The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Information literacy skills and learning gaps– Students’ experiences and

teachers’ perceptions in interdisciplinary environmental science
Teresia Svensson a, *, Julie Wilk a, Kajsa Gustafsson Åman b
a
Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
b
University Library, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the ease of accessing information in the digital age, environmental science students need information
Information literacy literacy (IL) to competently tackle complex problems and sustainability challenges. Students’ experiences and
Faculty-librarian collaboration teachers’ perceptions of student IL skills in an environmental science program were investigated through student
PBL
questionnaires and teacher interviews to identify students IL competence and eventual learning gaps in the
Environmental science
Interdisciplinary
program. Students expressed confidence in IL, more strongly in basic skills such as information search and source
Education for sustainable development criticism than advanced skills; critical thinking and analysing, interpreting, and creating information. They found
formulating problems and locating and assessing information to be challenging, despite repeated training in
tutorial groups. Teachers similarly perceived students to be most competent in accessing relevant information
while using information is more challenging. This could be linked to the complexity and interdisciplinarity
environmental science. Findings suggest that IL learning gaps could be bridged by greater focus on systematic IL
training, intentional training on advanced skills, and iterative training of both basic and advanced skills by
strengthening faculty and librarians collaborative teaching.

Introduction
Information literacy is the ability to competently use available in­
formation for an intended purpose (Lokse et al., 2017). Many of its key
skills, e.g., assessing and processing information and solving problems,
are key components of 21st-century skills, i.e., abilities essential for
entering and being successful in the rapidly changing job market and
working life (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). 21st-century skills are multi­
dimensional, transversal skills that can address complexity and unpre­
dictability (Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Both IL and 21st century skills
encompass deeper learning which involves critical thinking and
analytical reasoning. The term, IL, coined in the 1970s (Zurkovski,
1974) emphasized working life and information which over time shifted
to student experiences and digital competence (e.g., Association of
College and Research Libraries, 2000; Bruce, 1997; UNESCO Informa­
tion for All Programme, 2007). Today, it has come full circle, again
being closely associated with working life and 21st century skills (e.g.,
Van Laar et al., 2017; Voogt & Roblin, 2012).
The American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on
Information Literacy states “to be information literate, a person must be
able to recognize when information is needed and have the skill to
locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (1989:1).
There is strong evidence that IL is needed to enhance student learning
(Crawford & Broertjes, 2010, Salisbury et al., 2012, Perez-Stable et al.,
2020), but how to fully implement and incorporate it in education is less
clear. Some IL approaches, e.g., Association of College and Research
Libraries (2000) and Big6 skills (Eisenberg et al., 2010) have been
criticised for taking a mechanistic, “tick-the-box” approach (Johnston &
Webber, 2003) while others highlight and address the conscious itera­
tive learning process in which both librarians and teachers play key roles
(Saunders, 2012; Keene et al., 2010). While library or bibliographic
instruction has consistently been an anchor in IL (Zurkovski, 1974,
Withorn et al., 2019), the role of faculty has increasingly been recog­
nized. “More and more, I am coming to believe that faculty members
themselves, rather than just librarians, need to revamp what they do to
make IL more than what it now is.” (Badke, 2011: 51). Many studies call
for stronger faculty-librarian collaborations to improve students’ IL
skills (Monge & Frisicaro-Pawlowski, 2014; Perez-Stable et al., 2020;
Yevelson-Shorsher & Bronstein, 2018). Gullbekk et al. (2015) found
interdisciplinary education to require a more active role of both librar­
ians and faculty in teaching IL as compared to traditional disciplines.
Environmental science is an interdisciplinary area containing a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: teresia.svensson@liu.se (T. Svensson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102465
Received 21 September 2021; Received in revised form 31 October 2021; Accepted 31 October 2021
Available online 15 November 2021
0099-1333/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
T. Svensson et al.
multitude of complex problems spanning social and natural science.
Students of the subject require competence in problem framing, navi­
gating scientific literature, critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and
effective communication (Perez-Stable et al., 2020; Wiek et al., 2011) to
navigate the breadth and demands of specific fields. This challenges the
faculty in environmental science to design education of interdisciplinary
character to access and integrate information from many traditional
scientific disciplines and put extra pressure on how to integrate IL skills.
The seeking and using information skills are discipline-dependent
(Smith, 2003) and students need to link the generic IL skills to their
own discipline (Crawford & Broertjes, 2010). For interdisciplinary areas,
IL skills must be sufficiently high to seek information from many sources
and enable integration of information (Newby, 2011) and in environ­
mental science this is of particular importance to search and find
“relevant literature” to anchor a study (Öberg, 2009).
Though Bruce (1997) advocated a relational view of IL with focus on
students’ experiences and conceptions rather than skills, IL is most often
described as several interconnected, progressive skills i.e., technology,
sources, process, and control followed by construction, creation, and
attainment of wisdom (Bruce, 1997, 2004). The basic or lower-order
skills encompass database or computer handling, identifying informa­
tion needs and knowing how to locate and search for information, where
to begin and end, and how to store information so it can be retrieved
when needed. The advanced or higher-order skills refer to handling
accessed information, i.e., analysing and evaluating its quality and
relevance, and using it efficiently and ethically to create new knowl­
edge. Digital technology and databases are today’s primary information
source so both technical and cognitive skills are needed to competently
locate and use information (UNESCO Information for All Programme,
2007). IL and cognitive skills can be categorized according to Bloom’s
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) lower order/basic and higher order/
advanced levels. Bloom’s taxonomy’s cognitive skills include remem­
bering and understanding (lower-order) and applying, analysing, eval­
uating, and creating (higher-order) (Bloom in Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). Most lower order skills relate to locating and understanding
relevant information to address the identified problem e.g., define,
locate, access, assess (Bruce, 1997) while higher-order skills involve
analysing, evaluating, and creating information (Lokse et al., 2017). The
age of algorithms, where algorithms control the sources to which stu­
dents are exposed, has made critical thinking increasingly important in
higher education (Head et al., 2020). There are some experiences of
intentional, focus on IL found increased student performance. The aca­
demic writing skills of engineering students were improved by training
their awareness of academic texts and the cognitive process of writing
(Kumari, 2016). Integrating student self-assessments of IL skills in their
education heightened students’ engagement with IL concepts (Bent &
Stockdale, 2009). Informed learning design was found to increase
awareness of the critical aspects and features of IL by intentionally
studying how to use information in addition to focus on course content
(Maybee et al., 2019). A study of English majors in the UK, suggests
creating meaningful IL instruction in line with students’ where they are
in terms of their experience, comfort level, and competence (Paterson &
Gamtso, 2017).
