
trieves it from his pack and reads 
the message before putting it back. 

A female student pulls a small mir­
ror and lipstick from her bag and 
carefully applies the lipstick.

 In one of the lessons at site 1, the pro­
fessor let the students leave before the 
class was over. It was also observed that, 
during some of the classes at site 1, many 
students did not seem to be paying atten­
tion, even though their professor was 
present. 

A further analysis of the observations 
of site 1 revealed that 23 percent (25) of 
the off-task behaviors occurred during 
one lesson (lesson #7). A closer look at 
lesson #7 revealed that although the li­
brarian seemed to interact well with the 
students (e.g., used a few jokes along his 
lesson and asked questions), he ignored 
it when students talked loudly off-topic. 
The librarian also never reminded the stu­
dents not to surf the Web during the class, 
which several did. A number of other off-

task behaviors also were re­
corded during this one lesson, 
including applying lipstick, 
talking about “dates,” tapping 
pencils on the desks, getting up 
and leaving the room before 
the lesson was finished, com­
ing into class late, coughing, 
yawning, and stretching. 

Research question #5. How do students 
perceive the motivational quality of their in­
formation literacy skills instruction? 
One student was randomly selected fol­
lowing each observed lesson to respond 
to a brief interview protocol. (See appen­
dix.) The interviews were designed to 
collect students’ impressions of the in­
struction just received. A total of sixty-
nine interviews were conducted. 

Students first were asked to rate the les­
son in which they had just participated on 
a Likert-type scale from “very interesting” 
to “very boring.” A majority of students 
(44, or 64%) rated their lesson either 
“somewhat interesting” or “very interest­
ing,” and only about 10 percent (7) rated it 
“somewhat or very boring.” Eighteen stu­
dents (26%) said the lesson was “some­
times interesting, sometimes boring.” 

When asked how confident they felt 
about their ability to apply what they 
learned, 65 percent (45) of students felt 
“very confident,” compared to 32 percent 
who felt “somewhat confident.” Only two 
students (3%) were “not very confident” 
or “not at all confident.” It should be men­
tioned that some of the students who felt 
very confident indicated that they had 
been already exposed to the material cov­
ered and thus felt “very bored” with the 
lesson. 

TABLE 7
Extrinsic Motivators 

Extrinsic Total Total 
For CCL For LMS 

Contnolling 2 (9%) 26 (10%) 
Infonnational 20 (91%) 230 (90%) 
Total 22 (44%) 256 (99%) 



112 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

Students were asked to cite the TABLE 8
most important knowledge or Distribution of On- and Off-task
skill they had gained from the Behaviors for Each Site
instruction just received. Re­
sponses were categorized by Site # Observations On-task Off-task 
broad information skill. (See table Behaviors Behaviors 
9.) Site 1More than half the skills cited Site 2as most important by students Site 3were exploration skills (e.g., find- Site 4ing information within sources, Site 5keyword searching, how to search Site 6
different online resources) (50, or Site 7
53%), followed by selection skills Total (16, or 17%). 

Students were asked about 
ways they planned to use what they had 
just learned. Sixty students (87%) said 
they would use their new knowledge or 
skills for academic purposes for complet­
ing current assignments and/or for future 
research in other classes. Nine students 
(13%) mentioned that the skills just 
learned would be used for personal use 
(e.g., helping others finding material, for 
fun, and job searching). 

Research question #6. What is the level and 
extent of community college faculty partici­
pation in information literacy skills instruc­
tion, and how does participation/ 
nonparticipation affect student motivation? 
When asked about collaboration with fac­
ulty to teach IL skills, seven out of ten li­
brarians (70%) indicated that they collabo­
rated; three did not because of lack of 
interest from the faculty and time con­
straints. Those who collaborated stated that 
they tailored the instruction according to 
the faculty’s needs. Most described their 
instruction as “bibliographic instruction.” 

The participating librarians empha­
sized the important role that their library 
administration and reference staff play in 
providing support to deliver instruction. 
This was evidenced through facilities and 
time provision. The heads of departments 
and some faculty also were mentioned as 
important sources of support. 

