library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic information searching

Library Instruction and College Student Self-Efficacy in Electronic Information Searchingby Wen-Hua Ren

From 85 students surveyedbefore and after library

instruction, it was found thattheir self-efficacy in electronic

information searchingincreased after the training.That increase was related to

attitudes, emotionalexperiences, search

performance, and so on.Implications of these findings

to library instruction andreference services are

discussed.

Wen-Hua Ren is Documents/BusinessLibrarian, John Cotton Dana Library,

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey,185 University Ave., Newark, New Jersey07102,[email protected]..

I ncreasingly, searching for electronic in-formation is part of academic life forthe average college student. Not only is

much of library information delivered andretrieved electronically but electronic infor-mation use is beginning to be incorporatedin classroom instruction and required forcompleting course assignments. The effec-tiveness of electronic information searchingmay therefore directly affect students’ aca-demic experience and performance.

Unfortunately, for many undergraduatestudents who have not performed much on-line information searching before, using li-brary electronic sources could be a dauntingtask. When they are required to use libraryelectronic sources for course assignments orprojects, they may stumble through thesearch process or rely heavily on librarians’help. Reference librarians often find them-selves inundated with helping individualstudents who lack elementary electronicsearch skills. Research shows that demandfor reference assistance and library instruc-tion have increased dramatically for elec-tronic information search.1 How to help stu-dents to help themselves in learning andretaining the basic electronic informationsearch skills is becoming one of the majorchallenges for academic libraries and spe-cifically for reference librarians.2

Faculty and librarians expect libraryinstruction to be the primary means ofteaching students those skills. Yet for themastery of the skills, initial learning hasto be consolidated through continuouspractice. From the perspective of contin-uous learning, it appears that library in-struction would be most effective if it notonly teaches the basic skills but also cul-tivate in the students a positive attitudeand a strong motivation to continue tolearn and practice those skills on theirown.

Such a positive attitude and self moti-vation, according to Albert Bandura,3 can

be best achieved by enhancing self-effi-cacy, which refers to a person’s belief inhis or her own capability to perform spe-cific activities or tasks. Applying the con-cept of self-efficacy and building on pre-vious research on computer and Internetself-efficacy, this study explores whetherand to what extent library instruction canenhance college students’ self-efficacy inelectronic information searching. Specifi-cally, it assesses the level of college stu-dents’ self-efficacy in electronic informa-tion searching before and after libraryinstruction and examines how self-effi-cacy is related to students’ attitudes to-ward acquiring electronic search skills,their emotions experienced during com-pleting the assignment, and their searchperformance.

LITERATURE REVIEW : RECIPROCAL

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND PERFORMANCE

According to Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, there is a reciprocal relationshipbetween an individual’s performance andhis or her self-efficacy beliefs.4 That is,performance is both the antecedent andthe consequence of self-efficacy. On onehand, performance outcome is the mostinfluential source of self-efficacy. Perfor-mance successes lead to high self-efficacybut failures to low self-efficacy. On theother hand, self-efficacy affects perfor-mance outcome. People are generallymore interested in performing activities inwhich they have high self-efficacy thanthose in which they have low self-effi-cacy. In times of difficulty or failure, peo-ple with high self-efficacy, will workharder and be more persistent.5 Greaterinterest, effort, and persistence will bemore likely to generate success, which, inturn, will further enhance self-efficacy.Performance accomplishments and self-

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 5, pages 323–328 September 2000323

efficacy therefore will formulate a posi-tive cycle in which they reinforce eachother.

Similar pattern may occur in the rela-tionship between negative performanceoutcome and low self-efficacy. A personwith low self-efficacy in a give activitymay shun the activity altogether, forgoingopportunities to develop relevant skills.Low self-efficacy will cause self-doubt,low interest, and low perseverance, hencelow performance, which, in turn, de-creases self-efficacy.