Although university teachers highlight the importance of higher-
order skills especially critical thinking, summarizing, evaluating, and
contextualizing information (Bury, 2016), many prior studies have also
noted that IL focus in higher education lies primarily on lower-order
skills, because of the central role of librarians in IL and expertise in
search and source criticism (e.g., Badke, 2011, 2014; Hammons, 2020).
Many publications of information literacy are written by librarians and
found in library journals. All stages of the information seeking process i.
e., identifying the information need, locating, evaluating, and reviewing
information, and solving problems require both lower and higher-order
cognitive skills (Keene et al., 2010). One cannot accomplish the
advanced skills without having competently performed the basic ones.
The categorization of skills as lower- and higher-order is used in this
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
paper to define more precisely students’ IL skills and challenges and
where in the IL process that learning gaps may exist.
While accessing information has become easy through increased
number of online databases and new generations as “digital natives”
(Becker, 2009; Smith & Matteson, 2018; Trembach and Deng, 2018),
students are often hampered in their academic studies by insufficient IL
(Saunders, 2012). While many universities and high schools have pro­
grams to enhance students’ IL, concern remains to what degree students
are competent (Saunders et al., 2017). There have been investigations of
how students’ actions of searching information are shaped by their at­
titudes and expectation to research tasks. A study of six American aca­
demic campuses reported student expectations of fast and easy access to
information and a preference for independence and efficiency and little
interaction with library resources (D’Couto & Rosenhan, 2015). Other
studies found undergraduate students faced difficulty in effectively
using academic library search portals and in reading and interpreting
accessed materials (Head, 2013). Some scholars have especially linked
these difficulties to millennial generation students, who have search
skills but are less competent in assessing sources and information and
evaluating the credibility of information (Taylor, 2012; Trembach and
Deng, 2018; Wineburg et al., 2016). A fundamental step after identifying
a need for knowledge is formulating research problems, which underlies
the subsequent IL process (Abrandt Dahlgren & Öberg, 2001; Scharf &
Dera, 2021). Keene et al. (2010: 11) identified three distinct cognitive
skills related to decomposing a problem i.e., “to identify the key ele­
ments of the problem, to identify the relationships between elements
and to identify any boundaries around the scope of the problem”. US
college students have generally been found to have difficulty defining
and narrowing research topics (Head, 2013). In the 2016 Project In­
formation Literacy study, few recent college graduates (27%) in Amer­
ican universities were confident in formulating questions (Head, 2016).
These studies also revealed that students seek learning support most
often from other students (Head, 2013; Head, 2016).
Previous studies have assessed university STEM or natural science
students’ scientific literacy (Čipková et al., 2018; Hicks et al., 2017) and
design or integration of IL curricula in STEM, natural science or tech­
nical programs or courses (Borchardt et al., 2019, Tran et al., 2018,
Scaramozzino, 2010, Scharf, 2014). STEM or natural science contain
interdisciplinary elements however within natural and technical sub­
jects in contrast with environmental science that spans disciplines
within humanities to natural science. Scientific literacy skills overlap
with IL e.g., design and evaluate scientific inquiry (Harris, 2017) or
identify a scientific argument, evaluate credible literature sources, and
use of scientific information, and understand research design elements
(Čipková et al., 2018). Hick’s study (2017) found that encouragement of
higher-order thinking increased skills increased STEM student skills in
observing, interpreting, and investigating data and evidence in one
Australian high school. Čipková et al. (2018) found students in teacher
training to generally have lower scores in assessed scientific literacy
skills than students of various natural science disciplines and geography.
Studies of library instruction of IL have identified factors linked with
successful implementation. STEM students’ assessment of skills in search
strategies, avoiding plagiarism and referencing considered it valuable
and a good opportunity for learning (Harris, 2017). STEM graduate
students placed less importance in the library’s role for providing
research assistance and/or guidance than international students of
various disciplines (Yevelson-Shorsher & Bronstein, 2018). Introducing
even modest inclusion of IL in undergraduate biology courses found
significant improvements in student IL skills (Borchardt et al., 2019).
Similarly, Tran et al. (2018) found improvement in student IL skills
related to information search, referencing, source evaluation and
plagiarism, even after a one-shot library session. Assessment of a
specially designed IL curriculum by librarians for undergraduate STEM
students linked success to clear priorities, sufficient resources to make
the curricula sustainable, support of diverse teaching approaches,
incorporation of appropriate information technology and other media,
T. Svensson et al.
collaborative activities, and integration of IL teaching with students’
existing knowledge, coursework, and real-life experiences of relevance
to students (Scaramozzino, 2010). A study of engineering undergraduate
students’ higher-order IL skills i.e., finding and evaluating sources,
found that they were greatly increased when students received scaf­
folded, engaging IL instruction training as part of a curriculum of 15
tasks to support writing skills (Scharf, 2014). Important factors of the IL
instruction were alignment of learning objectives, instructional strate­
gies, and clear assessment criteria.
This study was conducted among students and teachers in a 3-year
undergraduate interdisciplinary program in environmental science.