An analysis of the observation data 
revealed that all seven sites had examples 
of teacher presence during the lessons 
observed. The smallest number of faculty 

10 79 (42%) 108 (58%) 
9 66 (175%) 22 (25%) 

10 54 (91%) 6 (9%) 
10 73 (51%) 69 (49%) 
10 65 (73%) 24 (27%) 
10 87 (57%) 66 (43%) 
10 229 (83%) 48 (17%) 
69 653 (65%) 343 (35%) 

participations was observed at sites 5 and 
7. Interestingly, these two sites also had 
the lowest number of motivational in­
structional strategies used by librarians. 

Only site 1 reported faculty presence 
in all ten lessons; however, site 1 also was 
the site with the highest rate of off-task 
behaviors (58%). An analysis of faculty 
activities during site 1 lessons revealed a 
wide range of behaviors. (See figure 6.) A 
range of behaviors was observed, from 
helping individual students to constantly 
asking questions to interrupting the li­
brarian to helping distribute handouts. 

Some of these behaviors (e.g., a disap­
proving look, interrupting, classifying a 
subgroup as the “good group, using “leav­
ing class early” as a reward) might be con­
sidered negative reinforcements. These 
types of behaviors probably contributed 
to at least some of the disruptive, off-task 
behaviors exhibited by students and the 
loss of class control by the librarian dur­
ing the observed lessons at this site. 

Research question #7. In what ways do 
community college librarians use technology 
in information literacy instruction, and does 
the use of technology subsequently affect stu­
dent motivation? 
Technology plays a major role in IL skills 
instruction at the community college 
level. Of the sixty-nine lessons observed, 
only one did not incorporate technology 
at all. A variety of technologies were in­
cluded in the lessons as either tools to de­
liver content or the focus of the lesson, 



            

Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 113 

TABLE 9

Most Important Knowledge/Skills Learned Cited by Students
 

Skills Frequency  % 
Definition

• Steps in the overall research process
Selection

• Awareness of library resources 
• Deternine the range of possible sources

Planning
Exploration

• Locate sources (intellectually and physically)
• Find information within diverse sources
• Remote access
• Keyword searching skills
• How to search different resources

Collection
• Extract infornation fron sources
• Evaluate infornation and/or sources

Organization
Presentation

• Citation guidelines
Evaluation
Other (e.g., how to operate a computer) 

6 
14
2
o 
13
6
3
18
1o 
2
7
o 
4
o
9 

6 

17
o 

53 

1o
o 
4
o
1o 

such as lessons about the online library 
catalog, online databases, electronic jour­
nals, and Internet search engines. 

Three of the sites were observed to use 
PowerPoint to present their lessons. In fact, 
the librarian at site 4 used PowerPoint as a 
presentation tool for all ten lessons. It also 
should be noted that the librarian at site 4 
had the highest number of motivational 
strategies incorporated into instruction. 
Site 7 was the only site at which the librar­
ian used Microsoft Word as an instruc­
tional technology. 

A wide range of databases was taught. 
Those databases most frequently docu­
mented in the observations were EBSCO, 
ProQuest, Expanded Academic ASAP, 
Infotrac, CQ Researcher, SIRS, and Lexis-
Nexus. The library catalog also was in­
cluded in at least one lesson at every site. 
Google was the most frequently taught 
search engine. 

Although librarians used a wide vari­
ety of technologies as the content focus 
of most lessons, the technologies were 
taught almost exclusively as resources, a 

reminder of lessons from years past that 
“taught” the dictionary or the encyclope­
dia to students rather than situating it as 
a tool for use in the larger information 
problem-solving process. Similarly, most 
observed lessons focused on location and 
access skills (e.g., demonstrating how to 
access various databases and Web sites 
and how to find information within 
them), while a few targeted ways to (1) 
define the assignment or learning task; (2) 
determine the best resources for complet­
ing that assignment or achieving that task; 
(3) extract, synthesize, and organize in­
formation for presentation; and/or (4) 
evaluate resources and their content. 

