Comparative Analysis of Library Instruction in Public vs. Academic Libraries

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses the persistent gap in understanding how library instruction differs between public and academic libraries and how these differences impact user information literacy outcomes. The central aim is to compare instructional practices, learning outcomes, and user engagement across the two library contexts, with specific objectives to (a) identify variations in instructional design, delivery modes, and assessment techniques; (b) evaluate user information literacy competencies before and after instruction using standardized measures; (c) examine the influence of librarian qualifications, class size, and time allocation on instructional effectiveness; (d) assess user satisfaction and perceived usefulness of instruction in both settings; and (e) develop a cross-context model linking instructional variables to information literacy outcomes. The study is grounded in social constructivist theory and the elaboration likelihood model to explain how instructional context and audience characteristics shape learning processes and attitudes toward information use. A mixed-methods design combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a robust comparative analysis. The population comprises adult learners engaged in formal coursework who access library instruction in public libraries (n = 300) and academic libraries (n = 320) within a metropolitan region over an 18-month period. A stratified random sample of 260 participants from each sector will be drawn, ensuring representation across age, educational background, and prior information literacy exposure. Data collection instruments include a validated information literacy assessment instrument administered pre- and post-instruction, customized perception-of-instruction surveys, and a catalog of instructional activities and resources compiled through librarian surveys and class observations. Qualitative data will be gathered via semi-structured interviews with 20 librarians (10 from public libraries and 10 from academic libraries) and 40 instruction sessions observed using a standardized rubric. Instrument validity and reliability will be established through pilot testing, content validity indices, Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability for observational rubrics. Quantitative data will be analyzed using ANCOVA to compare post-instruction information literacy scores while controlling for baseline proficiency; multivariate regression will assess the relative impact of instructional design features, class size, and librarian qualifications. Qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis to identify patterns in pedagogical approaches, challenges, and contextual factors; triangulation will integrate quantitative and qualitative findings. It is anticipated that academic libraries will demonstrate higher gains in information literacy due to structured curricula and formal assessment, while public libraries may exhibit broader engagement and higher satisfaction due to flexible, community-oriented programming. However, differences in instructional design, such as the use of outcome-based assessments and interactive pedagogy, are expected to correlate positively with learning gains in both contexts. The study aims to contribute to knowledge by developing a parsimonious cross-context model of library instruction effectiveness that articulates how contextual factors—such as user motivation, instructional modality (in-person vs. virtual), and session duration—interact with pedagogical strategies to influence information literacy outcomes. The findings will inform practitioners and policymakers on scalable best practices for designing and delivering effective library instruction across public and academic settings, including recommendations for professional development, assessment frameworks, and resource allocation. The study concludes with actionable guidance (1) standardize outcome-oriented assessment across sectors, (2) adopt collaborative, evidence-based instructional design anchored in constructivist pedagogy, (3) tailor delivery modes to audience needs while maintaining core competencies, and (4) leverage cross-sector professional networks to share effective practices and materials. If limitations arise from potential self-selection bias or variability in library programming, the study proposes mitigation through propensity score adjustment and sensitivity analyses, respectively.