The aim of the paper is to identify and analyse how IL is experienced by
students and perceived by teachers to reveal students’ IL competence
and eventual learning gaps that may hinder them from reaching inde­
pendence and self-regulation in their academic studies and 21st century
skills. While there are several studies of IL skills in higher education in
general, this study contributes to knowledge of IL in teaching and
learning of an interdisciplinary discipline, i.e., environmental science,
by exploring perspectives of students and teachers to reveal eventual
learning gaps.
The environmental science programme
The Environmental Science Program (ESP) is a three-year pro­
gramme consisting of two years of compulsory basic courses in envi­
ronmental science followed by elective courses, and internship. The
programme is based on problem-based learning (PBL) and includes
humanities, social and natural science perspectives, and approaches to
studying environmental issues. Contemporary pedagogical theory ad­
vocates student-active and student-centred education, such as PBL, to
scaffold the development of students’ cognitive competences including
creativity, academic writing, critical thinking, and reflection skills
(Biggs & Tang, 2011; Ramsden, 2003). This type of teaching is well in
line with the teaching of 21st century skills. It involves creativity,
working with others, analysing, presenting, and sharing, both the
learning experience and the learned knowledge. PBL is a well-known
teaching method to address complex scenarios and cases with no or
little information. It is highly relevant to environmental science and
sustainability studies where reflection and critical thinking are integral
parts of the process (Savin Baden & Wilkie, 2004; Savin-Baden &
Howell, 2004). In PBL, students are expected to take responsibility for
their studies and learning. Although self-studies between tutorial
meetings are a critical PBL element (Johansson & Svensson, 2019),
students must, in addition, develop independence and self-regulation to
frame and guide their studies (Boud & Soler, 2016). PBL requires stu­
dents to pose their own research questions and find and use literature to
answer them (Abrandt Dahlgren & Öberg, 2001) with support of faculty
members and librarians.
ESP students work in tutorial groups in all programme courses and
follow a sequence of steps, often referred to as the seven-step PBL model
(e.g., Moust et al., 2005). The model and interrelated steps are presented
in detail in Johansson & Svensson, 2019. In short, students are given
scenarios, such as a text, as a point of departure for the learning process.
The scenarios are aimed to provide a framework and inspiration for
learning concepts, processes, challenges in environmental science that
will be useful for future professional work. Once the students receive a
scenario, they follow a sequence of steps which involves defining
problem(s), brainstorming, structuring, and making hypothesis,
learning objectives, performing independent study, and creating a syn­
thesis. Students, through the process, identify what they already know,
what they need to know, and how and where to access information that
contributes to understanding the problem. Between tutorial meetings,
students individually search for and interpret found information and
write short individual reflection papers (IRP) (approximately once a
week) on their findings (Johansson & Svensson, 2019). Teachers are
present at some tutorial meetings while students also work together in
3
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
unsupervised meetings. Students often have tight deadlines to complete
their IRP so information search and analysis must be quickly completed.
At the end of Years 1, 2 and 3, students write longer essays, with indi­
vidual and group teacher supervision, where more time is devoted to the
research process. ESP students participate in a “theme” (a specially
designed curriculum of information literacy for Year 1–3 ESP students,
hereafter referred to as the “IL theme”), focusing on IL, taught by the
University Library. It includes several components where students learn
to locate information in databases containing academic literature and
governmental and EU documents and continuously build upon another
(Åman Gustavsson, 2013). The IL theme is in integrated all compulsory
courses of programme and is primarily taught by the same librarian. The
Year 1 and 2 essays contain a reflection appendix describing students’
search strategy, search words and databases used, evaluations of rele­
vance and usefulness of conducted searches (hereafter referred to as the
“IL reflections”). Individual feedback is given by the program librarian.
In the final ESP course in Year 3, the IL theme focuses on IL in working
life, specifically useful tools, and approaches. It focuses on information
search strategies, the use of Open Access journals and free resources and
critical evaluation. At the end of the program students should be
competent in knowing what to search for and where to find it, evaluating
its relevance, importance, and credibility, and competently using in­
formation resources in working life.
Materials and methods
An online questionnaire was distributed in 2019 to all students
(approximately 50–60 students per year) of ESP at Linköping University,
Sweden to gain information about their experiences of IL. In total, 101
students answered with a response rate of: 63% (Year 1), 72% (Year 2)
and 59% (Year 3). IL was not defined or referred to in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire contained 16 questions covering key skills taught in
the ESP within the themes: skills, confidence, challenges, and support in
learning IL (6 questions), searching information (3 questions), locating,
and assessing sources (3 questions), and using information (4 questions)
(Appendix). Some questions were taken and adjusted from Head and
Eisenberg (2009) and Paterson and Gamtso (2017) while others were
included to further assess IL skills and understanding. The responses
were translated by a researcher fluent in Swedish and English.
Descriptive statistics were applied to responses from Year 1, 2 and 3 and
All students. Spearman non-parametric correlation tests were applied to
responses of students’ perceptions of their IL skills and how they use
information.
Semi-open interviews of approximately 60 min were held with seven
teachers in December 2019–January 2020 to assess their perceptions of
IL in the ESP. Interviews were applied to gain a richer picture of IL and
how it relates to the program through two-way exchange. UNESCO’s
seven stages/elements of information literacy (UNESCO Information for
All Programme, 2007) were shown to the teachers at the outset of the
interview if they were unfamiliar with the term. All the selected teachers
were experienced (4–22 years), involved in design of environmental
science courses in the ESP, and represented different scientific back­
grounds (humanities, social or natural science) and sexes. The seven
interviewed teachers are 70% of all examiners responsible for designing,
organizing, and teaching of the compulsory courses at ESP. Interview
themes were key IL skills, teachers’ role in IL, student IL challenges and
support of students’ IL learning. The interviews were done in Swedish by
two interviewers. Responses were taped and transcribed then translated
to English by one of the interviewers, fluent in Swedish and English. The
findings were consolidated, and responses categorized and analysed to
synthesize and compare the material.
