STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING INFORMATION LITERACY AND
ACADEMIC LITERACY:
HELPING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS MAKE THE MOST OF
SCHOLARLY ARTICLES

Margy MacMillan
Mount Royal University, Canada, mmacmillan@mtroyal.ca
Allison MacKenzie
Mount Royal University, Canada, amackenzie@mtroyal.ca
Abstract
University students in a Public Relations program were struggling to connect the scholarly literature with
their professional practice. A collaboration between a librarian and an instructor in the program led to the
development of a class on reading scholarly articles within a research methods course. To better
understand the student experience, and the possible impact of that class, the collaborators conducted a
survey of students who had participated in the class a year later in another course that required them to
use academic materials. The literature review indicates that our students are not the only ones who face
challenges in this area, and provides some background both for the class we developed and for the
results from the survey.
Keywords: reading; undergraduate students; knowledge survey; information literacy; public relations
This paper explores the challenges students encounter in reading scholarly articles, describes a class
developed to help them overcome the challenges and reports the results of a survey of senior students on
their reading practices. The paper is based on a collaboration between the co-authors, Margy MacMillan,
an Associate Professor and Librarian at Mount Royal University (MRU), and Allison MacKenzie, an
Associate Professor of Public Relations in the Faculty of Communication Studies at MRU. A shared
concern about students’ ability to integrate scholarly materials into their assignments led us to develop
and refine classes focused on reading, and eventually to investigate student behaviours and perceptions
in a more formal way.
Experience and the literature suggest several reasons for the challenges students face in engaging with
scholarly texts that emerge from characteristics of the students themselves, and of the texts themselves.
The students we now see in universities and colleges in the West are less prepared to read advanced,
dense text, while no generation in history has had easier access to as much advanced scholarly material.
Literature Review
Access to higher education in Canada has broadened from the elite to the general public through open
admission policies and increased public demand for qualifications, and we need to account for that in
integrating students into the scholarly conversations of higher education. As Carolyn Kreber (2007),
notes, “Higher education ‘for all’ involves changing traditional practices so that not only ‘all’ get admitted
into our programs, but ‘all’ also have a fair chance to succeed” (para.2). Concerns about reading in
general, and student reading in particular are present throughout the literature of higher education (see
for example, Cull, 2011; Joliffe and Harl, 2008).
The difficulties students have in reading academic articles affect their ability to use those articles in
assignments. In one study of student work, researchers noted that students often chose material they
quoted from the abstracts, tables or opening paragraphs of articles, and suspected they were mining the
texts for quotations (Emmons, Martin, Botts & Amundsen, 2010, p. 8). Another noted that in a pool of 18
student papers, none showed evidence of the students summarizing their sources, leading the authors to

