Information literacy educationthrough mediated learning and

multiple intelligencesA quasi-experimental control-group study

Intan Azura Mokhtar, Shaheen Majid and Schubert FooDivision of Information Studies,

Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to present the findings of a study that investigated the impact ofinformation literacy (IL) teaching approaches, which are grounded in pedagogy, on students’ level andapplicability of IL competencies.

Design/methodology/approach – A quasi-experimental control group study was carried out with476 students, aged from 13 to 15 years old, from four secondary (high) schools in Singapore. Thestudents were given a pre-intervention test in the beginning. Out of the 476 students, 279 students(from two schools) went through a mediated learning intervention programme, while the remaining197 students went through a multiple intelligence intervention programme. Students were organisedinto smaller groups of five each, and were given a group project to do. Students in the experimentalsub-clusters were exposed to the respective intervention approaches, while students in the controlsub-clusters were left on their own to carry out the project. A post-intervention test was administeredto all students at the end of the intervention programmes.

Findings – The results of the group reports and project evaluation done by three independent andneutral teacher-examiners, as well as those from the pre- and post-intervention tests, found that theapplication of either mediated learning (or close coaching) or multiple intelligences helped studentsperform better in the learning and application of IL skills.

Research limitations/implications – The study managed to involve 476 students from foursecondary (high) schools only. A larger number of students from more schools would have been moredesirable. In addition, the inclusion of students from primary (elementary) schools and tertiaryinstitutions would be useful in strengthening the findings. However, the study has sufficientlyprovided evidence that appropriate pedagogy is important in enhancing the learning and applicationof IL competencies amongst students. This could in turn yield initiatives on various aspects ofIL-related research, such as in IL policy formulation, and IL pedagogy.

Practical implications – The application of appropriate pedagogical approaches in teaching ILmakes the learning and application of IL competencies more effective.

Originality/value – Although it is widely accepted that IL competencies are useful in helpingstudents perform better, both academically or otherwise, limited empirical evidence is availableshowing the relationship between IL education and IL competencies. The paper highlights the impactof appropriate pedagogy in imparting and entrenching IL competencies in students.

Keywords Information literacy, Intelligence, Learning styles, Coaching, Singapore

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs), the internet,increasing influence of the media and the surge of information that has been infusing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm

Informationliteracy

education

463

Received 13 March 2007Revised 29 April 2007Accepted 9 May 2007

Reference Services ReviewVol. 35 No. 3, 2007

pp. 463-486q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0090-7324DOI 10.1108/00907320710774328

through societies and cultures, have all brought about a shift in the global educationsystem, which has moved from teacher-centred to student-centred and independentlearning. If students are to develop critical and analytical thinking skills that arenecessary in this information-rich age, they need teachers who are willing torevolutionise their teaching to take on a more resource-based approach that emphasisesinformation problem solving (Hughes, 1998, p. 92). In other words, students must learnhow to learn, and in turn, teachers must be able to help them discover how to learn. Thisis a fundamental characteristic of being information literate (Carr, 1998).

This paper presents the findings of a study that was carried out with 476 studentsaged from 13 to 15 years old from four secondary (high) schools in Singapore. The studyinvestigated the impact of information literacy (IL) teaching approaches, which aregrounded in pedagogy, on students’ level and applicability of IL competencies. The studywas quasi-experimental in nature as it involved existing classes of students (thus norandom assignment) and dichotomised students into experimental and control groups.

This paper is organised as follows. The Literature review section defines informationliteracy, as well as its relationship to teaching and learning, or what is termed pedagogy.This section also introduces concepts of learning theories and learning styles. Inparticular, Feuerstein’s Mediated Learning Experience (a learning theory), and Gardner’sMultiple Intelligences (a learning style) are explored in more detail, as they form the basisfor the pedagogical approaches investigated in the study. The Problem statement sectionthen presents the rationale for carrying out this study on information literacy pedagogy.This is then followed by details regarding the Methodology employed in the study, aswell as the data that were collected and analyzed. Discussion of the findings from thestudy is also presented, while the section on Implications provides somerecommendations that would be useful in IL pedagogy, IL policy and IL research. Thisis followed by the section on Limitations that explains inherent weaknesses of the study.