T. Svensson et al.
Results
Students’ experiences of information literacy
IL skills, confidence, and challenges
Most Year 1 students already perceived their skill in searching for
information as “high” (77%1) at the end of the first year, and Year 2 and
3 students ranked their skill even higher. In Year 3, 67% of students
ranked their IL skill as “high” and 30% as “very high”. Similar patterns
were found for students’ perceived skill in finding and using
information.
Student responses indicated high confidence in the lower-order
technical skill, “correctly referencing in the text and reference list” fol­
lowed by other lower-order skills i.e., “formulating search words and
“choosing information platforms/databases” but also the higher-order
skill of “evaluating which information that should be (Fig. 1A). Stu­
dents in all years expressed least confidence in three higher-order skills,
“formulating research problems”, “managing information from many
sources” and “paraphrasing and using information” (Fig. 1A).
Students indicated “formulating good search words” to be the most
challenging IL skill ahead of many higher-order skills e.g., “managing
information from many sources”, “paraphrasing and using information”
and “formulating the research problem” (Fig. 1B). Students found it
more challenging to formulate research problems in essays, done indi­
vidually or in pairs (12%) than shorter assignments (5%), done in
groups.
All students said they had developed their IL skills since starting the
program. The majority of the 55 students who offered free-text examples
indicated an increased competence in their search skills to find relevant
information (91%). “I have received more tools and tips on where I can
search for information, but also what to look for if the source is credible
or not” (Year 1). About half (49%) mentioned applying critical thinking
when assessing sources i.e., source criticism, yet no students referred to
critical thinking when evaluating and interpreting source content. “I
have learned to value sources in a better way and more quickly make an
assessment of whether the source is relevant or not.” (Year 3). Few
students (5%) mentioned development of higher-order skills i.e., using
and interpreting information. Year 2 and 3 students expressed that they
had learned how to deepen searches, for example, “I am better at
formulating search words and choosing the places where I search for
information” (Year 2), “one has learned how to expand a search and not
get stuck, think a little outside the box about what to search for and
where to get inspiration for other search methods” (Year 3) and
“through PBL, I have been challenged to seek information in a critical
and analytical manner. (my) handling of references has become more
advanced…, partly because I and other group participants have devel­
oped, but also because supervisors have encouraged me.” (Year 3).
Lower-order IL skills: locating and assessing information sources
Most students searched for information with the university search
platform, UniSearch2 followed by Google, research databases (such as
Scopus) and textbooks. Students chose UniSearch and research data­
bases, primarily for their “trustworthy content” and “peer-reviewed
content” while research databases, in addition, “fulfilled teachers’ ex­
pectations”. Students motivated using Google, because it provided
“general information”, because of earlier satisfaction, “It has worked
well in the past” and “when time is short” or because of earlier satis­
faction, e.g., students in Years 2 and 3 motivated using Google as it
provides “broader information” and “when time is short”.
If students did not find sources that related to their research problem,
1
If specific years are not indicated for the % of responses, the % rate is for the
combined responses of all students.
2
UniSearch is the Linköping University library information discovery tool, a
so-called data well, by which one can search almost all library resources.
4
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
most said they would “formulate new search words” (84%). The main
factors determining students’ choice were if the information fits their
topic” or is from trustworthy (e.g., scientific) sources (Table 1). Source
credibility was determined to greatest extent by information type e.g.,
scientific/reviewed, websites, reports, etc. (33%), type of information
platform/database (23%) and authorship, e.g., authority, researchers,
companies, etc. (21%).
Higher-order IL skills: using information sources
Students more used lower-order cognitive skills, “paraphrase the
main points”, “use quotes” and “summarize and describe results with
references” (together 78%), than the higher-order skill of summarizing
the content after reflecting how it relates to the problem (20%)
(Table 2). Students in Years 2 and 3 more often used the higher-order
skill (28% and 20% respectively) than in those in Year 1 (10%). No
correlation was found between students that expressed high or very high
confidence in using information and responses demonstrating higher-
order cognitive skills.
Similarly, in a second question about using information, students
more often chose responses demonstrating lower-order cognitive skills,
i.e., “summarize important results with citations and/or references” and
“write a few sentences with important results” (together 67%) (Table 2).
Fewer responses indicated higher-order skills i.e., “write a few sentences
with important results from each source and organize in themes” and
“formulate results related to the problem and organize main results”
(together 31%). The proportion of higher-order cognitive skill responses
was lower among students in Year 3 (27%) than in Year 1 (43%). No
correlation was found between students that expressed high or very high
confidence in using information and responses demonstrating higher-
order cognitive skills.
Information literacy support
Students used different sources for support depending on the IL skill.
Students more often sought help from librarians for the lower order IL
skills, “select information platform”, “correct referencing” and formu­
late search words and fellow students for the higher-order skills,
“formulate the problem” and “interpret information in the text” (44%
Year 1, 68% Year 2, 47% Year 3) (Fig. 2). Teachers were only asked more
often for help on one skill, “paraphrase and use information in longer
assignments” than other sources of support. However, the highest re­
sponses rate for teacher help was for “formulate the problem” following
fellow students. To “evaluate information to fit their problem”, students
asked teachers more often in the beginning of their studies (46% Year 1)
and less at the end (8% Year 3). Most often and consistently fellow
students were asked in all years, in a reversed pattern that increased
from Year 1 to 3 (53% Year 1, 75% Year 2 and 92% Year 3).
