Information Literacy as a Strand of Research Literacy: Challenges and Competence among Graduate Students in English Language Teaching Programs

Abstract

In an era defined by immediate access to vast amounts of information, the capacity to effectively locate, evaluate, and apply credible sources has become an essential competency for academic success. Given its critical role in scholarly work, this study examines how graduate students in an English Language Teaching program comprehend and apply information literacy as novice researchers. Adopting Wilson’s (1999) framework on Human Information Behavior, this study primarily aimed to elucidate three key areas: (1) challenges in accessing and evaluating sources, (2) the role of structured guidance in developing information literacy, and (3) student strategies for overcoming barriers. A basic qualitative research design was employed, with data collected through semi-structured interviews. The analysis involved the transcription and systematic coding of the data through inductive thematic analysis. The findings revealed that graduate students perceive themselves as lacking in several critical domains of information literacy and that they developed certain strategies to overcome the difficulties they encountered. Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for more structured and standardized training programs to address these deficiencies effectively.

Keywords

• information literacy
• research literacy
• novice researchers
• challenges in research

References

1. ACRL (1989), American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report, ALA, Chicago, Ill.
2. American College Personnel Association. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.(2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience.
3. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21St century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD education working papers, no. 41. OECD Publishing (NJ1).
4. Austin, Z., & Sutton, J. (2014). Qualitative research: Getting started. The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 67(6), 436.
5. Barber, J. P., & Walczak, K. K. (2009). Conscience and critic: Peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA (pp. 13-17).
6. Beall, J. (2016). Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/534326a
7. Beaudry, J. S., & Miller, L. (2016). Research literacy: A primer for understanding and using research. Guilford Publications.
8. Berutu, N., Delita, F., Astuti, A. J. D., Novira, N., & Wirda, M. A. (2019, May). The Strategy to Strengthen Information Literacy Based on Library and Digital Resources. In 1st International Conference on Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies (ICSSIS 2018) (pp. 144-147). Atlantis Press.

9. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
11. Chen, C.-C., Wang, N.-C., Tang, K.-Y., & Tu, Y.-F. (2022). Research issues of the top 100 cited articles on information literacy in higher education published from 2011 to 2020: A systematic review and co-citation network analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34–52.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
14. Eriksen, T. M., & Brevik, L. M. (2023). Developing a “research literacy way of thinking” in initial teacher education: Students as co-researchers. In The Palgrave handbook of teacher education research (pp. 231-256). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
15. Groß-Ophoff J., Wolf R., Schladitz S., Wirtz M. (2017). Assessment of educational research literacy in higher education: Construct validation of the factorial structure of an assessment instrument comparing different treatments of omitted responses. Journal for Educational Research Online, 9(2), 37–68.
16. Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Springer.
17. Kazancı Tınmaz, A., & Sezgin, F. (2023). Development of the Research Literacy Scale for Teachers. SAGE Open, 13(4), 21582440231199033.
18. Keeling, R. P., & Dungy, G. J. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. ACPA, NASPA.
19. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
21. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
23. Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
24. Sandelowski, M. (2004). Using qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 14(10), 1366-1386.
25. Scott, C. L. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What Kind of Pedagogies for the 21st Century? UNESCO Education research and foresight, ERF Working paper series.
26. Senthur Selvi, K., & Ganesan, P. (2022). Exploring the university research scholars’ information literacy competency: A focus on the knowledge and skills. Information Discovery and Delivery, 50(4), 365–373.
27. Shenton, A. K. (2009). Information Literacy and Scholarly Investigation: A British perspective. IFLA Journal, 35(3), 226–231.
28. Society of College, National and University Libraries (1999). Information skills in higher education: A SCONUL Position Paper, available at: https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf
29. Solomon, A., Wilson, G. and Taylor, T. (2012). 100% Information literacy success. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
30. Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(10), 1372-1380.
31. Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research, 17(10), 1372-1380.
32. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
33. Todd, R. (2017). Information Literacy: Agendas for a Sustainable Future. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.11645/11.1.2233
34. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
35. UNESCO (2005). Literacy Assessment and Monitoring Programme (LAMP). Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. [2012-04-03]
36. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of documentation, 55(3), 249-270. Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The Information Service Environment Relationships and Priorities. Related Paper No. 5.