Discussion 
The purpose of this study was to identify 
the motivational strategies used by com­
munity college librarians in information 
skills instruction. Data analyses have re­
vealed several interesting results that 
merit additional discussion. 

1. It appears that, more than ever be­
fore, community college librarians are 



114 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

FIGURE 6

Faculty Participation Behaviors in Site 1 Lessons
 

Lesson #1
 Teacher actively asking questions to the librarian during the lesson.

 Teacher helped students one-on-one.

 Teacher gave a disapproving look to two students who were laughing during the lesson.
 
Lesson #2
 Teacher walked around the class during the lesson.

 Teacher constantly asked questions.

 Teacher discussed with students one-on-one during the class. Their discussion was


quite loud when the librarian was not talking. 
Lesson #3
 Teacher constantly asked questions during the lesson. 
Lesson #4:
 Teacher interrupted the librarian and asked the librarian to focus to specific examples.

 Teacher asked questions during class.

 Teacher gave some instructions to her students in the middle of the instructions.

 Teacher saw a student needed help and immediately called the librarian.
 
Lesson #5
 Teacher asked opinion from the librarian.
 Teacher gave compliment to the librarian.
 Teacher actively helped the students.
 Teacher gave encouraging words to the students. 
Lesson #6
 Teacher interrupted the class and pointed to a related reading for the class.

 Teacher helped student one on one.

 Teacher helped to control the chaotic class.
 
Lesson #7
 Teacher told the librarian to give sophisticated stuff to the students whom she

referred as a "good group."
 Teacher helped to pass around handouts.
 Teacher helped student one-on-one. 
Lesson #8
 Teacher asked the librarian to talk about a specific topic.

 Teacher let the students leave early if they'd found everything for their papers.
 
Lesson #9
 At the beginning of the class, the teacher apologized to the students because they need

to share the computer. The teacher also said if they are done early, they can leave the
class (so other students can use the computer to search for their research topic). 

Lesson #10
 Teacher helped students one-on-one.

 The teacher told the students that they can leave when they are done.
 



Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 115 

more likely to have some type of formal 
teacher training in their background. They 
also have fewer years of on-the-job expe­
rience than their school library counter­
parts. They value their role as instructors 
and appreciate motivated students. They 
also find themselves with fewer resources 
and less support than they need. When 
asked to provide a wish list for support of 
instructional programs, the librarians in 
this study mentioned the following: 

• having an additional staff member; 
• collaborating with all librarians; 
• improving facilities by watching 

the number of computers in lab; 
• having additional training; 
• having additional time by being 

freed from other duties; 
• being recognized for their roles, 

especially by the faculty; 
• improving computer support ser­

vices; 
• recognizing IL skills as “Library 101.” 
2. Use of the library for instructional 

purposes appears to be greater at specific 
times of the year. These times seem to 
coincide with the “beginning” stage of the 
research process, when faculty bring their 
students to the library for orientation to 
the library and its resources and to learn 
to use the databases. This results in em­
phasis on early-stage research skills, fo­
cusing on location and access skills with 
little or no time devoted to follow-up with 
late “during-“ and “ending”-stage skills, 
such as organization, presentation, and 
evaluation skills. This finding is further 
reinforced by the large number of atten­
tion (both perceptual arousal and inquiry 
arousal) strategies used by librarians in 
their instruction and the almost nonex­
istent use of satisfaction strategies. 

3. All librarians used a variety of mo­
tivational strategies in their instruction. 
However, the range of use among the li­
brarians was almost 3 to 1, with the librar­
ian at site 7 using an average of 9.9 strate­
gies per lesson and the librarian at site 4 
using an average of 29.2 strategies per les­
son. The number of strategies did not ap­
pear to be a factor in the motivation of stu­
dents because site 7 had the highest per­

centage of on-task behaviors of all the sites 
(and the lowest amount of faculty partici­
pation) and site 4 had almost as many off-
task as on-task behaviors (it was also the 
site where PowerPoint was used for ev­
ery class session). Site 7 also appears to 
have had a slightly more balanced ap­
proach to incorporating all of the ARCS 
components into the instruction. 