Literature reviewILMany definitions of IL have emerged since its initial usage in a 1974 government reportthat was collated by Paul Zurkowski (Kapitzke, 2003). Many authors have described ILas requisites to lifelong learning (Candy, 2002; Gee et al., 1996, p. 167; Moore, 2002).Others have described it as a natural extension of the concept of literacy in our society(Bruce, 2002; Stern, 2002). Some have acquainted IL with information technology(Mitchell, 1996; Mobley, 1996), while others have used it interchangeably with libraryskills (Kuhlthau, 1990). However, one of the most widely accepted and cited definition(Behrens, 1994) is that given by the American Library Association (ALA) in itslandmark report in 1989. It essentially states that an information literate individual isone who recognises the need for information, is able to effectively access, evaluate, andcreatively use information, and is also an independent learner who demonstratesproactive social responsibility (American Library Association, 1989).

IL and pedagogyTeaching IL to students does not merely involve library or bibliographic instruction orthe ability to use different information sources effectively. It also includes teachingcritical and analytical thinking skills regarding the use of information (Kasowitz-Scheerand Pasqualoni, 2002), as well as the ability to generate new ideas from current

RSR35,3

464

information and prior knowledge. Numerous and diverse initiatives and strategies toteach IL have been implemented in schools in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, SouthAfrica, the UK and throughout Europe (Moore, 2002; Rader, 2002; Virkus, 2003).

Numerous schools around the world have been outfitted with current ICTcapabilities that would enable their students to develop learning opportunities byexploiting these modern tools (Bruce, 2002). However, furnishing schools with modernand advanced technological tools does not necessarily equate to the students andteachers being competent enough to effectively utilise those tools as informationliterate individuals. Both students and teachers would only be able to fully benefit fromtheir learning when IL instruction that is grounded in sound and effective pedagogy isseamlessly intertwined with the use of ICTs.

In the Singapore primary to secondary school (K-12) education context, the Ministryof Education’s (MOE) IT master plans 1 and 2 have ensured that schools are equippedwith sophisticated, world-class ICT capabilities (Ministry of Education, Singapore,1997, 2002). However, IL training does not constitute part of the IT master plans.

Pedagogy, learning theories and learning stylesIn pedagogy, educational theorists have developed learning theories that can bebroadly categorised into four orientations: behaviourist, cognitive, humanistic, andsocial/situational (after Merriam and Caffarella (1991) as cited in Smith (1999)). Ingeneral, the majority of these learning theories have often viewed learning as a processrather than a product.

Briefly, the behaviourist orientation views learning as a process where stimuli in theexternal environment cause a change in the behaviour of the learner in a desireddirection. The cognitive orientation focuses on the learner’s internal mental processes ofknowing, while the humanistic orientation is concerned with the affective part or feelingsof the learner. The latter orientation also looks at the development of the learner as awhole – the complete intrapersonal growth and not just the cognition – whereas thesocial/situational orientation involves the development of the learner in the context of asociety or the learner’s interpersonal interactions and eventually personal growth.

Knowledge of the various learning theories is important in understanding how theteaching of IL skills can be carried out. However, it is equally important and beneficialto be aware of the various learning styles of students, in order to know the differentpreferences that students have when it comes to learning.

Learning styles can be broadly categorised into three groups: informationprocessing-based, personality-based, and multi-dimensional and instructionalpreferences-based (Yeap et al., 2005, pp. 35-42).

The information processing-based learning style generally assesses individualcognitive approaches to understanding and integrating information. Learning stylesunder this category are more likely to make distinctions among the ways in whichindividuals sense, perceive, solve problems, organise, and remember information.

On the other hand, the personality-based learning style examines the influence ofindividual personality on preferred ways of acquiring and organising information.Learning styles under this category tend to gauge the ways in which individuals reactto different learning situations. Finally, the multi-dimensional and instructionalpreferences-based learning style looks at individuals’ preferred environment forlearning.

Informationliteracy

education

465

Feuerstein’s Theory of Mediated Learning ExperienceFeuerstein, a renowned cognitivist theorist, developed his Theory of MediatedLearning Experience (MLE), which suggests that intelligence is dynamic and can bemodified. Feuerstein’s theory does not exclusively belong to the cognitive orientation.His model of stimulus-human intervention-organism-human intervention-response(S-H-O-H-R) is an extension of Piaget’s model of stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R)(cognitivist), which simultaneously incorporates Skinner’s operant conditioning(behaviourist), and Vygotsky’s instructional scaffolding that is grounded in his theoryof Zone of Proximal Development (social/situational).