Applying the concept of self-efficacyto computer learning and use, researchershave primarily focused on how self-effi-cacy affects behavior and performance.College students’ course registration incomputer classes, their computer use andtheir technology acceptance are positivelyrelated to computer self-efficacy.6 Com-puter self-efficacy has a direct effect on aperson’s perception of the ease of com-puter use, which, in turn, affects the fre-quency and time of computer use.7 Astudy on Internet learners reported thatthe students with lower self-efficacy inInternet use dropped out the Internethands-on training program.8 Small busi-ness executives who had higher Internetself-efficacy searched the Internet forgovernment information more frequentlythan those who had relatively lower Inter-net self-efficacy.9

THE PRESENT STUDY

Although the aforementioned researchhas shown the powerful impact of self-efficacy on behavior and performance,the present study is interested in exam-ining how performance and behaviorwill affect self-efficacy. Particularly,how library instruction with hands-onelectronic searching experiences willinfluence college students’ self-efficacyin electronic information searching.

“Self-efficacy in electronicinformation searching refers to

the extent to which collegestudents feel capable ofconducting electronic

information searches to locaterelevant sources and

information for academic orresearch purposes.”

Self-efficacy in electronic informationsearching refers to the extent to whichcollege students feel capable of conduct-ing electronic information searches to lo-cate relevant sources and information foracademic or research purposes. It is worthnoting that many studies have assessedthe effectiveness of library instruction.Some used students’ confidence in libraryuse as a criterion for evaluating instruc-tion effectiveness.10 However, althoughconfidence in library use may be concep-tually similar to self-efficacy, this studydiffers from the previous studies in twoimportant ways. First, guided by the the-ory of self-efficacy, this study systemati-cally examines relationships between li-brary instruction, self-efficacy, emotions,and performance in use of library elec-tronic sources. Second, the concept ofself-efficacy is much more task/skill spe-cific in this study than the general notionof confidence in library use. This study isamong the few that studies self-efficacyin relation to electronic informationsearching.

Factors Relating to Self-Efficacy inElectronic Information Searching

Library Instruction on ElectronicSearchingProperly designed library instruction

is more likely to help students dispelapprehensions related to electronicsearching and increase their self-effi-cacy, which will motivate students tocontinue to learn and practice. First, be-cause library instruction is often an in-tegral part of an academic course, themastery of basic electronic informationsearch skills is one of learning objec-tives itself. Second, the library instruc-tor designs the instruction tailored to thecourse project, and teaches students thebasic search skills using the most rele-vant electronic sources. Third, hands-onpractice and library assignment enablestudents to gain search experience andreceive feedback about their perfor-mance.

Electronic Searching PerformanceElectronic searching performance re-

fers to effectiveness in searching forneeded information by using electronicsources. As discussed earlier, perfor-mance outcome is the most importantfactor that affects self-efficacy. To theextent students successfully obtain in-formation that they are searching for,their self-efficacy should increase. Thatis, the more students feel effective in

searching for electronic information, themore likely they will develop high self-efficacy beliefs about electronic infor-mation searching.

Attitudes toward Acquiring ElectronicInformation Search SkillsAttitudes toward acquiring electronic

information search skills refer to students’perceptions of the importance of learningelectronic search skills for obtaining in-formation and completing academic as-signments. Students with more positiveattitudes will be more motivated and morelikely to feel self-efficacious in perform-ing the search tasks.

Affective ExperiencesAffective experiences refer to a per-

son’s emotional reactions that he or sheexperiences during task performance. Aspointed out by Bandura, self-efficacy be-liefs “affect emotional reactions as well asbehavior. This is especially true of anxi-ety and stress reactions to unfamiliar orpotentially aversive events.”11 The re-verse can also be true. That is, when peo-ple experience negative emotions in taskperformance, they are less likely to de-velop high self-efficacy. In performingelectronic searches, feelings of confusionand frustration are likely to decrease self-efficacy.

In summary, based on the self-efficacytheory, it is hypothesized: (1) library in-struction will improve college students’self-efficacy in electronic informationsearching; (2) self-efficacy will increaseto the extent students perform well intheir electronic searches; (3) self-efficacywill be higher for those students who havemore positive attitudes toward electronicinformation searching; and (4) self-effi-cacy will be lower if students experiencenegative emotions during performingelectronic searches.