4. A closer look at the use of ARCS 
subcomponents across sites found a seri­
ous lack of relevance—motive matching, 
relevance—familiarity, confidence—per­
sonal control, satisfaction—natural con­
sequences strategies, satisfaction—posi­
tive consequences, and satisfaction—eq­
uity strategies used. Community college 
librarians need to be aware of the impor­
tance of incorporating strategies across all 
ARCS components into their instruction. 

5. The overwhelming use of technol­
ogy in sixty-eight of sixty-nine lessons 
indicates the vital role technology plays 
in teaching and learning in higher edu­
cation. However, the repetitious nature of 
the majority of lessons (focusing on data­
base searching) is potentially a source of 
boredom for students. Although students 
appear to value learning search strategies 
and using technology, the overemphasis 
on searching, without situating the search 
within a relevant problem-solving context 
and providing students with enough 
practice with feedback, may result in low­
ered student motivation. 

A comparison of the results of this 
study with the Small study of K–8 librar­
ians indicates a number of differences, 
some predictable and some surprising. 
Most CCL lessons focused on technology, 
specifically databases, whereas most LMS 
lessons were broader in scope, teaching 
students basic information problem-solv­
ing skills for a variety of applications. This 
is reasonable because younger children 
need to be taught a foundation of research 
skills with broad application.

 The difference in number of years of 
service also was somewhat expected. The 
number of school LMSs nearing or at re­
tirement is a major concern for the pro­
fession. CCLs who are newer to service 



116 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

are more likely to have a better technol­
ogy and teaching background. The heavy 
emphasis on database and other informa­
tion technologies in almost all CCL les­
sons is evidence of this, as well as the need 
for more complex and sophisticated in­
formation-seeking skills among older stu­
dents. This also may account for the ma­
jority of perceptual arousal strategies, 
using technology to gain and maintain 
community college students’ attention. 

CCLs used fewer strategies per site than 
LMSs did. This may be due to a perceived 
need for more motivational strategies to 
maintain young children’s attention and 
interest. This is consistent with the fact that 
LMSs used mostly inquiry arousal strate­
gies and more extrinsic strategies to keep 
young students involved and active. 

Finally, both groups experienced off-
task student behaviors as the result of an 
overuse/repetition of certain strategies, 
which may have caused learning bore­
dom (for the LMS, too many questions; 
for the CCL, too many database searches). 
Related to this, off-task behaviors by com­
munity college students also may have 
been the result of too little instructor–stu­
dent and student–student interactivity. 

Future Research 
The results of this study have yielded rich, 
descriptive data that offer an initial 
“glimpse” into a relatively unexplored 
area of research —the motivational as­
pects of library and information skills in­
struction. This research provides aca­
demic librarians (particularly those 
working in community college libraries), 
who are challenged to find exciting ways 
to present IL instruction to students, with 
insights into a range of effective teaching 
methods that increase student motivation 
and awareness of methods that seem to 
decrease student motivation. 

This exploratory study offers a glimpse 
into the community college library instruc­
tional setting. The findings provide a foun­
dation for designing future research stud­
ies to test specific motivational interven­
tions that compare changes in student at­
titudes and learning outcomes. For ex­

ample, although it appears that some strat­
egies (such as more frequent interaction 
between librarian and students and more 
hands-on practice) will result in higher stu­
dent motivation and that reviewing too 
many resources, interacting more with the 
computer than with the students, teach­
ing at a fast pace, and using negative rein­
forcement (e.g., warning students that 
their behavior will affect their grade) ap­
pear to negatively affect student motiva­
tion, it is not clear under what circum­
stances and with which students these 
strategies seem to have more impact 

The results of this research “snapshot” 
identify a number of areas in need of fur­
ther exploration and investigation. For ex­
ample, although clearly two-thirds of stu­
dents interviewed described their lessons 
as motivating, future research needs to 
look more closely at student attitudes and 
behaviors to determine specific strategies 
that students find motivating and de-mo­
tivating. 