Feuerstein (1980) postulates that intelligence is dynamic and variable; that it is notstatic or fixed from birth; and that intelligence can be modified if given the rightstimulation and environment, through a mediator. Although Feuerstein’s theory ofMLE is not easy to carry out as it involves a deeper level of commitment and effort onthe part of the teacher-mediator, it promotes cognitive development in the learner thatis evident and lasting (Ben-Hur, 1998). Studies have also shown that students whoundergo the MLE programme show significant improvement in mathematics andreading (Greenberg, 1992).

It is thus pedagogically sound to apply Feuerstein’s MLE in helping to entrenchstudents’ learning, as the MLE straddles three orientations of learning theories. Thisimplies that a multi-faceted approach can be carried out simultaneously in helpingstudents learn.

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple IntelligencesOne of the more influential modern thinkers in pedagogy and learning styles is HowardEarl Gardner (1943-current), whose publicationFrames of Mind: Theory of MultipleIntelligences in 1983 revolutionised teaching and learning in many schools acrossdifferent cultures and societies. Although it did not evoke much interest amongst thepsychology research community, it managed to spark a new view of learning amongsteducators and practitioners (Gardner, 1993, p. xv). His theory compelled educationalresearchers, educators, and practitioners to experiment with new ways of impartinginformation to learners.

Gardner (1983) proposed that each individual possesses, to varying degrees, sevenprimary forms of intelligences, namely:

(1) verbal-linguistic;

(2) logical-mathematical;

(3) bodily-kinesthetic;

(4) visual-spatial;

(5) musical;

(6) intrapersonal; and

(7) interpersonal.

He subsequently added an eighth intelligence “naturalist”, which involves abilitiesconcerning the natural world, such as plants and animals. The main idea behindGardner’s theory is that intelligence is not made up of a single universal entity, andinstead takes on a plural form. Every individual possesses each of the intelligencesproposed but to different extents. An individual is expected to be more receptive to

RSR35,3

466

learning if his dominant intelligence is exploited and used as a catalyst to encouragelearning that is more effective.

It has been found that when a teacher tailors lessons according to students’ needsand preferences, it optimises learning, and that the positive outcomes of catering to themultiple intelligences are active learners and successful students (Nolen, 2003). Studieshave also shown that there has been improvement in post-test scores compared topre-test scores when teachers modified their lessons to address the various types ofintelligences of the students in their class (Weiler, 2005). Thus, the theory of multipleintelligences (MI) is a proven effective tool in education.

Problem statementTo date, there is limited empirical evidence available showing the relationship between ILeducation and IL competencies. While much research has been done worldwide that haveproved IL is a much-needed skill by students, little research has been conducted on ILteaching approaches (Gibson, 2002; Moore, 2001) or what is termed IL pedagogy. Existingstudies on IL have mainly focused only on students’ information skills per se, on libraryskills or on ICT education. None of these studies has assessed the different approaches toIL education. This study aims to pioneer research on the impact of IL teachingapproaches, grounded in pedagogy, on students’ level and applicability of IL skills.

In this study involving 476 students aged from 13 to 15 years old from foursecondary (high) schools in Singapore, students were first given the pre-intervention ILtest. Thereafter, they were dichotomised into the mediated learning cluster, andmultiple intelligences cluster. Students in the both clusters were given training throughlectures and hands-on sessions. Students were then divided into sub-clusters, wherewithin each sub-cluster, specific IL teaching approaches were tested on the students.Subsequently, students were assigned into groups of five and given aninformation-based group project. The final products of the student projects are inthe form of a group report and artefact, which are assessed by independentteacher-examiners. At the end of the intervention programmes, all students were giventhe post-intervention IL test.

The pre- and post-intervention tests were made up of the components shown inTable I.

The Singapore school contextIn the Singapore school curriculum, education has shifted to a more independent andproject-based learning that places emphasis on life-long skills (Ministry of Education,Singapore, 2004). As such, students are required to possess substantial research skills in

Part Area of inquiryNumber ofquestions Question nos

A Topic definition 4 1, 2, 3(a)-(k), 4(a)-(h)B Information sources and seeking behaviour 2 5(a)-(g), 6(a)-(j)C Search techniques and strategies 4 7(a)-(e), 8(a)-(d), 9(a)-(g), 10D Evaluation of information 2 11(a)-(m), 12(a)-(h)E Information use and misuse 4 13(a)-(e), 14, 15(a)-(i), 16(a)-(h)F Demographic information 4 17, 18, 19, 20

Table I.Composition of pre- and

post- tests

Informationliteracy

education

467

order to carry out their assignments or project work well. This in turn, has taken a toll onteachers’ expertise and workload as they are now expected to impart not just domainknowledge to students, but research and IL skills as well. In addition, the majority ofSingapore schools do not have qualified school librarians who are able to impart thenecessary IL skills to students (Mokhtar and Majid, 2006). Thus, to augment students’project-based learning and lend support to teachers’ lessons, this study was carried out todetermine how IL trainers and school librarians can facilitate student learning in the areaof IL through pedagogically-based IL teaching approaches. With this in mind, aquasi-experimental control group study was conducted with a group of 476 studentsaged from 13 to 15 years old, from four secondary (high) schools in Singapore.