Teachers’ experiences of information literacy
IL in the environmental science program
Not all teachers were familiar with the IL term, yet all agreed that all
IL seven skills (based on UNESCO 2007 list) were taught and trained in
ESP. Teachers stressed identifying information needs and making
effective search strategies as key IL skills but also taking a critical
approach when selecting sources, evaluating information, both sources
and information content, and analysing and using information effec­
tively and properly (Table 2). While all teachers stated that IL skills are
important when learning environmental science, they more often gave
IL examples of lower-order skills, e.g., locating information, rather than
higher-order ones, e.g., using information. All teachers considered IL
skills to be interdependent, including realizing the information need,
choosing relevant information sources, and competently using the
selected information. Teachers especially stressed the importance of
taking a critical approach to source content. As one remarked, “the text
is not truth”.
After stating IL is integrated in ESP, two teachers added that it is not
T. Svensson et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465

Fig. 1. Students’ perception of confidence (Panel A) and challenges (Panel B) related to IL skills (% of responses). The students could choose a maximum of three
choices. Percentages of all respondents per alternative. Responses with (*) are categorized as higher-order skills.

5
T. Svensson et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465

Table 1 taught systematically. “There is no direct routine to go through all of the

Students’ responses of strategies to assess sources. The students could choose steps”. One pointed specifically to a gap in teaching analytical skills,
maximum three choices. Percentages of all respondents per alternative. “Analysis is a difficult step. It is difficult to teach and there is no sys­
Once you have found several sources, what factors Year Year Year tematic teaching of what analysis is”. A few other teachers pointed out
determine those you choose? 1 2 3 that the degree, timing and focus which they place upon IL in tutorial
The information is at the right level (not too easy/ 17% 17% 19% meetings and essay supervision varies. If course organizers do not spe­
difficult) cifically stress IL training, individual teachers decide on which skills
The information fits with my topic 33% 41% 26% they focus upon in tutorial meetings. One teacher said that all IL skills
The information is from reliable (e.g., scientific) sources 28% 31% 33%
are not intentionally stressed upon in Year 1 to avoid confusion. It is
The information is verified that similar/same 10% 6% 8%
information is available in other sources sufficient for students at that point to trust all peer-reviewed material,
The information is convincing 1% 2% 1% however, they need to become more critical and reflective towards
The authors are clear about their intentions with the 6% 7% 6% sources in subsequent years.
text Many teachers expressed the difficulty of identifying IL learning gaps
The information is easy to understand 2% 10% 7%
The text is not too long 2% 5% 0%
in ESP. Although teachers spend most time with students in tutorial
Other 0% 2% 1% meetings and short individual feedback sessions, one teacher said it is
How do you determine if the source you found is useful Year Year Year easiest to determine when students need IL support during their essay
for your problem? 1 2 3 writing. One could identify and address learning gaps and challenges
Reads summary of the source and/or the first sentences 35% 36% 38%
earlier by intentionally dedicating time at tutorial meetings to assess
/ paragraphs
Looking at the table of contents and searchwords 24% 22% 13% higher-order skills, e.g., analysing information and systematically
Assess whether the source is too basic or too advanced 9% 14% 3% training and evaluating these skills. This does occur but rather ad hoc
to answer my questions according to need and circumstance. One teacher noted that analysing
Assess whether the source has similar searchwords as 4% 14% 7% and using information is especially challenging in environmental science
the searchwords you used to find the source
because of its interdisciplinary character.
Assess whether the source contains general information 15% 20% 20%
that can broaden the understanding and answer the
problem Students’ IL competence and challenges
Assess whether the source contains specific information 11% 19% 15% Most teachers considered students to be competent in formulating
that can deepen and answer the problem
problems. One teacher said that as formulating (research) problems is an
Other 1% 0% 4%
How do you determine if the source you found is important element in PBL and academic training, it needs to be
credible? repeatedly trained. Another teacher pointed out that while students are
Type of information platform/database (eg Google 22% 23% 22% quite good at formulating general research questions and problems,
Scholar, Web of Science, Google, UniSearch, etc.) some students remain satisfied at this level and seldom are challenged by
Type of information (scientific/reviewed, websites, 32% 27% 32%
teachers to deepen or sharpen the questions or evaluate them at the end
report, etc.)
Who the sender is, e.g., authority, researchers, 26% 18% 20% of the research process. The teacher added that students tend to progress
companies, etc. with this skill when writing their essays under supervision.
Age of the text (when it was published) 7% 12% 11% A teacher said students find different IL skills challenging depending
Number of citations received by the text 9% 5% 9%
on their study year. In Year 1, it is often challenging for them to search
Impartial presentation (in language/tone) 1% 4% 1%
Easy to understand presentation 0% 1% 0%
for and reference information and decide if sources are relevant, peer-
The context suits my problem (eg geographical area, 1% 5% 3% reviewed, an original work or a summary of other texts. It is when
scope of studies, type of study, etc.) students work with their own essays, starting at the end of Year 1, that
Evidence-based information 1% 5% 3% they begin to learn more deeply to use information. However even in
Other 0% 1% 0%
Year 3, some students remain satisfied with any peer-reviewed material
despite its relevance to their research questions. Tasks and skills are
trained during different parts of the learning process so what is taken up
Table 2 earlier might be forgotten during essay writing. Another teacher said
Students’ use of sources in their texts. Only one choice was allowed. Percentages when writing essays, and even shorter assignments, students often have
of all respondents per alternative. Responses with (*) are categorized as higher-
difficulty in choosing, integrating, and making deep comparisons be­
order skills.
tween different types of information with regards to method, empirical
How do you usually use a source in your text? Year Year Year All material, geographical scale, or case. “They do this superficially”. In
1 2 3
these cases, supervisors play an important role in guiding students to a
Paraphrase the main points with references 53% 33% 50% 44% more advanced level.