In addition, it is important to collect 
data that reveal whether students will 
have the broad range of basic IL skills that 
are needed to be successful in their assign­
ments and projects when they reach col­
lege level. If students lack some or all of 
these skills, it is necessary to focus on the 
entire research process rather than on ex­
ploration and collection skills. 

Furthermore, we need to look behind the 
scenes at faculty participation. For example, 
what interactions lead up to and follow the 
lesson delivery? Perhaps a survey of fac­
ulty whose students participated in this 
study would have revealed some interest­
ing perceptions of the collaborative process 
and the importance of IL skills instruction. 

It also would be interesting to deter­
mine what happens to students after the 
instruction is over. Is there follow-up in 
the classroom? How successful are stu­
dents’ completed research assignments 
and projects? What skills and knowledge 
do they still lack? 

Future research on the motivational as­
pects of IL skills instruction may include 
the following: a large-scale replication of 
this study; follow-up exploration of cer­



Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 117 

tain findings; replication of this study in 
high school and in four-year college and 
university library settings; and experi­
ments in which community college librar­
ians are trained to incorporate and deliver 
specific motivational strategies into their 
IL skills instruction. The effective use of 

motivational strategies in IL skills instruc­
tion helps to develop students’ curiosity, 
intrinsic motivation, information-seeking 
behaviors, and a lifelong love of learning. 
It is hoped that this initial research study 
will stimulate future research in this area 
by both researchers and practitioners. 

Notes 

1. American Library Association, American Library Association Presidential Committee on In­
formation Literacy: Final Report. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology ED315074 (Chi­
cago: ALA, 1989), 1. 

2. Loanne Snavely and Natasha A. Cooper, “The Information Literacy Debate,” Journal of 
Academic Librarianship 23 (Jan. 1997): 9–14. 

3. Michele Mednick, Information Literacy: The New Challenge, ERIC Clearinghouse on Infor­
mation Technology ED464692. 2002. 

4. Abby Kasowitz-Scheer and Michael Pasqualoni, “Information Literacy Instruction in 
Higher Education: Trends and Issues,” ERIC Digest (June 2002): 1. 

5. Mednick, Information Literacy. 
6. Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Sacramento, Library Faculty in Cali­

fornia Community College Libraries: Qualifications, Roles, & Responsibilities, ERIC Clearinghouse on 
Information Technology ED395630, 1996. 

7. Charles Hayes, Curriculum Design/Instruction in Library Research Skills, ERIC Clearinghouse 
on Information Technology ED456851, 2001. 

8. Maureen Kilcullen, “Teaching Librarians to Teach: Recommendations on What We Need 
to Know,” Reference Services Review (summer 1998): 7–18. 

9. Carla J. Stoffle, “Literacy 101 for the Digital Age,” American Libraries 29 (Dec. 1998): 48. 
10. Mednick, Information Literacy. 
11. Ruth V. Small, et al., “Motivational Aspects of Library and Information Skills Instruction: 

The Role of the Library Media Specialist,” in Instructional Interventions for Information Use, ed. 
D.Callison, J. McGreggor, and R. Small (San Jose, Calif.: Hi Willow Research and Publishing, 1998). 

12. Patricia Senn Breivik, Student Learning in the Information Age (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1998). 
13. Kasowitz-Scheer and Pasqualoni, “Information Literacy Instruction in Higher Education.” 
14. ALA, American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. 
15. Profeta and Kendrick, 2002; Hayes, Curriculum Design/Instruction in Library Research Skills. 
16. Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Library Faculty in California Commu­

nity College Libraries, 2. 
17. Ibid., 3. 
18. Association of College & Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for 

Higher Education: Standards, Performance Indicators and Outcomes, January 18, 2000. Available online 
from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilstandardlo.html. 

19. Burdick, T.A. (1996, Fall). “Success and diversity in information seeking: Gender and the 
information search styles model.” School Library Media Quarterly, 19–26. 

