Based on the importance related to a number of generic information literacy competencies, as stated by students and faculty members at a single institution, the aim of this paper is a deeper understanding of the structure which underlies this motivation component. From a starting exploratory factor analysis, Structural Equation Modeling statistics provides a model of structural relationships based on three motivational categories, related to seeking, analysis-evaluation and information synthesis-communication. This provisionally accepted Seeking-Analysis-Synthesis model allows for the better knowledge of belief-in-importance differences between groups of students and faculty, as well as among five areas of knowledge. A series of weak points in need of specific motivational interventions has been identified.
ALA/ACRL (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
2.
AndersonKMayFA (2010) Does the method of instruction matter ? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. Journal of Academic Librarianship36(6): 495–500.
3.
AndrettaS (2007) Phenomenography: A conceptual framework for information literacy education. Aslib Proceedings59(2): 152–168.
4.
BadkeW (2008) Information Literacy and Faculty. Online32(3): 47.
5.
BernsteinPTippingJBercovitzKet al. (1995) Shifting students and faculty to a PBL curriculum: Attitudes changed and lessons learned. Academic Medicine70(3): 245–247.
6.
BlunchN (2008) Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and Amos. London: SAGE.
7.
BoonSJohnstonBWebberS (2007) A phenomenographic study of English faculty’s conceptions of information literacy. Journal of Documentation63(2): 204–228.
8.
BrownCPKingsley-WilsonB (2010) Assessing organically: Turning an assignment into an assessment. Reference Services Review38(4): 536–556.
9.
BuryS (2011) Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information literacy: A study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Journal of Information Literacy5(1): 45–64.
10.
ByrneBM (2010) Structurall Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. 2nd edn.New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
11.
CannonA (1994) Faculty survey on library research instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly33(4): 524–41.
12.
ClarkCCattsR (2007) Information skills survey: Its application to a medical course. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice2(3): 3–26.
13.
ColthartIBagnallGEvansAet al. (2008) The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide No. 10. Medical Teacher30(2): 124–45.
14.
DacostaJW (2010) Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An examination of faculty perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the United States and England. College & Research Libraries71(3): 203–222.
15.
DillerKRPhelpsSF (2008) Learning outcomes, portfolios, and rubrics, Oh my! Authentic assessment of an information literacy program. portal: Libraries and the Academy8(1): 75–89.
16.
DimitrovDM (2006) Comparing groups on latent variables: A structural equation modeling approach. Work (Reading, MA)26(4): 429–436.
17.
Division of Statistic and Scientific Computation (2012) Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS: An Introduction. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
18.
DubickiE (2013) Faculty perceptions of students’ information literacy skills competencies. Journal of Information Literacy7(2): 97–125.
19.
FarrellRBadkeW (2015) Situating information literacy in the disciplines. Reference Services Review43(2): 319–340.
20.
FetterMS (2009) Graduating nurses’ self-evaluation of information technology competencies. Journal of Nursing Education48(2): 86–90.
21.
FletcherRBMeyerLHAndersonHet al. (2012) Faculty and studentsʼ conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education64(1): 119–133.
22.
GonzalesR (2001) Opinions and experiences of university faculty regarding library research instruction: Results of a web-based survey at the University of Southern Colorado. Research Strategies18(3): 191–201.
23.
GrafsteinA (2002) A discipline-based approach to information literacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship28(4): 197–204.
24.
GreenRMacauleyP (2007) Doctoral students’ engagement with information: An American- Australian perspective. portal: Libraries and the Academy7(3): 317–332.
25.
GrossMLathamD (2007) Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library & Information Science Research29: 332–353.
26.
GrossMLathamD (2012) What’s skill got to do with it? Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(3): 574–583.
27.
GulliksonS (2006) Faculty perceptions of ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Journal of Academic Librarianship32(6): 583–592.
HoxJBechgerT (1998) An introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. Family Science Review11: 354–373.
31.
IvanitskayaLO’BoyleICaseyAM (2006) Health information literacy and competencies of information age students: Results from the interactive online Research Readiness Self-Assessment (RRSA). Journal of Medical Internet Research8(2).
32.
KorobiliSMalliariAChristodoulouGN (2009) Assessing information literacy skills in the Technological Education Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece. Reference Services Review37(3): 340–354.
33.
KurbanoğluSDoğanG (2013) Information literacy competencies of LIS students: The case of Turkey. In: European conference on information literacy (ECIL), Istanbul, Turkey, 22–25 October 2013, p. 111.
34.
LantzABrageC (2006) Towards a learning society: Exploring the challenge of applied information literacy through reality-based scenarios. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 5(1): 1–15.
35.
LeckieGJFullertonA (1999) Information literacy in Science and Engineering undergraduate education: Faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices. College & Research Libraries60(1): 9–29.
36.
LloydA (2007) Recasting information literacy as sociocultural practice: Implications for library and information science researchers. Information Research12(4): 1–13.
37.