Use quotes from the text with references 7% 0% 0% 2%
A teacher noted that some students after learning to first summarize
* Summarize and describe results with 30% 36% 30% 32%
references
information begin to analyse it while others do not progress from sum­
* Summarize content after reflecting on how it 10% 28% 20% 20% marizing. Another noted “One cannot only put together what others
relates to the problem have said. One must reflect further- what does this information mean?
Other 0% 3% 0% 1% This leads them (students) to a completely different depth.” Students are
How do you usually use the information in Year Year Year
sometimes better at analysis in shorter assignments as they work with
your text? 1 2 3
Write a few sentences with the main results 13% 23% 33% 23% less information. One teacher professed placing more focus on inter­
from each source preting and handling information during essay supervision, assuming
* Write a few sentences from each source and 20% 18% 10% 16% that students are already proficient in searching for, accessing, assessing,
organize in themes and choosing relevant information from their shorter assignments. A few
* Formulate themes related to the problem and 23% 8% 17% 15%
organize main results
teachers expressed being unaware of the IL skills which librarians taught
Summarize important results with citations 43% 49% 40% 44% in the program.
and/or references
Other 0% 3% 0%

6
T. Svensson et al.
Fig. 2. Sources of student support for IL skills among all years. Multiple choices could be made. Percentages of all respondents per alternative. Responses with (*) are
categorized as higher-order skills.
Discussion
IL in environmental science
21st century skills clearly state that graduates must be competent in
approaching, critically evaluating, and using relevant, trustworthy in­
formation (e.g., Bury, 2016) to navigate the wealth and breadth of the
modern information landscape. As in the Head (2016) study, ESP stu­
dents expressed low confidence in formulating research questions.
Teachers however considered them to be confidence as they train
problem framing throughout their PBL studies. However, this is done
more often in tutorial groups for shorter assignments and only individ­
ually in their longer essay writing, once a year. It was the one of the few
IL skills for which ESP students sought help from teachers which could
illustrate that students do recognize the importance of the step and
believe teachers can provide guidance. As teachers raised, students do
become good at formulating general research questions and problems in
group settings. Others stay at this level while others progress though
teachers could challenge them more on shorter assignments and not wait
until their essay supervision.
ESP students more often expressed critical thinking towards the
sources themselves than towards the content in the sources. Addition­
ally, students, when asked what skills they have improved since they
started the program, offered numerous examples related to search and
source criticism while very few examples of evaluation and use of in­
formation. This could reflect the teacher comment that students may be
satisfied with summary skills without progressing to deeper information
analysis and use. Despite teachers acknowledging the importance of all
IL skills, they also gave more examples of lower-order skills, e.g.,
locating information than using information when discussing IL. This
may indicate that IL is generally perceived as more tightly linked to the
lower-order skills of formulating a problem and finding relevant infor­
mation which is more strongly pronounced in the IL theme. More
generally it also could be linked to the perception of IL as closely linked
to librarian instruction more than that of faculty (Badke, 2014; Ham­
mons, 2020).
The results additionally point more strongly to higher competence in
7
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
lower-order skills than higher-order ones, most often among Year 1 and
2 students but even among Year 3 students e.g., The proportion of
higher-order cognitive skill responses was lower among students in Year
3 (27%) than in Year 1 (43%). Teachers voiced that they considered
students competent in search and source assessment skills, especially
after Year 1. Although students expressed confidence in e.g., formulating
search words, they still found it most challenging. Teachers’ belief in
their competence may hinder them from encouraging further training
during their essay writing instead putting focus on formulating research
problems, managing information from many sources, and using infor­
mation which are also higher-order skills that students found chal­
lenging. The interdisciplinary nature and diversity of issues in
environmental science spanning a broad range of disciplines increases
the complexity of problem formulation, the search process and needed
IL competence (Gullbekk et al., 2015).
Librarians’ and teachers’ role in IL
Despite a high self-perception of IL competence, a lack of correlation
between students’ perceived skill to find and use information and
higher-order cognitive skills when using information in their texts,
suggests that student confidence does not directly result in competence.
As students are sometimes satisfied at a lower level of IL proficiency in
tutorial meetings and IRPs, e.g., with broad research questions or use of
any peer-reviewed material despite its relevance to the research topic,
teachers do not always address or support deeper IL learning in tutorial
meetings, and they might not realize the IL learning gaps that exist until
student essay writing when teachers have more focused time with stu­
dents, and where students are forced to formulate their own research
problems, as individuals or pairs, and competently use information in
their essays.
Students’ IL experiences reveal learning of higher-order cognitive IL
skills to be the most apparent gap in ESP. This is consistent with
teachers’ perceptions that student less often individually train these
skills and receive feedback as essays are only written once a year. That
even Year 3 students found formulating key words challenging, however
indicates that lower- and higher-order skills need to be more
T. Svensson et al.
systematically taught and trained in an iterative IL learning process, not
only as sequential skills, as highlighted by Bruce (1997, 2004) and
(Saunders, 2012). Teachers may believe that students have mastered
lower-order skills, but these skills need to be continually trained even as
focus is progressively placed on higher-order skills.
Students sought support from fellow students to a large degree as
reported in previous studies (e.g., Head, 2013; Head, 2016). This might
also reflect the PBL teaching method, where student interaction and
exchange is a fundamental part of the learning pedagogy. Librarians
were more often approached for questions than teachers though pri­
marily about lower-order skills. This could reflect the positive rela­
tionship students have built with program librarians during the IL theme
and from feedback on their IL reflections. Teachers, however, were more
rarely approached for support even about higher-order skills, except
about “formulating problems” despite students’ lower confidence in all
higher-order skills. Students do receive teacher supervision for all IL
skills during their essay writing but may have interpreted the question
“asking for support” as additional support, which might account for the
lower responses of approaching teachers.