PROCEDURES

Eighty-five undergraduate students takingan introductory English compositioncourse on the Newark campus of RutgersUniversity participated in the study inspring 1999. It would be ideal to conducta full experiment in which participantswere randomly selected and assigned totwo different groups: the experimentalgroup, which would receive the libraryinstruction, and the control group, whichwould not receive the library instruction.Unfortunately, random assignment of theparticipants into the experiment and con-trol groups was not feasible because they

324 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

were all required to take the library in-struction to meet the course objectives.12

As can be seen in Table 1, 61.9% ofthe participants were female, 54.5% were18 to 20 years old, 67.1% were full-time,and 50.6% were first-year students. Themajority of the participants had a com-puter (89.4%) and access to the Internet(89.2%).

Library instruction was tailored to thecourse project, which required students towrite a literary criticism on a novel of aselected writer. The instruction consistedof an 80 minute in-class lecturing, onlinesearch demonstration, and hands-on prac-tice followed by an after-class library as-signment. The lecture introduced basicconcepts of library research and informa-tion search strategies. Online search dem-onstrations were conducted on selectedwriters and their works. The studentslearned how to search the library onlinecatalog by author, title, and subject. Forjournal article searches, they learned toselect and search appropriate index data-bases, such asHumanities IndexandMLAInternational Bibliography. Specificsearch skills included constructing searchconcepts, selecting subject headings,evaluating search results, modifyingsearches, and locating the articles. Thestudents were also taught to locate thelibrary research guides for their course onthe World Wide Web.

The students were given a week tocomplete the library assignment indepen-dently. The assignment required them to:(1) use the library online catalog to searchfor a book and a bibliography about aliterary writer, and identify subject head-ing(s); (2) search an online index databasein humanities to find a journal articleabout a literary work, identify the citationelements of a record, and determine if thelibrary has the journal; and (3) visit thelibrary’s Web site to locate a library re-search guide related to the research topic.

Before the library instruction started,participants filled out a survey question-naire. It contained four sections: (1) self-efficacy in using library electronic sourc-es; (2) attitudes toward acquiring onlinesearch skills; (3) use frequency of com-puter, e-mail, the Internet, and libraryelectronic databases; and (4) individualbackground information. A second surveyquestionnaire was filled out by the stu-dents after they submitted the library as-signment. The second questionnaire con-tained the same first two sections in thepreinstruction questionnaire. Addition-ally, it asked the participants to assesstheir electronic searching performanceand report any negative emotions experi-enced during completing the assignment.To protect anonymity, each participantwas asked, instead of using his or herindividual name, to create a unique per-sonal code and use it for the pre- andpostinstruction questionnaires and the as-signment sheet.

MEASURES

Self-Efficacy in ElectronicInformation Searching

Students were asked how confidentthey felt in performing tasks relating touse of library electronic sources. Thirteentasks/skills were listed in regard tosearching the library online catalog, on-line periodical databases, and the library’sWeb site. The tasks were specific such as“search for books by author and title inthe library’s catalog,” “select an appropri-ate online periodical index database foryour topic,” “search for article citationsfor a topic in a journal database,” “iden-tify the elements of a journal article cita-tion,” “send retrieved citations to an emailaccount,” and “search the catalog to findout which libraries have the periodical.”Participants were asked to rate their con-fidence on a 10-point scale with “1” being

not confident at alland “10” beingveryconfident.

Attitudes toward Acquiring ElectronicInformation Search Skills

Participants were asked to expresstheir degree of agreement on eight state-ments regarding the benefit of acquiringelectronic information search skillsthrough library training on a 10-pointscale (“1” beingstrongly disagreeand“10” being strongly agree). Examplesof the statements included “learninghow to search library electronic data-bases will be beneficial to my courseassignment” and “library electronic da-tabases are a fast and efficient means ofgetting information.”

