Survey of U.S. and Canadian librarians on open pedagogy
Data files
Aug 02, 2024 version files 138.82 KB
-
LISOpenPedSurvey_PublicData.csv
129.57 KB
-
README.md
9.25 KB
Abstract
With the growth of open pedagogy has come the growth of library support for open pedagogy. Likewise, more and more case studies are demonstrating how librarians use open pedagogy to support student growth in information literacy, specifically the Association of College & Research Libraries’ Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education. However, little has been done to look at the broader picture of how librarians are supporting open pedagogy and how ready they feel to do so, especially in connecting open pedagogy to information literacy. This data comes from a survey of librarians in the United States and Canada who work in information literacy instruction and/or open education about their practice in open pedagogy.
README: Survey of U.S. and Canadian librarians on open pedagogy
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.98sf7m0qq
This dataset reflects a survey of U.S. and Canadian academic librarians conducted about their experience with supporting open pedagogy in the classroom as well as their thoughts on such support. Data was collected from 2023_06_28 to 2023_08_09.
Description of the data and file structure
This dataset includes one file, LISOpenPedSurvey_PublicData.csv, that includes the survey results. This includes 25 initial variables and 145 cases/rows. Survey results from people who began but did not finish the survey have been removed. A number of variables were also deleted to help tidy data or to protect against potentially identifying any of the respondents (in this case, just open-text responses were deleted). Blank cells are represented by NA. Cells could be blank for two reasons. First, no questions were required and therefore a respondent could opt to skip it. Second, two sections were only shown to respondents based on how they responded to prior questions; to see which questions these include, refer to the survey instrument. The R code also includes code to separate these sections to show only those respondents who would have seen the sections.
There are three other files: the survey instrument (LISOpenPedSurvey_SurveyInstrument.docx), the R code used to clean and analyze the data (LibOpenPedagogySurvey_code_public.R), and a codebook (LISOpenPedSurvey_qualitative_codebook.xlsx) describing codes used to analyze open text data that has since been removed from the main dataset because of privacy concerns.
Variable List
A. Name: InstType
Description: The type of institution the respondent works at
Values: Public; Private - not for profit
B. Name: Degree
Description: What is the highest degree offered at the respondent's institution?
Values: Associate; Bachelors; Masters; Doctoral
C. Name: FTE
Description: The full-time equivalent student enrollment at the respondent's institution
Values: <2,000 FTE students; 2,000-4,999 FTE students; 5,000-9,999 FTE students; 10,000 and greater FTE students
D. Name: LongLib
Description: How long the respondent has worked in librarianship total
Values: <2 years; 2-5 years; >5 years
E. Name: DoIns
Description: Does the respondent currently work in library instruction?
Values: Yes, it's a secondary task; Yes, it's a core task; No
F. Name: DoOpen
Description: Does the respondent currently work in open education?
Values: Yes, it's a secondary task; Yes, it's a core task; No
G. Name: LongIns
Description: How long has the respondent worked in library instruction in total?
Values: <2 years; 2-5 years; >5 years
H. Name: LongOpen
Description: How long has the respondent worked in library open education in total?
Values: <2 years; 2-5 years; >5 years
I. Name: InstSupp
Description: Does your institution receive any support for open education from any of the options (multiple choice question; respondents could choose as many as applied)
Values: Yes - government; Yes - library; Yes - institution; Not sure; No
J. Name: ComfortOpenPed
Description: How comfortable is the respondent with open pedagogy
Values: Very comfortable - I am very knowledgeable of open pedagogy and have provided significant support for open pedagogy; Somewhat comfortable - I am knowledgeable of open pedagogy and/or have begun to take part in open pedagogy work; Slightly comfortable - I am aware of open pedagogy but am not well versed in it and have not done any work in open pedagogy; Not at all comfortable - I am not aware of open pedagogy.
K. Name: OPFrameConnect
Description: How many frames from the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy does the respondent think connect to open pedagogy (this question mistakenly left out six frames as an option)
Values: None; One; Two or three; Four or five
L. Name: LibSupport
Description: Does the respondent's library support their work in open pedagogy?
Values: My library discourages it; My library is neutral; My library encourages it; My library requires it as part of my role
M. Name: OPRole
Description: Has the respondent ever supported open pedagogy in a higher education course?
Values: Yes; Not sure; No
N. Name: WantSupport (only those who said No or Not sure in Column Q would have responses for columns R and S)
Description: Does the respondent want to support open pedagogy in a course?
Values: Yes; Maybe; No
O. Name: OPReady
Description: Does the respondent feel they are ready and able to support open pedagogy in a course?