That student experiences of skill development more often focused on
lower-order skills could reflect the lack of focus and training of higher-
order skills in the IL theme and IL reflections, so they may be over­
shadowed in what students include in the IL concept. The IL theme and
IL reflections are concrete examples of a successful teacher-librarian
collaboration as advocated by previous studies to improve students’ IL
skills (e.g., Monge & Frisicaro-Pawlowski, 2014; Yevelson-Shorsher &
Bronstein, 2018). Inclusion, training, and reflection on higher-order IL
skills bridge faculty IL teaching with that done by librarians, heighten
student and teacher awareness and engagement of the entire IL process.
Inspiration could be drawn from studies that improved students’ aca­
demic writing skills by designing learning components that trained
student awareness of academic texts and the cognitive process of writing
(Kumari, 2016) or using secondary source material in texts and sum­
marizing and paraphrasing quoted materials (Paterson & Gamtso,
2017). The IL theme in the ESP displays some elements of informed
learning, (Maybee et al., 2019) and embeds pedagogically-drive
sequential assignments in the course curricula (Paterson & Gamtso,
2017). Inclusion of exercises to train students’ higher-order skills could
increase student IL awareness of the interdependence of IL skills. It could
also reveal eventual disconnect between student confidence and abilities
so librarians and teachers could collectively work to bridge and fill
learning gaps.
Conclusion
The 21st century or higher-order skills of critical thinking, inter­
preting, and analysing information are especially essential for students
of environment science as it is an interdisciplinary subject encompassing
diverse disciplines, methods, information forms and writing styles.
Students expressed high confidence in all IL skills but continued to find
both lower- and higher-order skills challenging, even in Year 3. It was
evident that the lower-order skills, searching and locating information,
are critical for interdisciplinary areas such as environmental science. In
addition, the higher-order skill, formulating problems, was equally
challenging due to the complexity of framing an environmental prob­
lem. The study show that librarians teach lower-order skills while
teachers guide students to learn higher-order skills primarily during
essay writing. Librarians are approached about lower-order skills and
teachers, to a lesser extent, about higher-order skills. Unexpectedly
students most often sought help from other students for all skills. Our
study suggests that for IL skills in interdisciplinary environmental sci­
ence, one should emphasize the initial steps of IL process of formulating
problem and searching and locating besides the information usage steps
in the end of the process. Critical thinking towards source content, or­
ganization, reflection, and analysis should be addressed by systematic
teaching and training IL skills in collaboration between librarians and
8
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
faculty. Further studies are needed to evaluate how such implementa­
tion of higher-order skills should be done and especially in interdisci­
plinary environmental science.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Teresia Svensson: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation;
Analysis; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Funding
acquisition, Julie Wilk: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation;
Analysis; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Kajsa
Gustafsson Åman: Conceptualization;
Acknowledgements
The study was financed by pedagogic development funds from
Linköping University. We are especially grateful to all students and
teachers that participated and shared their experiences in this study. We
are also indebted to shared discussions with our colleagues throughout
the process. The authors appreciate the valuable suggestions of the ed­
itor and anonymous reviewers of this article.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102465.
References
Abrandt Dahlgren, M., & Öberg, G. (2001). Questioning to learn and learning to question:
Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science
education. Higher Education, 41, 263–282.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century skills and competences for new
millennium learners in OECD Countries. In , 41. OECD education working papers.
OECD Publishing.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency
standards for higher education. Retrieved January 31, 2021 from ww.ala.org/ala/ac
rYacrlstandards/standards.pdf.
Badke, W. (2011). Online, March/April. In Remedial information literacy (pp. 51–53).
Retrieved 2020-12-16.
Badke, W. (2014). Who owns information literacy? Online Searcher, 38(4), 68–70.
Retrieved 2020-12-16.
Becker, C. (2009). Student values and research: Are millennials really changing the
future of reference and research? Journal of Library Administration, 49(4), 341–364.
Bent, M., & Stockdale, E. (2009). Title integrating information literacy as a habit of
learning - Assessing the impact of a golden thread of IL in the curriculum journal of
information. Literacy, 3, 43–50.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Borchardt, R., Salcedo, T., & Bentley, M. (2019). Little intervention, big results:
Intentional integration of information literacy into an introductory-level biology lab
course. Journal of Biological Education (Routledge), 53(4), 450–462. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00219266.2018.1494029
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education, 41, 400–413.
Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
Bruce, C. (2004). Information Literacy as a catalyst for educational change. A
background paper. Yeppoon, Queensland. Retrieved on December 22 from. In
P. A. Danaher (Ed.), Proceedings “lifelong learning: Whose responsibility and what is
your contribution?”, The 3rd international lifelong learning conference (pp. 8–19) http
://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1022.7660&rep=rep
1&type=pdf.
Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy Opportunities and
challenges for undergraduate information literacy education. Reference Services
Review, 44, 237–252.
Čipková, E., Karolčík, Š., Sládková, K., & Ušáková, K. (2018). What is the level of
scientific literacy among geography students studying bachelor’s studies in natural
sciences? International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 27(4),
295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2017.1389044
Crawford, N., & Broertjes, A. (2010). Evaluation of a university online information
literacy unit. Australian Library Journal, 59(4), 187–196.
D’Couto, M., & Rosenhan, S. H. (2015). How students research: Implications for the
library and faculty. Journal of Library Administration, 55(7), 562–576.
T. Svensson et al.
Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D., & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information, communications, and
technology (ICT) skills curriculum based on the Big6 skills approach to information
problem-solving. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 24–27.
Gullbekk, E., Bøyum, I., & Byström, K. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and information
literacy: Librarians’ competencies in emerging settings of higher education. In
Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact:
Research in and for the Community (p. 79). American Society for Information Science.
Gustavsson, Å. K. (2013). Information literacy progression within the environmental
science program at Linköping University. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in
Higher Education, 5, 22–26.
Hammons, J. (2020). Teaching the teachers to teach information literacy: A literature
review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46, Article 102196.
