Kwon.indd Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety: Affective Domains on the Space of Information Seeking and Use in Academic Libraries Nahyun Kwon, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Linda Alexander Because both critical thinking and library anxiety have been found to play an important role in determining learning outcomes, it is possible that these two constructs are related in some way. To date, however, this link has not been empirically examined. In the present study, we have attempted to identify the nature of the association between critical thinking disposition and library anxiety among 170 graduate students. Findings revealed a negative multivariate relationship between these two sets of affective variables. Specifically, weak dispositions toward critical thinking were associated with high levels of library anxiety. Implications of the findings were discussed with respect to the approach to teaching information literacy in academic libraries. frequently reported ten- dency among students using academic libraries is their fear, confusion, or feeling of inadequacy in using the library. These tendencies, known as library anxiety, represent an affective barrier for students that was first identified formally nearly 20 years ago.1 As librarians have become more aware of these inadequate feelings, there have been efforts to identify causes and effects of library anxiety. As a result, library anxiety has been found to be as- sociated with many factors, including students’ demographic characteristics such as academic standing, race, gender, age, personality, and behavioral traits as- sociated with perfectionism, self-percep- tion, procrastination, study habits, and academic-related achievements.2 Besides these known factors, it is also conceivable that certain thinking disposi- tions or tendencies can cause significant fear and inadequacy when students use Nahyun Kwon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information Science, College of Arts & Sciences, at the University of South Florida; e-mail: nkwon@cas.usf.edu. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie is a Professor in the Department of Educational Measurement & Research, College of Education, at the Uni- versity of South Florida; e-mail: TonyOnwuegbuzie@aol.com. Linda Alexander is an Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information Science, College of Arts & Sciences, at the University of South Florida; e-mail: lalelxand@cas.usf.edu. Correspondence should be addressed to Nahyun Kwon, School of Library and Information Science, College of Arts and Science, University of South Florida, CIS 1040, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, 33620-7800, Phone: (813-974-6846), Fax: (813-974-6840), or e-mail: (nkwon@cas.usf.edu) 268 mailto:nkwon@cas.usf.edu mailto:lalelxand@cas.usf.edu mailto:TonyOnwuegbuzie@aol.com mailto:nkwon@cas.usf.edu Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety 269 the library resources and facilities.3 For example, some students who want to be be er informed ask the library staff for more information when they encounter problems. However, other students are less interested in obtaining more information because they are afraid of asking questions.4-6 Some students are more self-confident in their own abilities to think through problems to find what they want in the library, but others lack such confidence.7,8 When facing a task to find information in a large academic library system, some students are more open to various possible solutions and try them out, whereas others lack such flexibility and feel lost encountering the seemingly complicated library system. Some students approach the library in a more organized manner by applying analytic thinking skills to make sense of the huge information system, but other students are disorganized.9 These differ- ences in information-seeking behaviors could be a ributed to students’ thinking disposition, specifically disposition to- ward critical thinking.10 The disposition toward critical think- ing is defined as “the consistent internal motivation to use critical thinking skills to decide what to believe and what to do when one approaches problems, ideas, decisions, or issues.”11 Considering the fact that human behaviors are largely governed by what people believe and perceive,12 students’ negative a itudes and mistrust about their own thinking abilities and skills could cause illogical fear and inadequacy in a library where they are supposed to be engaged in intellectual ac- tivities. This situation would be even more severe when they encounter a seemingly complex academic library. Researchers have found that anxiety can impede cog- nitive processes that are essential to their research activities in the library.13 Because both critical thinking14 and li- brary anxiety15 have been found to play an important role in the learning process, it is possible that these two constructs are re- lated in some way. However, to date, this link has not been empirically examined. An investigation of this viable link can be particularly important among gradu- ate students for whom critical thinking skills and dispositions are paramount. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the nature of the association between critical thinking disposition and library anxiety among graduate students. It was hoped that the findings of the study would inform academic librarians of the importance of teaching critical thinking disposition in their information literacy curricula in lowering library anxiety and enhancing library use capability. Literature Review Critical Thinking Dispositions Critical thinking has been investigated largely in terms of thinking skills that involve the cognitive domain. However, Edward Glaser pointed out that critical thinking is, in part, the “a itude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come with- in the range of one’s experiences.”16 This viewpoint was elaborated in a two-year Delphi study, sponsored by the American Philosophical Association, in which 46 ex- perts from many disciplines participated to develop consensus views on critical thinking.17 Here, an ideal critical thinker was characterized as follows: An ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to recon- sider, clear about issues, orderly in complex ma ers, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. A notable outcome of this Delphi study was that critical thinking involves not http:thinking.17 http:library.13 http:thinking.10 270 College & Research Libraries May 2007 only cognitive skills, which most people generally relate to critical thinking, but also affective dispositions. While criti- cal thinking skills relate to a certain set of cognitive skills that involve analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, in- terpretation, and self-regulation, critical thinking dispositions relate to consistent willingness, motivation, inclination, and intention to use such critical thinking skills.18 In fact, many theorists and scholars have delved into the concept of thinking dispositions.19-22 Thinking dispositions generally refer to tendencies toward certain pa erns of intellectual behaviors that are consistent or habitually observed in certain circumstances. According to Gavriel Salomon,23 thinking disposition is a cluster of preferences, a itudes, and intentions, in addition to a set of capabili- ties, that allows the preferences to become realized in a particular way. These dispo- sitions are thought to be critical spirit, a probing inquisitiveness, and a keenness of mind that weak critical thinkers gener- ally lack.24 Among various aspects of disposi- tions, a person can be either positively or negatively disposed toward certain thinking skills but not toward all disposi- tions equally. For example, one might be positively disposed toward using a sys- tematic approach but not much so toward self-confidence in his or her own thinking and reasoning abilities. Moreover, critical thinking is contended to be contextual and domain-specific, while certain as- pects of critical thinking are generic.25-29 This indicates that there are specific methods and techniques that good critical thinkers utilize to make reasonable judg- ments about what to believe and how to respond in a particular context. Thus, it would be of interest for the librarians who teach information literacy skills in both formal and informal se ings to identify those dispositions toward critical think- ing skills that are particularly associated with students having high levels of library anxiety. Library Anxiety Library anxiety, a term originally coined by Constance Mellon,30 refers to recurring fear and the feeling of being lost among students who use an academic library for their research. This fear, which is experi- enced by 75% to 85% of college students,31 is a ributed to the lack of competence when students feel that other students are competent at library use whereas they alone are incompetent. This feeling is perceived to be shameful; therefore, they tend not to ask questions in order not to reveal their ignorance or incom- petence. Students also feel confusion because they are not sure about where items are located in the academic library building—a place that these students believe represents a maze piled up with an overwhelming amount of resources. Thus, students often express feelings of being lost without knowing how to begin and what to do. Anxious students can easily fail to approach the problem logically or effectively. Library Anxiety and Critical Thinking Disposition Regarding emotion and beliefs with the affective domain of human psychology, library anxiety could be attributed to students mistrusting their own abilities and failing to apply a systematic ap- proach to find the answer. This feeling of incompetence resembles the tendency among students who do not have posi- tive dispositions toward critical thinking skills. Thus, it is possible that students with negative dispositions toward their own thinking skills would have high anxi- ety levels when they approach and use the library. This is because the negative dispositions could interfere with critical thinking skills that command systematic, analytic thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making capabilities while using the library.32 In support of this proposed relation- ship between library anxiety and critical thinking disposition, empirical findings from both sets of literatures suggest a http:library.32 http:skills.18 Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety 271 negative association between critical thinking and anxiety. Indeed, critical thinking disposition and library anxiety are associated with cognitive performance and academic-related achievements in an opposite direction. Specifically, whereas critical thinking disposition is positively related to performance in academic-re- lated activities,33 library anxiety is nega- tively associated with academic-related achievements, such as research proposal writing,34,35 grade point average,36 and performance in research methodology courses.37,38 