question “not only whether the writers understood the source itself, but also whether they even read it”
(Howard, Service & Rodrigue, 2010, p.186).
This decline in appetite, aptitude, and ability for reading is in direct opposition to the increase in
information available to postsecondary students. A recent study using data from UlrichsWeb a leading
directory of periodicals, established that the number of active and referred journals increased from 22,835
in 2003, to 28,325 in 2010 (Tenopir, Mays, & Wu, 2011, p.5-6). To get a sense of the number of journals
a student might have access to, we asked the acting Collections Librarian at our institution. Our students
can now obtain articles from around 81,000 periodicals (personal communication, Katharine Barrette,
March 6, 2012). For comparison, a study of collections of the Canadian Association of Research
Libraries, gave the average number of serial titles per institution as 12,970 for the 1997/98 academic year
(Auster & Taylor, 2004, p.64).
However the sheer volume of periodicals is only part of the challenge. Ellison (2001) makes a convincing
and well-supported case that articles in today’s journals are longer and more complex than those of 30 or
40 years ago (p.994). Journals are also becoming much more specialized. As librarians have seen
through requests for titles from faculty, new journals are published for increasingly narrow audiences, and
the discourse within them is correspondingly elevated; as French (2005) states, “The content of these
articles pose many problems for the average community or junior college student. For that matter, it often
poses problems for those not already postdoctoral scholars in the field (p.18-19).”
If then, our students are less prepared for reading scholarly articles, and the articles themselves are more
abundant, written for more specific (and decidedly non-student) audiences, longer, and more complex
than they were in the past, we have a problem. Faculty have noted the effect of this across all disciplines
(Horning, 2010; Simpson, Stahl & Anderson, 2004; Saltmarsh & Saltmarsh, 2008; Joliffe, 2007). A
number of articles report strategies from various disciplines for bringing students and non-fiction,
academic text together (see http://www2.mtroyal.ca/~mmacmillan/reading.html for selected works in the
field). A useful, general, practical work on the topic is John Bean’s “Helping Students Read Difficult
Texts” (2001).
It is interesting to note that while the literature of public relations(PR) has not identified reading as an
issue, there are concerns about disconnects between theory and practice, which seem to be connected to
reading. Two recent studies diagram the divide between theory and practice from the scholars’ and
practitioners’ viewpoints, and in both the language of scholarly communication is seen as a barrier.
Cheng and de Gregorio (2008) surveyed 273 academics in the field and most agreed with the statement
that publications in the field scored low on readability. The academics also felt that practitioners did not
read the academic journals. Respondents in Becker’s 2007 qualitative study of 20 PR practitioners noted
“that research becomes unhelpful when it becomes entrenched in what one practitioner called “researchese,” an insular way of explaining ideas that only intellectuals can understand (p. 71).” Further, a number
commented that if research was understandable, it would then become useable, and consequently, the
industry might take a different perspective on its value (p. 72)”. Cheng and de Gregorio noted that in the
literature, both practitioners and academics found deficiencies in the usefulness of academic work (p.
381). If scholars and practitioners find the academic literature challenging, should we be surprised that
students encounter difficulties?
This disconnect prompted the PR author to look for ways of addressing the challenges her students faced
in using scholarly material. The librarian’s involvement came from her work in other aspects of information
literacy instruction. Librarian involvement with reading instruction at the postsecondary level is
comparatively underreported in the literature. Budd [2008] developed a one-credit, semester-long course
incorporating reading and critical thinking with other aspects of information literacy. Gruber, Knefel and
Waelchi (2008) describe a collaborative effort with writing centre personnel to scaffold students as they
integrate scholarly materials into their writing, which included an exercise in reading and dissecting a
scholarly article. Most recently, Rosenblatt (2010) assessed senior students’ work to investigate how well
they were able to integrate scholarly information resources. Her results indicate that many of these upperdivision undergraduate students were not using the resources they found in meaningful ways, echoing
other studies (Emmons et al. 2010; Howard et al, 2010). Most information literacy (IL) sessions focus on

identifying, locating, evaluating and citing material, but as Rosenblatt notes, “Shouldn’t we, as
instructional librarians, be concerned about students’ abilities to use the information they have
discovered?” (p. 60). Indeed the Association for College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Education includes Standard Three: “The information literate student
evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her
knowledge base and value system” (2000), and several of the outcome measures related to this include
aspects of reading. There are other, more practical reasons for library involvement in reading, principally
the tremendous amount of library funds that pay for access to scholarly articles, and instruction in that
access. There is little point in this investment if our primary users, the students, cannot read the articles
we purchase.
Teaching reading at MRU
The librarian collaborates with professors in the Faculty of Communication Studies to develop and deliver
IL sessions integrated with courses in all of the programs offered. Increasingly, these sessions have
included classes on reading, in both practice and theory courses. The most consistent setting for the ‘how
to read a scholarly article’ class has been the third-year Research Methods in PR, where the co-authors
developed an activity designed to help students overcome challenges in reading academic material. This
is intended to provide support for three major assignments that require the use of journal articles in
students' last two years: the journal article analysis assignment in Research Methods for PR, the literature
review in Strategic Communications, and the thesis paper in the capstone Issues in PR course. The PR
curriculum is structured this way for three reasons:
•
•
•

to create opportunities for deep, meaningful learning throughout the students' undergraduate PR
education
to enable the students to learn the value of grounding PR practice in theoretical underpinnings so
they know how they can use the research in PR journals to find solutions, identify practice
weaknesses, develop solutions and improve their practice
to prepare students, should they so choose, for success in graduate school.

