Theses and Dissertations

Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


Abraham S. Fischler College of Education


Marian Gibney

Committee Member

Anymir Orellana


Academic libraries, Information literacy, Library instruction


The purpose of this sequential explanatory mixed methods study was to determine whether instruction librarians in the United States and Canada were using instructional design (ID) methods, and to identify potential explanations for their adoption or rejection of those methods. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) served as the theoretical framework for the study. Research questions examined the relationship between respondents’ reported use of ID methods and the following factors: (a) behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, (b) demographic factors, and (c) professional identity as teachers. A survey adapted from Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) and from Julien and Genuis (2011) was distributed to members of the American Library Association’s Information Literacy Instruction Discussion List. Quantitative data from 101 subjects were analyzed using χ2 and t tests for independent sample means. Qualitative data from seven volunteers were compared to the quantitative data to identify areas of validation or disconnect. Pearson correlations between use scores and behavioral, normative, and control beliefs revealed that control construct scores (r = .59) had the strongest correlation with ID use, followed by behavioral (r = .56) and normative (r = .53) scores. Qualitative data supported the conclusion that there was a strong relationship between ID use and both behavioral and normative scores, but not between ID use and control scores. Chi-square analysis found no relationship between subjects’ use of ID methods and the length of time they had worked in libraries (χ2 = 5.14). A significant relationship was found between ID use and the length of time subjects had taught information literacy (χ2 = 7.91) and reported type of training in ID (χ2 = 24.59). Subjects who identified primarily as teachers used ID more than those who did not (t = 2.61).