Moreover, Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Qun Jiao, and Sharon Bostick suggested that library anxiety hinders information search performance by impeding stu- dents’ ability to receive, to concentrate on, and to encode information necessary for the research proposal writing pro- cess.39 They explained this phenomenon by speculating that library anxiety may create cognitive interference by causing the students to shi from task-relevant to task-irrelevant thoughts. This explanation suggests that library anxiety, possibly caused by negative thinking disposition, could, in turn, lower academic achieve- ment by hampering the intention to utilize systematic and analytical thinking skills. Although the literature reviewed here generally suggests a possible negative relationship between library anxiety and critical thinking disposi- tion, to date, no study has examined this association empirically. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the nature of the association between critical thinking disposition and library anxiety among students using academic libraries. Specifically, this present study a empted to identify further a combina- tion of critical thinking dispositions that might be correlated with a combination of library anxiety dimensions. It was hoped that the findings from this study would add to the body of literature in both the areas of library anxiety and critical thinking. Method Participants Participants were 170 graduate students enrolled in the College of Education at two universities in the southeast United States. All sample members were asked to participate while enrolled in a research methodology course. To participate in the investigation, students were required to sign an informed consent document that was given during the first class session of the semester. To participate in the inquiry, students received three percentage points that formed part of their final course grade averages. No student declined to participate. The majority of the par- ticipants was female (76.5%). Ages of the participants ranged from 22 to 62 years (M = 31.26, SD = 8.81). Instruments Participants were administered the Cali- fornia Critical Thinking Disposition Inven- tory (CCTDI) and Library Anxiety Scale (LAS). The CCTDI was developed by Peter Facione and Noreen Facione to measure a person’s disposition to use critical think- ing.40 This instrument contains 75 items, which are measured using a six-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 = agree strongly and 6 = disagree strongly. The CCTDI measures the following seven di- mensions of critical thinking dispositions: truth-seeking (12 items), open-minded- ness (12 items), analyticity (11 items), systematicity (11 items), critical thinking self-confidence (9 items), inquisitiveness (10 items), and maturity (10 items). Truth- seeking represents the disposition of being keen to seek the truth, audacious about asking questions, and honest and objective about seeking inquiry even if the findings do not support one’s preference or one’s preconceived opinions. Open-mindedness refers to the disposition of being open- minded and tolerant of divergent opinions and being sensitive to the possibility of one’s own bias. Analyticity represents the disposition of being cognizant of poten- tially problematic situations, anticipating possible findings or consequences, and 272 College & Research Libraries May 2007 valuing the application of reason and the use of evidence even if the underlying problem emerges as being difficult or challenging. Systematicity is the disposi- tion toward organized, logical, focused, and attentive inquiry. Critical Thinking Self-confidence refers to the level of self- assurance one has regarding one’s own reasoning processes. Further, individuals who possess critical thinking self-confi- dence are very comfortable with their own levels of cognitive ability. Inquisitiveness represents one’s intellectual curiosity. The inquisitive person is one who values being well-informed, wants to know how things work, and values learning even if there are no immediate rewards. Finally, maturity denotes how disposed a person is to make reflective decisions. A person who is mature in critical thinking under- stands that some problems might be ill- structured and that there can be multiple ways to solve a given problem. For the current inquiry, the subscales generated scores for the sample that had a classical theory alpha reliability coefficient of .61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = .52, .69) for truth-seeking, .64 (95% CI = .55, .72) for open-mindedness, .71 (95% CI = .64, .77) for analyticity, .70 (95% CI = .63, .76) for systematicity, .79 (95% CI = .74, .83) for critical thinking self-confidence, .75 (95% CI = .69, .80) for inquisitiveness, and .71 (95% CI = .64, .77) for maturity. The LAS was developed by Sharon Bo- stick.41 This measure contains forty-three 5-point Likert-format items that assess levels of library anxiety experienced by users. The LAS contains the following five subscales or dimensions: (a) barriers with staff; (b) affective barriers; (c) comfort with the library; (d) knowledge of the library; and (e) mechanical barriers. Barriers with staff refer to users’ perceptions and beliefs that librarians are threatening, frighten- ing, unapproachable, and inaccessible. Further, librarians are perceived as being too busy to provide students with help in conducting library tasks—that is, they assume that librarians have duties that are much more important than helping them.42 