In preparing for the reading class in Research Methods, the authors focussed on addressing students’
understanding of the structure of articles, jargon, and statistics. We also wanted to reduce affect- and
authority-related barriers to show students that articles weren’t perfect examples of scholarship that could
not be criticised. For the activity, the instructor chose a brief article that included statistics and was open
to question on some aspects of sample and conclusions. Students were provided with the citation and the
link to the article in advance, and while some read it in advance, we built in time to read the article within
the class.
The class started with a brief introduction to academic articles in the discipline of communications,
including their intended audience, the basic structure, and the purpose of each part of the article.
Students were also given a brief list of tips for more effective reading (available at
http://www2.mtroyal.ca/~mmacmillan/reading.html). We also discussed different ways of annotating, and
showed our heavily-annotated copies of the article which contrasted with the near-inviolate printouts
some students brought with them.
Students were asked to read the abstract of the article and develop questions based on it. The librarian
wrote the questions on the whiteboard. As a group, we read through the article, summarizing and
discussing the roles of different sections. When answers to the students’ questions emerged, we added to
them on the board, building the group’s understanding of the article. We discussed the statistics in more
detail, including which ones were or were not important to understanding the article, and the drawbacks of
the sample and methodology. Essentially, the authors modelled how they, as scholars would read the
article, what they would check, inquire into, or let pass. We also modelled discussing the article, and
dealing with differing interpretations. (Modelling scholarly reading is well supported in the literature: see
for example Hodson, 2009, Elder, 2009, and Spires, 2003.) To encourage students to question authority,
we were quite forthright about the impenetrability of scholarly writing in general, and shortcomings of the

article we were using in particular. We concluded with a broader discussion of the article, its aims and
successes, and questions we would ask the authors.
Student comments indicated the session was helpful, that they understood the structure of articles better
and that the tools might be useful in their future work. While the instructor and the librarian felt confident
the exercise was valuable for the students, we had little beyond anecdotal evidence to support any notion
of impact of the class. We had also focussed our attention on the areas we identified as being
problematic for students based on our intuition, rather than on concrete information. To address these
deficiencies, we decided to collaborate on a small research project to gain a better understanding of
students’ reading and use of academic articles.
Survey of senior students
Sample
The 47 students in the fall 2011 Strategic Communications were in their fourth year of the Bachelor of
Communications - PR program and had participated in the session on reading scholarly articles in the
Research Methods course during the fall of 2010. There was a high impetus for the students to participate
and engage in this activity as the intervention was scheduled in advance of an extensive literature review
assignment. This assignment had been problematic for some students in previous years, as many
grappled with locating relevant articles, as well as reading, synthesizing and applying the articles to their
client projects.
Instruments and Instructional Activity
The pre- and post-reading class instruments are available at http://www2.mtroyal.ca/~mmacmillan/
reading.html. They use the TooFast platform (http://toofast.ca) and include qualitative questions on
students’ use of scholarly articles and a set of Knowledge Survey questions based on the work of Nuhfer
and Kripp [2003], which examine respondents’ perceptions of readiness to answer questions. We
received approval from MRU’s Human Research Ethics Board in spring of 2011.
In the fall of 2011, we ran the surveys and an accompanying activity in both sections of Strategic
Communication with a total of 47 fourth-year PR students. Students were given a link to an article and an
overview of the activity in advance. Each class began with a pre-activity test, comprised of qualitative
questions and a knowledge survey test of how confident they felt in answering questions about specific
aspects of the article. Students drew codenames to allow us to match pre- and post-activity responses,
while maintaining anonymity. The students then discussed the article in groups, summarized the article in
less than 140 characters and posted the summary to a Twitter discussion along with at least two
questions they would ask the author. As these tweets were posted, the instructor and the librarian
assessed the overall understanding of the article. Based on that, we had a discussion with the whole
group around the aspects that prompted the most questions. After the discussion, students responded to
the same knowledge survey as in the pre-session test, and two final, optional, open-ended qualitative
questions where they could add comments based on the activity.
Results - Qualitative
Below is a summary of student responses to the questions illustrated with quotations from the data in
italics.
Use: There were two strong undercurrents in the responses to two questions on usage; requirement and
authority. Students used articles because to meet assignment requirements, confirming work in the
literature (Robinsion and Schlegl, 2004; Hampton-Reeves, Mashiter, Westaway, Lumsden, Hewertson
and Hart, 2009; Tenopir, Wu, Zhou, McClanahan, Steele & Clewell, 2006). Regarding authority, students
used articles to back up ideas because they were credible or authoritative.
1) How have you used scholarly articles in your academic practice?
Predominant reasons given were for assignments; also for backup of ideas, more in-depth
information, and different points of view.