Negative Emotions

On a five-point scale with “1” beingvery little and “5” being very much,participants were asked to report towhat extent they experienced negativeemotions, such as feeling irritated, con-fused, frustrated and overwhelmedwhen they were completing the libraryassignment.

Search Performance

Search performance was measuredby self-assessment of the students aswell as grading by the library instructor.Self-assessment included three ques-tions on a five-point scale: how well theparticipant thought that he or she per-formed the searches (“1” beingpoorly,“5” being very well); how satisfied theparticipant was with his or her own per-formance (“1” beingleast satisfied, “5”beingmost satisfied); and how effectivethe participant was in answering thequestions in the assignment (“1” beingleast effective, “5” being most effective).The library instructor graded the assign-ment by verifying the answers in thedatabases used. A wrong answer re-

Table 1Participants Background

Gender (%)n 5 84

Age (%)n 5 79

Status (%)n 5 85

Class Level (%)n 5 85

Field of Study (%)n 5 85

Female 61.9 18–20 54.5 Full time 67.1 Freshman 50.6 Social Science 28.2

Male 38.1 21–25 26.6 Part time 32.9 Sophomore 25.9 Science 22.4

26–30 6.3 Junior 14.1 Business 16.5

31–35 6.3 Senior 9.4 Nursing 7.0

36–42 6.3 Fine Arts 3.5

Undecided 22.4

September 2000 325

ceived zero points, a partially correctanswer earned one point, and a correctanswer earned two points. There werefive questions requiring 15 short an-swers. The total points of the gradecould range from zero to 30. Althoughstudent self-assessment is subjectiveand general, grade points based onwhether or not assigned searches led tothe correct answers provide a more ob-jective and specific assessment ofsearch effectiveness.

Individual Background and UseFrequency

Students were also asked to report theirbackground information such as age, gen-der, major, whether or not they had a com-puter and Internet access, and how often(daily, weekly, occasionally, or never) theyused e-mail, computer, the Internet, and li-brary’s electronic databases.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Most of the participants were frequentusers of computer (78.6% daily and11.9% weekly), e-mail (71.4% daily and14.3% weekly), and the Internet (45.2%daily and 23.8% weekly). In contrast,50.6% used the library’s electronic data-bases only occasionally and 39.8% neverused them.

Table 2 presents the means and stan-dard deviation scores of other majorvariables of the study. Particularly note-worthy is that the mean score of self-efficacy was 5.51 before the librarytraining and 7.25 after the training, anincrease of 1.74. A self-efficacy com-parison of the same participants be-tween their mean pre-instruction scoreand their mean post-instruction scorefound the difference significant (t 57.36; p , .001).

The mean score of attitudes was 8.52

before the training and 8.54 after thetraining. This suggests that the partici-pants, in general, started with a positiveattitude toward acquiring electronic infor-mation search skills and the training itselfresulted in little change of the attitude.

Correlation analyses were run to seeif pre- and post-training self-efficacyscores were related to each other and ifthey each were related to other impor-tant variables such as attitudes, searchperformance, negative emotions, usefrequency, and individual background.Pre-training self-efficacy was positivelycorrelated with post-training self-effi-cacy (r 5 .41; p 5 , .001). This seemsto suggest that, although all participantsincreased their self-efficacy at the com-pletion of the training, those who wererelatively higher in self-efficacy beforethe training tended to be also relativelyhigher after the training. The correlationbetween use frequency of library elec-tronic databases and pre-training self-efficacy (see Table 3) indicates that fre-quent users were more likely to havehigher self-efficacy even before thetraining. Table 3 also shows that pre-training self-efficacy was positivelycorrelated with self-assessment of

search performance but not to instruc-tor’s evaluation in terms of grade. Pre-training self-efficacy was not correlatedwith individual background of age, gen-der, years of college, or full versus parttime status.