20. Kilcullen, “Teaching Libraries to Teach,” 9. 
21. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Competency Standards for Higher Edu­

cation,” Teacher–Librarian 28, no. 3 (Feb. 2001): 16–22. 
22. Ruth V. Small, B. M. Dodge, and X. Jiang, “Dimensions of Interest and Boredom in In­

structional Situations,” in Proceedings of Annual Conference of Association for Educational Communi­
cations and Technology, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1996. 

23. For example, Newby, T.J. (1991). “Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-year teachers.” 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 195–200; and Small, “An Exploratory Study of Motiva­
tional Strategies in Library and Information Skills Instruction,” January 1999. Available online 
from School Library Media Research at http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/index.html. 

24. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Information Search Process: A Summary of Research and Implica­
tions for School Library Media Programs,” School Library Media Quarterly 18 (fall 1989): 19–25; 
———, “Implementing a Process Approach to Information Skills: A Study Identifying Indicators 
of Success in Library Media Programs,” School Library Media Quarterly 22 (fall 1993): 11–18. 

25. ———, “Implementing a Process Approach to Information Skills,” 13. 
26. John M. Keller, “The Systematic Process of Motivational Design,” Performance and Instruc­

tion 26 (Nov./Dec. 1987): 1–8; Jere Brophy, “Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating 

http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/index.html
http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilstandardlo.html


118 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

Students to Learn,” Educational Leadership 45 (Oct. 1987): 40–48. 
27. Small, Dodge, and Jiang, “Dimensions of Interest and Boredom in Instructional Situations.” 
28. Small, “An Exploratory Study of Motivational Strategies in Library and Information Skills 

Instruction.” 
29. Keller, J.M. (1983). “Motivational design of instruction.” In C.M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instruc­

tional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 
383–434. 

30. For example, Newby, 1991. 
31. Ruth V. Small and Marilyn P. Arnone, Turning Kids On to Research: The Power of Motivation 

(Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 2000); Small, R.V. (1997, Dec.). “Designing motiva­
tion into library and information skills instruction.” School Library Media Research (formerly School 
Library Media Quarterly-Electronic)(first issue, lead article). Available online at http:www.ala.org/ 
aasl/SLMQ/slmq_toc.html. 

32. For example, Rotter, J.B., 1996. “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external con­
trol of reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs 80:000–00.; deCharms, R., 1968. Personal Causa­
tion. San Diego: Academic Press; Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York, Plenum. 

33. For example, Brophy, “Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating Students to 
Learn”; Butler, R. 1988. “Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-
involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance.” British Journal of Educa­
tion Psychology 58:1–14; Lepper, M.R. (1988). “Motivational considerations in the study of in­
struction.” Cognition and Instruction. 5, 289–309; Gottfried, A.E. 1985. “Academic intrinsic moti­
vation in elementary and junior high school students.” Journal of Education Psychology 37:631–45. 

34. Deci, 1975; Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in 
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. 

35. Marshall, H.H. (1987). “Motivational strategies of three fifth-grade teachers.” The Elemen­
tary School Journal, 88(2), 135–150. 

36. Deci and Ryan, 1985. 
37. Lepper, M.R., Greene, D., and Nisbett, E.R. (1973). “Undermining children’s intrinsic in­

terest with extrinsic reward: a test of the overjustification of hypothesis. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 28, 129–137; Lepper, 1988. 

38. For example, Small, “An Exploratory Study of Motivational Strategies in Library and In­
formation Skills Instruction”; Keller, 1983; Kuhlthau, “Implementing a Process Approach to In­
formation Skills.” 

39. Small and Arnone, Turning Kids On to Research. 
40. Karen Muronaga and Violet Harada, “The Art of Collaboration,” Teacher–Librarian 27, no. 