•

I have used many case studies and articles to aid my research papers and assignment. I also
use them to support my ideas.
2) How would you use or have you used scholarly articles in your professional communications
practice?
Predominant responses included reinforcing ideas, for best practices and benchmarks, to add
legitimacy, or as part of contributions to plans and projects.
• I have used scholarly articles as a base for best practices and to know industry trends.
• I used to them to validate ideas that ran contradictory to my organization’s.
Changes: These two questions explored whether students saw their use of scholarly materials changing.
A number of responses here indicated the benefits of the class on reading in the students’ previous
Research Methods course.
3) Has your use of scholarly articles changed during your academic career? If so, how?
Most students (35) indicated their skills had improved – using terms such as better, faster, more
efficient. There were also some responses relating to affective dimensions.
• I am not as intimidated by scholarly articles as I used to be… Also, I am able to scan articles
faster to see if they will provide me with the information I need.
• I used to have a hard time understanding scholarly articles, so I often chose not to use them.
After learning reading/highlighting techniques in Research Methods last year, I started using
scholarly articles as secondary research more often.
4) What has prompted the changes?
Responses here related to practice, familiarity, expectations, value, confidence, and assistance or
instruction. Students develop skills through instruction but also on their own, in response to various
demands.
• Practice and desperation :) Also the librarian lectures in the first two years were very helpful.
• I realize they are a great source of information and give you as a practitioner more credibility.
• Increased confidence in using resources
Aspects of articles: These two questions drilled down into more specific aspects of students’ use of
articles. Again, there were underlying threads around value and authority of articles.
5) What aspects of reading and using scholarly articles do you find easy?
There was a broad range of responses from finding to citing articles; many students commented on
aspects of article structure as key to making articles more user-friendly.
• Typically the articles have defined headings (intro, results etc.) which allow the reader to gain
the knowledge they're looking for rather quickly. When the articles have a synopsis about the
content that is also very helpful to determine the usability.
6) What aspects of reading and using scholarly articles do you find difficult?
The researchers’ instincts about jargon and statistics being the chief barriers to learning were
confirmed here. There were also many comments about length and interest level. These difficulties
have also been discussed by other studies [Budd, 2008; Hampton-Reeves, et al, 2009].
• Understanding the academic language, as well the length of scholarly articles. I lose interest
if the article is over 6 or 7 pages long.
•
Articles with a lot of statistics or numbers are confusing because most of the "math" doesn’t
make sense to me.
Aspects of reading: These questions were designed to uncover what students felt were the most
important things to know about reading. The concept of authority showed up here too, but in different
ways, as some students indicated they had begun to challenge the authority of articles. The strategies
often matched those described in the literature (Bean, 2001; Hilden& Pressley, 2011; Mokhtari and
Reichard, 2002; Hodson, 2009).

7) What do you know about reading and using scholarly articles now that you wish you’d known
earlier?
Responses here included tips for reading and determinations of value and authority.
• How to compartmentalize the facts, and how to read paragraph to paragraph and stop and
paraphrase in your own words to prevent confusion and ensure that you are on the right
track.
• That methodology is often flawed.
• How much more credible it makes your research.
8) What tips about reading and using scholarly articles would you give students in earlier stages
of their academic careers?
The responses here tended to focus on more technical aspects of reading, and there were also
responses that noted the prior classes. Nine responses included the notion of reading articles more
than once.
• Read the article at least 3 times. Highlight key terms. Write all over the margins.
Strategies: Students were asked to check which of several strategies they used in reading the article for
the activity. The strategies listed were based on the content of the third-year session on reading articles.
Interestingly, there was little correlation between the strategies they thought were important in other
questions like #7 and #8, and the strategies they said they used. Of the options provided, printing the
article (rather than reading online), skimming the article, highlighting, and reading actively were reported
most (24-29 times). Annotating (12), marking terms to check later (9) and discussing the articles with
others (14), were in the middle of the pack. Few students (1-3) reported developing questions based on
the abstract, summarizing each paragraph, or conducting an imaginary discussion with the author.
The rest of the qualitative questions in both the pre- and post-class surveys elicited a range of tips and
comments that in most cases amplified or echoed responses that had come up in other categories.
There were two very interesting themes in the post-class responses. Of the 15 students who provided
comments, 10 noted the benefits of discussion. There was also a stronger note of questioning authority.
The class activities were based around both small and large group discussion and a good part of the
latter was focussed on questioning the article authors’ choices of sample, and discussing the limitations of
the article. Gillen (2006) offers some useful insights on what students need in order to question scholarly
discourse (p.35).
•
•

Discussing it in a group was really helpful.
Just because it's a published article doesn't mean the information cannot be further questioned by
someone like myself.