Post-training self-efficacy was sig-nificantly correlated with search perfor-mance as in both self-assessment (r 5.58, p , .001) and grade (r 5 .38, p ,.001). Self-assessment and grade werepositively correlated with each other(r 5 .49, p , .001). Post-training self-efficacy was also found to be signifi-cantly correlated with post-training atti-tudes, negative emotions, and usefrequency of library electronic data-bases (see Table 3). Just like pre-train-ing self-efficacy, post-training self-effi-cacy was not correlated with any of theindividual background variables. Thesefindings suggest that frequent libraryusers continued to hold relatively higherself-efficacy than non-frequent userseven after the library training. In addi-tion, in comparison with those of lowerself-efficacy, students of higher self-ef-ficacy were those who expressed a morepositive attitude toward learning elec-tronic information search skills, experi-enced less negative emotions and per-formed better in completing the libraryassignment.

To further illustrate the relations ofself-efficacy with other major variables,the sample of this study was divided intothree groups according to their post-train-ing self-efficacy, namely, the low, mod-erate, and high efficacy groups. The lowand high self-efficacy groups were madeup of the bottom and top 20% scoringstudents, respectively and the moderateself-efficacy group the middle 60% rangestudents. The mean scores of attitudes to-ward acquiring electronic search skills,negative emotions, self-assessment ofperformance, and instructor evaluation

Table 2Means and Standard Deviations

Variables N Mean SDScale

Range

Pre-training self-efficacy 84 5.51 2.22 1–10

Post-training self-efficacy 85 7.25 1.65 1–10

Pre-training attitudes 85 8.52 1.67 1–10

Post-training attitudes 85 8.54 1.37 1–10

Self-assessment 85 3.56 0.92 1–5

Grade points 78 21.20 7.48 0–30

Negative emotions 85 2.21 0.88 1–5

Table 3Correlations of Pre- and Post-training Self-efficacy and Other Major

Variables

Pre-training

Attitudes

Post-training

AttitudesSelf-

assessment GradeNegativeEmotions

UseFrequency

Pre-trainingself-efficacy .02 .12 .29** .10 2.12 .39***

Post-trainingself-efficacy .04 .43*** .58*** .38*** 2.35*** .28**

Note: *** p , .001; **p , .01.


were calculated for each self-efficacygroup. Table 4 shows that attitudes, self-assessment, and grade were highest in thehigh self-efficacy group but lowest in thelow self-efficacy group. Negative emo-tions, on the other hand, was the strongestfor the low self-efficacy group but weak-est for the high self-efficacy group.

DISCUSSION

Before proceeding to the discussion, itis important to recognize that due to theabsence of random selection of the par-ticipants and the lack of a control group,the findings of this study should be in-terpreted with caution. For example,during the week of the library assign-ment, there might be co-occurringevents, which potentially could have af-fected the self-efficacy of the partici-pants. The increase of self-efficacy,therefore, could be attributed to otherpossible factors than the library instruc-tion. The author made sure that the En-glish course instructors did not assignprojects that required library use in thatsame week. Still other chance factorscould not be completely ruled out. Morerigorous experimental designs are there-fore needed to confirm the validity ofthe study’s findings.

“This study shows that collegestudents’ self-efficacy inelectronic information

searching was significantlyhigher after library instruction,

which combined lecture,demonstration, hands-on

practice, and an assignment oflibrary electronic information

searching.”

This study shows that college students’self-efficacy in electronic informationsearching was significantly higher afterlibrary instruction, which combined lec-ture, demonstration, hands-on practice,and an assignment of library electronicinformation searching. Furthermore, fre-quent use of library electronic databaseswas correlated with both pre- and post-training self-efficacy. This highlighted theimportance of electronic searching activ-ities for acquiring and maintaining self-efficacy. Third, college students, on theaverage, had a positive attitude towardacquiring electronic information searchskills, and library training had little im-pact on changing such attitude. However,although attitude had little to do with self-efficacy before the training it was highlycorrelated with self-efficacy after thetraining. Fourth, self-efficacy increased tothe extent that students performed well inthe library assignment, experienced lessnegative emotions, and held a more pos-itive attitude toward learning electronicsearch skills.