McGeePDiazV (2007) Wikis and podcasts and blogs! Oh, my! What is a faculty member supposed to do?EDUCAUSE42(5): 28–41.
38.
McGuinnessC (2006) What faculty think: Exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. Journal of Academic Librarianship32(6): 573–582.
39.
MarkauskaiteL (2007) Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of, and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development55(6): 547–572.
MaybeeC (2006) Undergraduate perceptions of information use: The basis for creating user-centered student information literacy instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship32(1): 79–85.
42.
MilfontTLFischerR (2010) Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research3(1): 111–121.
43.
MillerIR (2010) Turning the tables: A faculty-centered approach to integrating information literacy. Reference Services Review38(4): 647–662.
44.
NilsenC (2012) Faculty perceptions of librarian-led information literacy instruction in postsecondary education. In: Libraries now: Inspiring, surprising, empowering, IFLA, Helsinki, Finland, 11–17 August 2017, pp. 1–25. Available at: https://www.ifla.org/past-wlic/2012/105-nilsen-en.pdf (accessed 18 December 2017).
45.
PattersonA (2009) A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research: A case study in University College Dublin. Journal of Information Literacy3(1): 5–18.
46.
PintoM (2010) Design of the IL-HUMASS survey on information literacy in higher education: A self-assessment approach. Journal of Information Science36(1): 86–103.
47.
PintoM (2011) An approach to the internal facet of information literacy using the IL-HUMASS survey. Journal of Academic Librarianship37(2): 145–154.
48.
PintoM (2012) Information literacy perceptions and behaviour among history students. Aslib Proceedings64(3): 304–327.
49.
PintoM (2016) Assessisng disciplinary differences in faculty perceptions of information literacy competencies. Aslib Journal of Information Management68(2): 227–247.
50.
PintoMFernandez-PascualR (2016) Exploring LIS students’ beliefs in importance and self-efficacy of core information literacy competencies. College & Research Libraries77(6): 703–726.
51.
PintoMFernández-PascualR (2014) Information literacy competencies among Social Sciences undergraduates: A case study using Structural Equation Model. In: Second European conference on information literacy (ECIL 2014:) Information literacy: Lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st century (eds KurbanogluSet al.), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 20–23 October 2014, pp. 370–378. Springer.
52.
PintoMSalesD (2008) INFOLITRANS: A model for the development of information competence for translators. Journal of Documentation64(3): 413–437.
53.
PintoMSalesD (2015) Uncovering information literacy’s disciplinary differences through students’ attitudes: An empirical study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science47(3): 204–215.
54.
SaundersL (2012) Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome. Journal of Academic Librarianship38(4): 226–236.
55.
ScalesBJBlakesleyE (2005) Qualitative assessment of student attitudes toward information literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy5(4): 513–526.
56.
SeamansNH (2002) Student perceptions of information literacy: Insights for librarians. Reference Services Review30(2): 112–123.
57.
SinghAB (2005) A report on faculty perceptions of students’ information literacy competencies in Journalism and Mass Communication programs: The ACEJMC Survey. College & Research Libraries66(4): 294–311.
58.
SmallR (1998) Designing motivation into library and information skills instruction. School Libraries Media Quarterly1(1): 1–15.
59.
SmallR VZakariaNEl-FiguiguiH (2004) Motivational aspects of information literacy skills instruction in community college libraries. College & Research Libraries65(2): 96–121.
60.
StangerK (2009) Implementing information literacy in higher education : A perspective on the roles of librarians and disciplinary faculty. Library & Information Science Research Electronic Journal19(1): 1–6.
61.
TaljaSMaulaH (2003) Reasons for the use and non use of electronic journals and databases: A domain analytical study in four scholarly disciplines. Journal of Documentation59(6): 673–691.
62.
TaylorA (2001) A brief introduction to factor analysis. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling53: 160.
63.
TuominenKSavolainenRTaljaS (2005) Information literacy as a sociotechnical practice. Library Quarterly75(3): 329–345.
64.
Van HelvoortJ (2010) A scoring rubric for performance assessment of information literacy in Dutch higher education. Journal of Information Literacy4(1): 22–39.
65.
Vander MeerPFPerez-StableMASachsDE (2012) Framing a strategy: Exploring faculty attitudes toward library instruction and technology preferences to enhance information literacy. Reference & User Services Quarterly52(2): 109–122.
66.
VickerySCooperH (2002) Confidence or competence? Auditing information literacy skills of biology undergraduate students. In: Celebrating teaching at Macquarie, Sydney, Macquarie University Research Online, pp. 1–7.
67.
WalshA (2009) Information literacy assessment. Where do we start?Journal of Librarianship and Information Science41(1): 19–28.
68.
WebberSBoonSJJohnstonBR (2005) A comparison of UK academics’ conceptions of information literacy in two disciplines: English and Marketing. Library and Information Research29(93): 4–15.
69.
WheatonRMuthenBAlwinDFet al. (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel model. In: HeiseDR (ed.) Sociological methodology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 84–136.