Affective barriers pertain to users’ feelings of inadequacy while performing or a empting to perform library tasks. These feelings of ineptness are exacer- bated by the assumption that other library users are more proficient than they are in using the library.43 Comfort with the library denotes how comfortable, welcoming, secure, safe, and non-threatening users perceive the library to be. Knowledge of the library pertains to the degree to which students believe they are familiar with the library. Finally, mechanical barriers refer to anxieties that stem from using mechanical library equipment, including comput- ers, computer printers, and photocopy machines. A high score on any subscale represents high levels of anxiety in that area. For the present study, the subscales generated scores for the sample that had a classical theory alpha reliability coeffi- cient of .90 (95% confidence interval [CI] = .88, .92) for barriers with staff, .85 (95% CI = .81, .88) for affective barriers, .72 (95% CI = .65, .78) for comfort with the library, .74 (95% CI = .67, .80) for knowledge of the library, and .53 (95% CI = .39, .64) for mechanical barriers. The dimensions of both CCTDI and LAS and their reliability scores are recapitulated in Table 1. Data Analysis The major analytical procedure used in this study involved canonical correlation analysis. This multivariate analysis is uti- lized to examine the association between two sets of measures when each set con- tains two or more variables or subscales.44- 49 The canonical correlation analysis was utilized to identify a combination of critical thinking dispositions dimensions that might predict a combination of li- brary anxiety dimensions. The number of canonical functions (i.e., factors) that can be generated for a given dataset is equal to the number of variables in the smaller of the two variable sets.50 Because seven critical thinking dispositions dimensions were correlated with five library anxiety dimensions, five canonical functions were generated. http:subscales.44 http:library.43 http:stick.41 Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety 273 Results The means and standard deviations pertaining to the critical thinking disposi- tion and the library anxiety subscales are presented in Table 2. According to the developers of the CCTDI,51 individuals who score below 40 on a given scale are weak with respect to that critical think- ing dispositional component, whereas individuals who score above 50 on a given scale are strong with respect to that critical thinking dispositional component. The proportion of graduate students who scored below 40 on each critical TABLE 1 Dimensions of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Library Anxiety with Score Reliabilities Dimensions Definitions Reliabilities (α) CCTDI 7 Dimensions Truth-seeking Keen to seek the truth, audacious about asking .61 questions, and honest and objective in asking questions Open-mindedness Open-minded and tolerant of divergent opinions .64 and aware of one’s own bias Analyticity Cognizant of the potential for problematic situ- .71 ations, values reason and the use of evidence when facing challenging situations Systematicity Disposition toward organized, logical, focused, .70 and attentive inquiry Critical Thinking Self-assured regarding one’s own reasoning .79 Self-confidence processes, very comfortable with own level of cognitive ability Inquisitiveness Intellectually curious, values being well-in- .75 formed and knowing how things work, values learning even without immediate rewards Maturity Understands some problems to be ill-structured, .71 therefore multiple ways to solve any given problem LAS 5 Dimensions Barriers with Staff Believes that librarians are threatening, unap- .90 proachable, inaccessible, too busy with duties to help students Affective Barriers Feels inadequate or inept in attempting library .85 tasks, which are exacerbated by assuming that other people are more proficient Comfort with the Perceives the library as a comfortable, welcom- .72 Library ing, secure, safe, and nonthreatening place Knowledge of the Degree to which students believe they are famil- .74 Library iar with the library Mechanical Barriers Discomfort stemming from using library .53 equipment, including computers, printers, and photocopiers 274 College & Research Libraries May 2007 thinking dispositional dimen- sion for the present study versus a normative sample of graduate students reported by the CCTDI developers52 was, respectively, as follows: truth-seeking (57.5% vs. 26%), open-mindedness (31.8% vs. 9%), analyticity (21.6% vs. 15%), systematicity (27.2% vs. 26%), criti- cal thinking self-confidence (19.9% vs. 6%), inquisitiveness (21.5% vs. 1%), and maturity (30.3% vs. 12%). As can be seen, for each of the seven scales, the present sample had a higher proportion of students who were classified weak than did the normative sample, indicating that the sample was characterized by lower-than-average levels of critical thinking dispositions. The canonical analysis revealed that the five canonical correla- tions when combined were statistically significant (p < .05). However, when the first canonical root was excluded, the remaining canonical root was statistically nonsignificant. Together, these results sug- gested that the first canonical function was both statistically significant and practically significant, with the first canonical corre- lation (Rc1 = .43) contributing 18.03% (i.e., 2) to the shared variance.53 However, the Rc1 remaining canonical correlations were not