It is interesting to note the similari-ties and differences in how pre- andpost-training self-efficacy scores werecorrelated with other variables. Bothwere correlated with prior search fre-quency of library electronic databases(see Table 3) and both were correlatedwith self-assessment of search perfor-mance. But only post-training self-effi-cacy was correlated with a more objec-tive evaluation of search effectiveness,namely grade points. The lack of corre-lation between pre-training self-efficacyand grade points suggests that studentsmight feel self-efficacious without hav-ing the necessary skills for electronicsearching. Perhaps, the initial self-effi-cacy was derived from a general senseof self-confidence but not grounded onthe performance of the specific tasks.

Similarly, pre-training self-efficacyfailed to correlate with post-training at-titudes and emotions. However, thatpre-training self-efficacy was correlatedwith post-training self-assessment couldstill be important because those who feltgood about their search skills might bemore likely to engage in electronicsearch activities, which could eventu-ally lead to the mastery of skills andeffective performance.

In contrast to pre-training self-effi-cacy, post-training self-efficacy wasbased on recent and task-specific behav-ioral and emotional experiences. There-fore, it showed significant correlationnot only with self-assessment but alsowith the librarian’s evaluation of searchperformance. Such experience-basedand task specific self-efficacy, accord-ing to Bandura’s theory and research onself-efficacy, is more likely to influencestudents’ search behaviors and perfor-mance in the future.

The findings have some practical im-plications for library instruction and ref-erence services. It is encouraging to findthat self-efficacy can, indeed, be en-hanced through library instruction withhands-on electronic information searchexercises added to the traditional lectur-ing method. This hands-on approach toinstruction requires more resources interms of teaching facilities and instruc-tor’s time for coaching and grading theexercises. However, in the long run, itmay be a worthy investment because itcould instill adequate self-efficacy instudents, which would encourage moreself-reliant search behaviors and de-crease their dependence on referent li-brarians for electronic informationsearching.

“For self-efficacy to increase,students must have adequate

searching practice, experiencelearning accomplishments and

not be overwhelmed withnegative emotions such asconfusion and frustration.”

For self-efficacy to increase, studentsmust have adequate searching practice,experience learning accomplishmentsand not be overwhelmed with negativeemotions such as confusion and frustra-

Table 4Means of Major Variables by Grouping of Self-efficacy

VariablesScale

Range

Post-training Self-efficacy

High(n 5 16)

Moderate(n 5 52)*

Low(n 5 17)*

Attitudes 1–10 9.16 8.67 7.54

Self-assessment 1–5 4.23 3.62 2.64

Grade points 0–30 25.13 21.17 17.62

Use of library electronic sources 1–4 1.94 1.72 1.40

Negative emotions 1–5 1.81 2.14 2.87

Note: *For grade points, the sample size is 47 for the moderate self-efficacy group and 15 for the low self-efficacy group.

September 2000 327

tion. This calls for an accurate assess-ment of the students’ level of searchskills, on the basis of which, questionsin the assignment are selected and se-quenced according to levels of diffi-culty. Availability of practice facilities,encouraging searching environment anduser-friendly point-of-use print and on-line instructional guides are also impor-tant contributors to gradual building upof self-efficacy.

Another implication is concerned withreference services in the end-user onlinesearching environment. From the self-ef-ficacy point of view, reference librariansshould help students to help themselves tobecome effective online searchers. Weneed to realize that only the effectiveelectronic users will benefit most from thenew information technologies for their ac-ademic career and beyond. Although “doit for them” may, at the moment, seem anefficient way to meet the immediate in-formation need, in the long run, “beingtoo helpful” actually deprives students ofopportunities to learn the skills of elec-tronic information searching and helpsthem develop over-dependence on the ref-erence librarian.