Results – Knowledge Survey
The questions in the Knowledge Survey asked the students to answer A= I don't know the answer, B= I
know more than 50% of the answer or could find it easily, or C= I know the answer, to the following
questions:
Describe the author’s central research question.
List the main themes in the literature review.
Describe the methods used to obtain data.
Describe the sample population.
Discuss the benefits and limitations of that sample in answering the researcher’s questions.
Describe the analysis of the results.
Discuss whether the conclusion is or is not convincing, based on the analysis.
Discuss the application of the information in the article to practice.

Students tended to rate their confidence in answering the ‘describe’ questions more highly than the
‘discuss’ questions, indicating perhaps that they were more sure of what the article said than what it
meant, and less comfortable critiquing aspects of the research. Overall, student confidence levels
increased from the pre- to the post-class survey. When the percentage of ‘c’ answers was matched to the
strategies students claimed to have used, there were some interesting patterns. Those who annotated or
discussed the article tend to have much higher percentages of ‘c’ responses in a number of categories,
suggesting perhaps that these strategies have some impact on students’ confidence in their
understanding of the reading. Interpreting the Knowledge Survey data is somewhat problematic. In some
cases, respondent’s scores actually decreased after the activity, but whether that represents an actual
decrease in confidence, or a more realistic view of competence we cannot know. Riegelman (1986)
encountered similar issues [p.459]. Future iterations of this study will instead ask “did your understanding
of x increase, decrease or stay the same.”
Discussion and Conclusions
The impact of the session was also evident in the students’ work. Following the 2011 intervention, the
students appeared to have less difficulty with the literature review aspects of the assignment. Both
authors received fewer inquiries about the assignment in advance of the due date; none of the
assignments were returned to the students for additional research on the literature review, a frequent
occurrence in previous years. The synthesis of information was more sophisticated, and the articles used
by the students were more relevant to the PR practice related issues and opportunities.
The student responses to the survey confirmed many of our thoughts on the barriers to use (jargon,
statistics, and length) and on reading strategies students thought were helpful, particularly printing,
highlighting, annotating, and discussing articles. The number of responses related to the structure of
articles affirmed our focus on teaching students more about how articles are put together. Overall, the
study provided some reinforcement of the notions that a) students had difficulty reading and using
academic articles, b) they acknowledge the need to use them for both academic and professional
requirements, and c) their confidence and abilities seem to improve after instruction and practice in
strategies to read more intentionally and effectively. Many student responses recalled information from
the reading class a year previously, and a number of students explicitly noted the value of the session.
This has led the librarian to work with other faculty in Communications to integrate classes in reading into
more courses. In 2007, Joliffe noted “the talk about student reading is like the weather: Everybody
complains about it, but nobody does anything about it” (p.470). Surely it’s past time to change that.
Collaborations between discipline faculty and librarians might be a place to start.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the enthusiastic participation of students in the PR program, and
the support of colleagues at Mount Royal University, particularly Becky Willson, Sally Haney and Michelle
Sinotte who provided valuable feedback.
References
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for
higher education. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency
Audet, N., Gagnon, R., Ladouceur, R., & Marcil, M. (1993). L’enseignement de l'analyse critique des
publications scientifiques médicales est-il efficace ? Révision des études et de leur qualité
méthodologique. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148(6), 945-952.
Auster, E., & Taylor, S. (2004). Downsizing in academic libraries: The Canadian experience. Toronto,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Bean, J. C. (2001). Helping students read difficult texts. In J. C. Bean (Ed.), Engaging ideas: The
professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (pp.
133-148). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, Lindsay E. (University of Maryland, C. P. (2007). “There is nothing so practical as a good theory,”
Or is there? : Public relations practitioners’ perspectives on public relations scholarship and its
usefulness. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. Retrieved from
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/6909/1/umi-umd-4406.pdf
Budd, J. M. (2008). Cognitive growth, instruction, and student success. College & Research Libraries,
69(4), 319-33.
Cheng, I.-H., & de Gregorio, F. (2008). Does (linking with) practice make perfect? A survey of public
relations scholars’ perspectives. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 377-402.
doi:10.1080/10627260802153298
Cull, B. W. (2011) Reading revolutions: Online digital text and implications for reading in academe. first
monday, 16(6). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3340/2985
Elder, L. (2009, August 6). I think critically, therefore I am. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407700
Ellison, G. (2002). Evolving standards for academic publishing : A q-r theory. Journal of Political
Economy, 110(5), 994-1034.
Emmons, M., Martin, W., Botts, C., & Amundson, C. (2010). Engaging sources : Information literacy and
the freshman research paper (Part II). LOEX Quarterly, 37(2), 8-10.
French, T. (2005). Scholarly articles and community and junior college students : An uneven match ?
Community and Junior College Libraries, 13(1),37-41. doi:10.1300/J107v13n01
Gillen, C. M. (2006). Criticism and interpretation : Teaching the persuasive aspects of research articles.
CBE-Life Sciences Education, 5, 34-38. doi:10.1187/cbe.05
Gruber, A. M., Knefel, M. A., & Waelchli, P. (2008). Modeling scholarly inquiry: One article at a time.
College and Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1-2), 99-125.
Hampton-Reeves, S., Mashiter, C., Westaway, J., Lumsden, P., Day, H., Hewertson, H., & Hart, A.
(2009). Students ’ use of research content in teaching and learning: A report for the Joint
Information Systems Council ( JISC ). Retrieved from http://ierepository.jisc.ac.uk/407/1/Students_Use_of_Research_Content.pdf
Hilden, K., & Pressley, M. (2011). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy
research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 427-440). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions
and values (p. 426). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
Horning, A. (2010). Reading, writing and digitizing: A meta-analysis of reading research. Reading Matrix:
An International Online Journal, 10(2), 243-270. Retrieved from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/sept_2010/alice_horning.pdf

Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Tanya, K. (2010). Writing from sources, Writing from sentences. Writing and
Pedagogy, 2(2), 177-192. Retrieved from http://writing.byu.edu/static/documents/org/1176.pdf
Jolliffe, D. A. (2007). Learning to read as continuing education. College Composition and Communication,
58(3), 470-494.
Jolliffe, D. A., & Harl, A. (2008). TEXTS OF OUR INSTITUTIONAL LIVES: Studying the “reading
transition” from high school to college: What are our students reading and why? College English,
70(6), 599-617.
Kreber, C. (2007). What’s it really all about? The scholarship of teaching and learning as an authentic
practice. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 1(1), 1-4. Retrieved from
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v1n1/essays/kreber/IJ_Kreber.pdf
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249
Nuhfer, E., & Knipp, D. (2003). The knowledge survey: a tool for all reasons. To improve the academy,
21, 50–78. Retrieved from
http://www.ysu.edu/catalyst/word_pdf_docs/nuhfer_article_knowledge.DOC
Riegleman, R. K. (1986). Effects of teaching first-year medical students skills to read medical literature.
Journal of Medical Education, 61(1), 454-460.
Robinson, A. M., & Schlegl, K. (2004). Student bibliographies improve when professors provide
enforceable guidelines for citations. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(2), 275-290.
Rosenblatt, S. (2010). They can find it, but they don’t know what to do with it: Describing the use of
scholarly literature by undergraduate students. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(2), 50-61.
Retrieved from https://spongebob.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/viewFile/LLC-V4-I2-20101/1506
Saltmarsh, D., & Saltmarsh, S. (2008). Has anyone read the reading? Using assessment to promote
academic literacies and learning cultures. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 621-632.
Simpson, Michele L. Stahl, N. A., & Anderson Francois, M. (2004). Reading and learning strategies:
Recommendations for the 21st century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(2), 2-4, 6, 8, 10-12,
14.
Spires, H. A. (2003). Promoting text engagement through reader-generated elaborations. In E. J.
Paulson, M. E. Laine , S. A. Biggs, & T.L. Bullock (Eds.), College reading research and practice:
Articles from The Journal of College Literacy and Learning (pp. 248-258). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Tenopir, C., Mays, R., & Wu, L. (2011). Journal article growth and reading patterns. New Review of
Information Networking, 16(1), 4-22. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.566796
Tenopir, C., Wu, L., Zhou, X., McClanahan, K., Steele, M., & Clewell, N. (2006). Case Western Reserve
University student journal reading patterns: Factual summary of results of the survey conducted
October through November 2005 (pp. 1-68). Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/carol_tenopir/80/