1 (Oct. 1999): 9–14. 
41. Neal Baker and Steve McKinzie, “Librarians and Faculty in Tandem: Taking Our Cue 

from the Evening News,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 37 (fall 1997): 19. 
42. Christine Susan Bruce, The Seven Faces of Information Literacy (Adelaide, Australia: Auslib 

Press, 1997). 
43. Stoffle, “Literacy 101 for the Digital Age.” 
44. P. Sallman, “Rx for Success: Technology as a Motivational Tool to Enhance Learning,” 

Media Horizons: Journal of the Missouri Association of School Librarians 13 (spring 1997): 20. 
45. D. M. Smith, “Embracing Information Literacy in a Learning Community” (unpublished 

manuscript). 
46. Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Sacramento, Information Competency 

in the California Community Colleges, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology ED421191, 
1998; Katherine A. Branch and Debra L. Gilchrist, “Library Instruction and Information Literacy 
in Community and Technical Colleges,” RQ 35 (summer 1996): 476–83. 

47. Smith, “Embracing Information Literacy in a Learning Community.” 
48. Ebo Otuya and Alice Mitchell, Today’s College Students: Varied Characteristics by Sector, ERIC 

Clearinghouse on Information Technology ED382087, 1994. 
49. Carla Higgins and Mary Jane Cedar Face, “Integrating Information Literacy Skills,” Refer­

ence Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 17–31; Branch and Gilchrist, “Library Instruction and 
Information Literacy in Community and Technical Colleges.” 

50. Branch and Gilchrist, “Library Instruction and Information Literacy in Community and 
Technical Colleges.” 

51. Kilcullen, “Teaching Librarians to Teach,” 7. 
52. Ibid., 7–18. 
53. Small, Dodge, and Jiang, “Dimensions of Interest and Boredom in Instructional Situations.” 
54. Small, “An Exploratory Study of Motivational Strategies in Library and Information Skills 

Instruction.” 

http:http:www.ala.org


Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 119 

APPENDIX
Data Collection Forms 

Librarian Interview Preobservation Protocol 

What is the approximate enrollment at your college? __________ 

What best describes the geographic location of your college?
� urban � suburban � rural
 
Describe the type and range of students who attend your college.
 

Describe your library’s total instructional program for students.
 

How many years have you been an academic librarian? __________
 

How many years have you been an academic librarian at this college? __________
 

Approximately how many classes (on average) come to the library for information
 
literacy instruction per week? __________
 

Of those, how many do you (personally) teach? __________
 

What is the topic or topics you most frequently teach?
 

What are your feelings about the increasing emphasis on teaching information and 
technology literacy skills instruction at the college level? 

What do you like best about teaching? 

What do you like least about teaching? 

What technology(ies) do you most often teach students to use? 

What technology(ies) do you most often use to teach students? 

Thank you. 



120 College & Research Libraries March 2004 

Observation Form 

Observer’s Name: ____________________________________ Site #: ____________
 

Date: _____________________________________________________________________
 

Lesson Starting Time _________________ Ending Time _________________________
 

Lesson Title: ______________________________________________________________
 

Information Skill(s): _______________________________________________________
 

# of students __________
 

Level of students: � 1st year � 2nd year � other (please specify) __________
 
Place of lesson � library � classroom � other (please specify) __________
 
Description of teaching setting:
 

Librarian Behaviors Student Behaviors 

Student Interview Protocol 

1. What was the most important thing you learned in the instruction you just received? 

2. How would you describe this lesson?
� very interesting 
� somewhat interesting 
� sometimes interesting, sometimes boring 
� somewhat boring
� very boring 
3. In what way(s) will you use what you have learned from this lesson? 

4. How confident do you feel that you can apply what you have learned from this lesson?
� very confident
� somewhat confident
� not very confident
� not at all confident 



Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction 121 

Librarian Postobservation Interview Protocol 

What is your general teaching philosophy? 

Where, how, from whom did you learn to teach? 

What are some of your favorite/most frequently used teaching techniques? 

Why do you prefer these techniques? 

Do you ever collaborate with faculty to teach information skills lessons? ________ 
If yes, describe one instance. If no, why not? 

What support do you receive to deliver this instruction and from whom? 

What additional support do you wish you had in your efforts to deliver information 
literacy instruction and from whom? 

Do you have any additional comments or questions about any topic covered or about 
this research study? 

Thank you.