significant. Consequently, only the first canonical correlation was interpreted. Data pertaining to the first canonical root are presented in Table 3. This table provides both standardized function coef- ficients and structure coefficients. Using a cutoff correlation of 0.3,54 an examination of the standardized canonical function coefficients revealed that inquisitive- ness, systematicity, and critical thinking self-confidence made important contribu- tions to the critical thinking disposition composite, with critical thinking self- confidence playing the biggest role. With respect to the library anxiety variable set, affective barriers and knowledge of the library made important contributions, with affective barriers making a substan- TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for All Outcome Measures Measure M SD Truth-seeking 37.26 6.24 Open-mindedness 42.75 6.54 Analyticity 43.74 6.72 Systematicity 43.35 7.01 Critical thinking self-confidence 44.91 7.58 Inquisitiveness 45.19 7.46 Maturity 42.58 7.84 Barriers with staff 29.92 9.54 Affective barriers 23.46 7.13 Comfort with the library 16.99 4.51 Knowledge of the library 7.35 2.79 Mechanical barriers 9.93 2.88 tial contribution to the library anxiety composite. The structure coefficients pertaining to the first canonical function revealed that all seven critical thinking disposition dimensions made important contribu- tions to the set of critical thinking dis- position variables, with critical thinking self-confidence agency again playing the biggest role. The square of the structure coefficient indicated that critical thinking self-confidence explained 85.01% of the variance, respectively. With regard to the library anxiety variable cluster, again, four of the five dimensions, namely, bar- riers with staff, affective barriers, comfort with the library, and knowledge of the library made important contributions, with affective barriers (i.e., 69.39% of the variance explained) and knowledge of the library (i.e., 51.98% of the variance ex- plained) making the largest contributions to the set of library anxiety variables. Discussion This study examined the relationship between critical thinking disposition and library anxiety among graduate students. As predicted, a multivariate relationship was found between these two sets of http:variance.53 Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety 275 constructs. This association was negative, indicating that weak dispositions toward critical thinking are associated with high levels of library anxiety. Indeed, the find- ings of the present study showed that cer- tain dispositions toward critical thinking are particularly associated with students with high library anxiety especially in the areas of affective barriers and knowledge of the library. These dispositions are criti- cal thinking self-confidence, inquisitive- ness, and systematicity. Critical Thinking Self-confidence The finding that graduate students with low levels of critical thinking self-confi- dence tend to report the highest levels of library anxiety is consistent with the results of Qun Jiao and Anthony On- wuegbuzie,55 who found a relationship between self-perception and library anxiety. Moreover, the present finding is consistent with Mellon’s observation that students with high levels of library anxiety tend to believe that their peers are adept at using the library, whereas they alone are inadequate, that their incompe- tence is a source of guilt and shame and consequently should be kept hidden, and that asking librarians questions reveals their ignorance.56 Students with low self- competence of their abilities to use the li- brary tend to exhibit actions and inactions that culminate in underachievement.57 Thus, interventions aimed at developing students’ levels of critical thinking self- confidence from both reference librarians and information literacy instructors might help to reduce levels of library anxiety, which, in turn, might increase levels of academic achievement. Inquisitiveness The finding that graduate students with highest levels of inquisitiveness tend to report the lowest levels of library anxiety TABLE 3 Canonical Solution for First Function: Relationship Between Critical Thinking Dispositions and Library Anxiety Dimension Scores Variable Standardized Structure Structure Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient2 (%) Critical Thinking Disposition Dimension: Truth-seeking –0.048 0.436* 19.01 Open-mindedness 0.089 0.571* 32.60 Analyticity –0.186 0.679* 46.10 Systematicity 0.315* 0.751* 56.40 Critical thinking self-confidence 0.633* 0.922* 85.01 Inquisitiveness 0.315* 0.846* 71.57 Maturity 0.020 0.493* 24.30 Library Anxiety Dimension: Barriers with staff 0.192 –0.424* 17.98 Affective barriers –0.986* –0.833* 69.39 Comfort with the library 0.197 –0.476* 22.66 Knowledge of the library –0.571* –0.721* 51.98 Mechanical barriers 0.289 –0.199 3.96 * Coefficients with effect sizes larger than .359. http:underachievement.57 http:ignorance.56 276 College & Research Libraries May 2007 has intuitive appeal because it suggests that students who value being well-in- formed, want to know how things work, are not afraid of asking questions to seek help, and are motivated to expand their knowledge do not have high levels of anxiety. However, it is not clear what the causal nature of this relationship is. For example, it is possible that initial lower levels of library anxiety induce more inquisitiveness as they perceive that the climate for doing so is a positive one. Conversely, it is also possible