Harris, S. Y. (2017). Undergraduates’ assessment of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) information literacy instruction. IFLA Journal, 43(2), 171–186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035216684522
Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Lessons learned: How college students seek information
in the digital age. Project information literacy progress report. The Information School,
University of Washington.
Head, A. J. (2013). Project Information Literacy: What can be learned about the
information-seeking behaviour of today’s college students?. In Proceedings of the
Association of College and Research. Libraries (ACRL) 2013 conference in Indianapolis,
ID, ALA, Chicago, IL (pp. 472–482).
Head, A. J. (2016). Staying smart: How today’s graduates continue to learn once they
complete college. In Project information literacy.
Head, A. J., Fister, B., & MacMillan, M. (2020). Information literacy in the age of
algorithms- Student experiences with news and information and the need for change.
Retrieved January 31, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605109.pdf.
Hicks, S., MacDonald, S., & Martin, E. (2017). Enhancing scientific literacy by targeting
specific scientific skills. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science
Teachers Association, 63(3), 26–37.
Johansson, M., & Svensson, T. (2019). Individual reflection paper: Supporting Student’s
learning in the critical phase of self-directed learning in PBL. Journal of Problem
Based Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 97–106.
Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review
and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352.
Keene, J., Colvin, J., & Sissons, J. (2010). Mapping student information literacy activity
against Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Skills. The Journal of Information Literacy, 4,
5–17.
Kumari, B. K. (2016). The role of information literacy competence and higher order
thinking skills to develop academic writing in science and engineering students.
Higher Learning Research Communications, 6(4), 4.
Lokse, M., Lag, T., Solberg, M., Andreassen, H. N., & Stenersen, M. (2017). Teaching
information literacy in higher education: Effective teaching and active learning. Chandos
Publishing.
Maybee, C., Bruce, C. S., Lupton, M., & Pang, M. F. (2019). Informed learning design:
Teaching and learning through engagement with information. Higher Education
Research & Development, 38(3), 579–593.
Monge, R., & Frisicaro-Pawlowski, E. (2014). Redefining information literacy to prepare
students for the 21st century workforce. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 59–73.
Moust, J., Berkel, H. V., & Schmidt, H. (2005). Signs of erosion: Reflections on three
decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education, 50,
665–683.
Newby, J. (2011). Entering unfamiliar territory: Building an information literacy course
for graduate students in interdisciplinary areas. Reference & User Services Quarterly,
50, 224–229.
Öberg, G. (2009). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create
common ground. Higher Education, 57, 405–415.
Paterson, S. F., & Gamtso, C. W. (2017). Information literacy instruction in an english
capstone course: A study of student confidence, perception, and practice. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 43(2), 143–155.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102465
Perez-Stable, M. A., Arnold, J. M., Guth, L. F., & Vander Meer, P. F. (2020). From service
role to partnership: Faculty voices on collaboration with librarians. Libraries and the
Academy, 20(1), 49–72. Project MUSE.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). Falmer, London:
Routledge.
Salisbury, F. A., Karasmanis, S., Robertson, T., Corbin, J., Hulett, H., & Peseta, T. L.
(2012). Transforming information literacy conversations to enhance student
learning: New curriculum dialogues. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 9(3), 16.
Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning
outcome. The Journal of Academic Librarianship., 38, 226–236.
Saunders, Severyna, L., & Caronb, J. (2017). Don’t they teach that in high school?
Examining the high school to college information literacy gap. Library and
Information Science Research, 39, 276–283.
Savin Baden, M., & Wilkie, K. (2004). Challenging research in problem-based learning.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Savin-Baden, M., & Howell, C. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. UK:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Scaramozzino, J. M. (2010). Integrating STEM information competencies into an
undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Library Administration, 50(4), 315–333.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930821003666981
Scharf, D. (2014). Instruction and assessment of information literacy among STEM
majors. In 2014 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference, Integrated STEM
Education Conference (ISEC), 2014 IEEE (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1109/
ISECon.2014.6891048
Scharf, J., & Dera, J. (2021). Question formulation for information literacy: Theory and
practice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47, Article 102365.
Smith, C. L., & Matteson, M. L. (2018). Information literacy in the age of machines that
learn: Desiderata for machines that teach. Libri, 68, 71–84.
Smith, E. (2003). Developing an information skills curriculum for the sciences. Issues in
Science and Technology Librarianship, 37. https://doi.org/10.5062/F48P5XGT
Taylor, A. (2012). A study of the information search behaviour of the millennial
generation. Information Research, 17(1). Paper 508.
Tran, C. Y., Miller, C., & Aveni, D. (2018). Baseline assessment: Understanding WISE
freshman students’ information literacy skills in a one-shot library session. Science
and Technology Libraries, 37(3), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0194262X.2018.1460651
Trembach, S., & Deng, L. (2018). Understanding millennial learning in academic
libraries: Learning styles, emerging technologies, and the efficacy of information
literacy instruction. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 25, 297–315.
UNESCO Information for All Programme. (2007). Understanding information literacy: A
primer. Paris: The Information Society Division, Communication and Information
Sector.
Van Laar, E., van Deursen, A., van Dijk, J., & De Hanna, J. (2017). The relation between
21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 72, 577–588.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for
21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A
reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6,
203–218.
Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The
cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Retrieved January 31, 2021 from. Stanford
Digital Repository https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934.
Withorn, T., Gardner, C. C., Messer Kimmitt, J., Eslami, J., Andora, A., Clarke, M.,
Patch, N., Salinas Guajardo, K., & Lunsford, S. (2019). Library instruction and
information literacy 2018. Reference Services Review, 47, 363–447.
Yevelson-Shorsher, A., & Bronstein, J. (2018). Three perspectives on information literacy
in academia: Talking to librarians, faculty, and students. College & Research Libraries,
79(4), 535.
Zurkovski. (1974). The information service environment relationships and priorities.