Values: Yes; No
P. Name: NumClasses (only those who said Yes in Column Q would have responses for columns T through ?)
Description: How many classes using open pedagogy has the respondent supported
Values: 1; 2-3; More than 3
Q. Name: WhatRoles (multi-choice question; respondent could select as many as applied)
Description: I provided one instruction session for the class; I provided multiple instruction sessions for the class; I created asynchronous learning objects; I was embedded as a librarian in the class; I partnered with the instructor in developing the open pedagogy assignments/lessons; I have helped conduct an assessment of open pedagogy in the class; I supported the class in creating an OER including supporting use of the authoring tool; I administered an incentive fund to support open pedagogy in the classroom; I was the instructor of record for the class; I provided support to the instructor in learning about open pedagogy; Other
R. Name: Initiated
Description: Has the respondent ever initiated their support of open pedagogy?
Values: Yes, at my choosing; Yes, at the prompting of someone else in my library; No, the instructor or someone else outside the library approached me about working with the class.
S. Name: PosOutcomes
Description: What were the top three positive outcomes of supporting open pedagogy?
Values: There were none; It improved my working relationship with instructor(s); It helped me teach information literacy skills; It helped students improve information literacy skills; It helped empower students as information creators; It helped reduce costs to students; It helped integrate equity and inclusion in the class and/or learning materials; It helped me integrate more into the course; It helped me develop as a librarian; It helped promote the library as a partner in the classroom instruction; It helped contribute to the availability of learning materials on the subject for others; It helped the library better determine future open pedagogy services; Other
T. Name: SupportAgain
Description: Would the respondent support open pedagogy again?
Values: Yes; Maybe; No
U. Name: ResourceAware
Description: Are respondents aware of resources that support librarians engaged in supporting open pedagogy?
Values: Yes; No
V. Name: ResourceAd
Description: Do respondents think the available resources are adequate?
Values: Yes; No; I'm not aware of any available resources
W. Name: noteVersStatus
Description: Do you note in your news article the version you cite?
Values: I always note if it has or has not been peer-reviewed, I sometimes note if it has or has not been peer-reviewed, I always note if it has or has not been published in a journal, I sometimes note if it has or has not been published in a journal, I do not note the peer review or publication status (could select multiple options)
X. Name: ResourceWant
Description: What are the top three resources respondents want to support librarian work in open pedagogy?
Values: Show how open pedagogy connects to the Framework; Examples of open pedagogy assignments; Examples of roles that librarians have played in open pedagogy work; How to talk to faculty about open pedagogy, including advising them; How to initiate conversations with faculty in order to introduce them to open pedagogy; How to find funding; How to advocate for open pedagogy within your library; How to advocate for open pedagogy within your university; Best practices for open pedagogy; Other
Y. Name: ShouldSupport
Description: Should librarians be involved in supporting open pedagogy?
Values: Yes, but only librarians who work in open education; Yes, but only librarians who work in instruction; Yes, librarians who work in instruction and/or in open education; No; Not sure
Z. Name: Barriers
Description: What are the top three barriers librarians face in supporting open pedagogy?
Values: Lack of time; Competing priorities; Lack of interest from instructors; Lack of support from supervisor/library; Lack of knowledge/expertise in open pedagogy; Lack of funding/financial concerns; Lack of infrastructure to support OER creation; No personal interest in open pedagogy; Other
Code/Software
This project used RStudio version 2022.02.3+492 to clean, analyze, and create visuals for this dataset. This code is being uploaded to Zenodo. Some of the code has been removed as it is no longer applicable to the public version of the data file.
Methods
The project used a survey, created in Qualtrics, to help answer the research questions. The survey was designed with four broad sections. The first focused on gathering background information about the participants and their institution, as well as their comfort level with open pedagogy, support provided at their institutions for open education, and then finally whether they have supported open pedagogy in a higher education course. Those who answered negatively to supporting open pedagogy were then directed to a second section available only to them about their interest in eventually supporting open pedagogy. Those who answered they had supported open pedagogy were directed to a third section that asked them about their experience with open pedagogy. Finally, all participants were directed to the fourth section, which asked them about barriers and needs to help support open pedagogy.
The University of Nevada, Reno's Institutional Review Board granted the research project an exempt status. The survey was open to any active academic librarian in the United States or Canada who currently works in library instruction and/or open education. The authors opted to focus on these two areas of librarianship as the most likely areas to support open pedagogy.
The survey was launched to seven listservs: ACRL Scholarly Communication, ACRL Instruction Section, ACRL Library Instruction Roundtable, ACRL Community and Junior College Libraries Section, SPARC’s LibOER, Creative Commons Open Education Platform, and the Medical Library Association’s MEDLIB-L. Reminder emails were sent on July 19 and August 7. Two hundred and eight respondents began the survey; 15 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 48 did not complete the survey, leaving 145 respondents. No question required a response, however, meaning response totals for some questions might be less than 145. The data was cleaned and analyzed using RStudio version 2022.02.3+492.
Open-text responses were removed from this dataset to help protect participants' privacy.