that initial high levels of inquisitiveness lead to a re- duction in levels of library anxiety. Thus, future research should investigate further the causal nature of this relationship. To the extent that levels of inquisitiveness determine, at least in part, levels of library anxiety, librarians’ formal and informal instruction of information literacy skills that stimulates students’ intellectual curi- osity and encourages information-seeking and exploration behaviors might help them to overcome their affective barriers to use the library and its resources. Systematicity That students who are less disposed toward organized, logical, focused, and a entive inquiry (i.e., systematicity) tend to have higher levels of library anxiety is not an unanticipated finding. Students o en face tasks to use a complex library service system in which various resources and services are arranged in different locations and different modes. If they are motivated to approach such tasks by ap- plying systematic thinking skills to make sense of the unfamiliar library system, they seem to be less overwhelmed by the experience. Conclusion The present study purported to identify the nature of the association between critical thinking dispositions and library anxiety among graduate students. Reveal- ing a negative multivariate relationship between the two, the findings suggest that teaching critical thinking disposi- tion could reduce library anxiety levels. Because this study is a cross-sectional investigation, the direction of the influ- ence between these two sets of affective variables should be scrutinized further in the future research. Nonetheless, the findings of the present study provide several implications for critical thinking and information literacy education. First of all, the findings of the pres- ent study shed light on critical thinking disposition, a rather overlooked aspect of critical thinking. By documenting that students with weak critical thinking dis- positions tend to have high library anxiety levels, the study draws the a ention of reference and instructional librarians to the dispositions as an essential compo- nent of teaching critical thinking. Reference and instructional librar- ians should develop effective teaching strategies to equip students with positive dispositions toward critical thinking. In fact, critical thinking disposition could be effectively taught within the framework of existing conceptual models of informa- tion seeking, such as Carol Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) model.58 The ISP model, for example, illustrates information users’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral developments over time during the entire information search and library research process. Using this model, librarians could teach students that most library users experience the cognitive uncertainty and emotional ups and downs during their research process. Librarians could also encourage students to approach library and information systems with positive a itudes and with confidence in their own critical think- ing abilities, motivate students to apply systematic thinking skills, and stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity in the con- text of information seeking and use. By incorporating these critical thinking dis- positions as an important learning com- ponent, academic librarians could help to dissipate students’ feeling of uncertainty and confusion that are encountered dur- ing their library use process. http:model.58 Critical Thinking Disposition and Library Anxiety 277 Nonetheless, our findings and above claims cannot be generalized to under- graduate students because the present study was conducted to graduate stu- dents only. Among graduate students, we found that weak critical thinking dis- positions in the areas of self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and systematicity were particularly associated with high levels of library anxiety. It would be interest- ing to learn if the same pa ern could be observed among undergraduate students. If not, what would be different sets of dis- positions that are associated with library anxiety among the undergraduates? This question can be answered by replicating this study with undergraduate students for whom diverse information literacy education programs are offered by aca- demic libraries. Notes 1. Constance A. Mellon, “Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and its Development,” College & Research Libraries 47 (1986): 161–65. 2. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Qun G. Jiao, and Sharon L. Bostick, Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Applications, Research Methods in Library and Information Studies, no. 1 (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, 2004). 3. Peter A. Facione, Noreen C. Facione, and Carol A. Giancarlo, “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill,” Informal Logic 20, no. 1 (2000): 61–84. 4. Stuart A. Karabenick and John R. Knapp, “Help Seeking and Need for Academic Assis- tance,” Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (1988): 406–08. 5. Mellon, “Library Anxiety.” 6. Constance A. Mellon, “A itudes: The Forgo en Dimension in Library Instruction,” Library Journal 113 (Sept. 1, 1988): 137–39. 7. _______, “Library Anxiety.” 8. _______, “A itudes.” 9. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User’s Per- spective,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (1991): 361–71. 10. Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo, “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking.” 11. Ibid. 12. Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, Belief, A itude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975). 13. Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, and Bostick, Library Anxiety. 14. Peter A. Facione, Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, CCTDI Test Manual (Millbrae, Calif.: California Academic Press, 1998). 15. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Qun G. Jiao, “Information Search Performance and Research Achievement: An Empirical Test of the Anxiety-Expectation Mediation Model of Library Anxiety,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55 (2004): 41–54. 16. Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking (New York: J. J. Li le and Ives Company, 1941), 5–6. 17. Peter A. Facione, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Education Assessment and Instruction, Executive Summary, “The Delphi Report” (Millbrae, Calif.: California Academic Press, 1990). 18. Ibid. 19. Robert H. Ennis, “Critical Thinking Disposition: Their Nature and Assessability,” Informal Logic 18, no. 2–3 (1996): 165–82. 20. Peter A. Facione, Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Sanchez, “Critical Thinking Disposition as a Measure of Competent Clinical Judgment: The Development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory,” Journal of Nursing Education 33 (1994): 345–50. 21. Stephen Norris and Robert H. Ennis, Evaluating Critical Thinking (Pacific Grove, Calif.: Midwest Publications, 1989). 22. Gavriel Salomon, “To Be or Not to Be (Mindful)” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, La., Apr. 4–8, 1994). 23. Ibid. 24. Facione, Critical Thinking. 25. Ennis, “Critical Thinking Disposition.” 278 College & Research Libraries May 2007 26. Facione, Critical Thinking. 27. John T. Guthrie, Solomon Alao, and Jennifer M. Rinehart, “Engagement in Reading for Young Adolescents,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 40 (1997): 438–46. 28. John Halliday, “Critical Thinking and the Academic Vocational Divide,” Curriculum Journal 11 (2000): 159–75. 29. Norris and Ennis, Evaluating Critical Thinking. 30. Mellon, “Library Anxiety.” 31. Ibid. 32. Diane Nahl, “Affective Load,” in Theories of Information Behavior, eds. K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, and L.E.F. McKechnie (Medford, N.J.: Information Today, 2005), 39–43. 33. Facione, Facione, and Sanchez, “Critical Thinking Disposition.” 34. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Writing a Research Proposal: The Role of Library Anxiety, Statistics Anxiety, and Composition Anxiety.” Library and Information Science Research 19, no. 1 (1997): 5–33. 35. Onwuegbuzie and Jiao, “Information Search Performance and Research Achievement.” 36. Qun G. Jiao, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Art Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety: Character- istics of ‘At-Risk’ College Students,” Library and Information Science Research 18 (1996): 151–63. 37. Onwuegbuzie, “Writing a Research Proposal.” 38. Onwuegbuzie and Jiao, “Information Search Performance and Research Achievement.” 39. Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, and Bostick, Library Anxiety. 40. Paul A. Facione and Noreen C. Facione, The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (Millbrae, Calif.: California Academic Press, 1992). 41. Sharon L. Bostick, “The Development and Validation of the Library Anxiety Scale” (Ph.D. diss., Wayne State University, 1992). 42. Jiao, Onwuegbuzie, and Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety.” 43. Mellon, “Library Anxiety.” 44. Norman Cliff and David J. Krus, “Interpretation of Canonical Analyses: Rotated versus Unrotated Solutions,” Psychometrica 41, no. 1 (1976): 35–42. 45. Richard B. Darlington, Sharon L. Weinberg, and Herbert J. Walberg, “Canonical Variate Analysis and Related Techniques,” Review of Educational Research 42 (1973): 131–43. 46. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Larry G. Daniel, “Typology of Analytical and Interpretational Errors in Quantitative and Qualitative Educational Research,” Current Issues in Education 6, no. 2 (2003) [journal online]. Available online from h p://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number2/. [Accessed 16 October 2005]. 47. Bruce Thompson, “Canonical Correlation: Recent Extensions for Modeling Educational Processes” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As- sociation, Boston, Mass., Apr. 7–11, 1980). 48. Bruce Thompson, Canonical Correlation Analysis: Uses and Interpretations (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1984). 49. Bruce Thompson, “Canonical Correlation Analysis: An Explanation with Comments on Correct Practice” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., Apr. 5–9, 1988) (ERIC, ED 295957). 50. Ibid. 51. Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo, The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. 52. Ibid. 53. Jacob Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Wiley, 1988). 54. Zarrel V. Lambert and Richard M. Durand, “Some Precautions in Using Canonical Analy- sis,” Journal of Market Research 12 (1975): 468–75. 55. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Self-Perception and Library Anxiety: An Empirical Study,” Library Review 48 (1999):140–47. 56. Mellon, “Library Anxiety.” 57. Qun and Onwuegbuzie, “Self-Perception and Library Anxiety.” 58. Carol C. Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). 59. Lambert and Durand, “Some Precautions in Using Canonical Analysis.”