Search results

This study aims to evaluate the instances of information literacy instruction within the virtual reference system of a Canadian university library.

Coding and analysis of a sample of chat transcripts over the course of one academic year have been used.

The analysis indicated that over 50 per cent of virtual reference interactions do not lend themselves to information literacy instruction. An average of 23.6 per cent of interactions included information literacy instruction and the preferred methods of instruction were modelling and resource sharing.

While previous studies have focused on information literacy instruction provided in a virtual reference setting, this study aims to identify not only instances of information literacy but also to better understand the nature of chat queries by codifying instances of a transactional nature. The results could lead to improved best practices for chat reference, enhanced staff training and varied promotion and delivery of not just virtual reference services but of other library services as well. A portion of this research project, including partial results for the Fall semester, was presented at the LILAC Conference in Liverpool in April 2018.

This analysis of chat reference transcripts assesses differences in how librarians and graduate assistants (GAs) incorporate teaching strategies in responding to chat reference inquiries in social sciences, health sciences, humanities, STEM and business/economics at a large, public R1 university in the United States.

Researchers with disciplinary assignments in five different subject domains conducted qualitative analysis of a purposive sample of 982 transcripts of chat interactions during four semesters in 2021 and 2022.

Some form of information literacy instruction (ILI) occurred in 58% of the transcripts, with slightly less teaching occurring in social sciences inquiries than in other subject areas. Of transcripts that included teaching strategies, search procedures predominated, followed by a mix of concepts and procedures, and the least with concepts only. Chat providers taught concepts specific to social sciences, health sciences and humanities, but not to STEM or business.

The study compares transcripts at one institution; findings may be most applicable to large, research institutions that seek to incorporate ILI in online reference services.

Chat reference training should include best practices for ILI relevant to specific subject domains for providers without background in those disciplines and recommendations for referrals to subject specialists.

Existing ILI literature does not address the question of how chat providers teach concepts rooted in a specific subject domain or offer a comparison of teaching strategies employed in different disciplines, by librarians versus GAs or staff.