The study raised some questions forfuture research. First, because the librarytraining consists of the instruction and theassignment, which component accountedmore or less for the increase of self-effi-cacy? Could traditional lecture-orientedinstruction alone improve self-efficacy?Future research can explore this by com-paring two instruction methods: one withmore hands-on search exercises and theother with little or no hands-on exercises.Second, how long will self-efficacy andits impact last after the training? Studiesof students’ self-efficacy and search ac-tivities over a relatively longer period oftime are needed to answer that question.Third, the relationship between self-effi-cacy and search performance needs fur-ther study. The lack of positive correla-tion between pre-training self-efficacyand objective search performance indi-cates that self-efficacy has to be matchedwith real learning in order for a person tobecome effective.

“Self-efficacy and electronicinformation searching will

reinforce each other so thathigher self-efficacy leads tomore frequent and effective

electronic searching, which, inturn, further enhances self-

efficacy.”

CONCLUSION

Library instruction has the potential toinduce students to engage in electronicinformation searches on their own if it notonly teaches technical search skills butalso cultivates self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy and electronic informationsearching will reinforce each other so thathigher self-efficacy leads to more fre-quent and effective electronic searching,which, in turn, further enhances self-effi-cacy. This does not negate the importantrole of the reference librarian as informa-tion service provider but rather makesother roles such as teacher and coachmore salient. With the popularization ofinformation and communication technol-ogies, the value of libraries and librarianswould be increased if we not only provideinformation services for our users but alsoempower them to meet their informationneeds on their own in this ever growingelectronic era.

Acknowledgment: This study was sup-ported by the 1999 research grant fromthe Rutgers Research Council. The au-thor would like to express gratitude tothe professors in the English Depart-ment of Rutgers University (NewarkCampus) who offered support for thestudy.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Carol Tenopir & Lisa Ennis, “The Impactof Digital Reference on Librarians andLibrary Users,”Online22 (November/De-cember 1998): 84–88; Carol Tenopir,“Electronic Reference and Reference Li-brarians: A Look through the 1990s,”Ref-erence Services Review27 (1999): 276–279.

2. Soo Young Rieh, “Changing ReferenceService Environment: A Review of Per-spectives from Managers, Librarians, andUsers,”The Journal of Academic Librari-anship25 (May 1999): 178–186.

3. Albert Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward aUnifying Theory of Behavioral Change,”Psychological Review84 (March 1977):191–215.

4. Ibid.5. Ibid.; Albert Bandura, “Self-Efficacy

Mechanism in Human Agency,”Ameri-can Psychologist37 (February 1982):122–147; Albert Bandura,Social Founda-tions of Thought and Action(EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986), pp. 390–453.

6. Thomas Hill, “Role of Efficacy Expecta-tions in Predicting the Decision to UseAdvanced Technologies: The Case ofComputers,”Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy 72 (May 1987): 307–313.

7. Magid Igbaria & Juharvi Iivari, “The Ef-fects of Self-Efficacy on Computer Us-age,” Omega23 (December 1995): 587–605.

8. Diane Nahl, “Affective Monitoring of In-ternet Learners: Perceived Self-Efficacyand Success,”Proceedings of the ASISAnnual Meeting33 (1996): 100–109.

9. Wen-Hua Ren, “Self-Efficacy and theSearch for Government Information: AStudy of Small-Business Executives,”Reference and User Services Quarterly38(Spring 1999): 283–291.

10. Sonia Bodi, “Teaching Effectiveness andBibliographic Instruction: The Relevanceof Learning Styles,”College & ResearchLibraries 51 (March 1990): 113–119; Di-ane Prorak, Tania Gottschalk, & MikePollastro, “Teaching Method and Psycho-logical Type in Bibliographic Instruction:Effect on Student Learning and Confi-dence,”RQ 33 (Summer 1994): 484–95;Pachel Fenske & Ann Roselle, “Provingthe Efficacy of Library Instruction Evalu-ation,” Research Strategies16 (1998):175–185.

11. Bandura, “Self-Efficacy Mechanism,” p.136.

12. The English composition course teachesstudents to do extensive analytical writ-ing based on literary texts, includingfiction, poetry and drama, Introductionto library resources is one of the courseobjectives. The librarian prepares theinstruction after discussing about the re-search topics and project/paper require-ments with the professor who requeststhe library instruction.