MethodologyOut of more than 20 schools that were approached to participate in the study, fourschools responded favourably. Two schools were randomly selected to participate inthe mediated learning intervention programme cluster (279 students), whilst theremaining two schools were put on the multiple intelligence intervention programmecluster (197 students). Figure 1 summarises diagrammatically the methodology used inthis study.

Before any intervention was carried out, the students in both clusters were givenpre-intervention IL test. Thereafter, the students were given IL training that lasted fiveweeks. The IL training comprised lectures, hands-on sessions and group activities forstudents to help them learn basic IL skills.

Each cluster of students was then divided into smaller groups of five studentseach. The cluster that underwent the mediated learning intervention programmewas given the project topic of Recycling, whilst the cluster that underwent themultiple intelligences intervention programme was given the project topic of Ethicsand Society (as requested by the schools involved). Each school requested for theaforementioned topics as they had to fulfil their respective syllabus requirements.

Each group was given an information-based task, according to their respectivetopics, and supposed to look up information for the task as a group. Ultimately, theywere to compile a group project report, create an artefact to depict their proposedsolution(s), and present what they have found out for their project to the class.

The cluster that underwent the mediated learning intervention programme waslater randomly dichotomised into experimental and control sub-clusters. Theexperimental sub-cluster was then closely coached and guided on how to apply theIL competencies that they learned into doing their project, at duration of one hour perweek for six weeks with the researcher. The other sub-cluster (control) was left verymuch on their own with minimal supervision. After six weeks, the students were askedto present what they have found out for their task to the class as a group.

The other cluster underwent the multiple intelligences intervention programme.This cluster was divided into three sub-clusters:

(1) random grouping;

(2) heterogeneous grouping; and

(3) homogeneous grouping.

The random grouping sub-cluster means that students were grouped randomly. Theheterogeneous sub-cluster means that students were grouped based on a mix of

RSR35,3

468

Figure 1.Methodology employed

Informationliteracy

education

469

individual dominant intelligence (based on Gardner’s MI), while the homogeneoussub-cluster means that students were grouped based on a uniformity of individualdominant intelligence. As before, each group comprised five students. Students in eachsub-cluster were monitored on their group interactions by the researcher at duration ofone hour per week over six weeks. However, students in the heterogeneous orhomogeneous sub-clusters were encouraged to explore and utilise their individualintelligence when doing their task, whilst students in the random sub-cluster were leftvery much on their own with minimal supervision. After six weeks, the students wereasked to present what they have found out for their project to the class as a group.

At the end of the 11 weeks, students in both clusters were asked to submit theirgroup project report and artefact. All the reports and artefacts were evaluated by threeindependent and neutral teacher-examiners who taught in schools different from thosethat participated in the study, and who have taught project work before. Thus, adouble-blind review process was ensured. An assessment rubric (see the Appendix,Figure A1) was prepared by the researcher and used by the teacher-examiners toevaluate all the reports and artefacts, so as to ensure consistency in evaluation.

A post-intervention IL test was also administered to all the students involved in thestudy. The pre- and post-intervention tests were comparable in terms of scope anddifficulty. The purpose of the post-intervention test was to determine the impact of thedifferent IL teaching approaches on their understanding and applicability of IL skills,and to compare their skills before and after the respective intervention programmes.

Data collection and analysisDemographicsAltogether there were 476 students who participated in the study – 279 students werein the mediated learning cluster, and 197 students were in the multiple intelligencesintervention cluster.

Out of the 279 students who participated in the mediated learning cluster of thestudy, only 179 completed their project work (Table II). There is thus an overallresponse rate of 64.2 per cent. Quite a substantial proportion of students did notcomplete their projects and this was most probably due to two factors. First, the projectwas not a part of their main curriculum and was non-examinable. Second, the teachersin the school were not involved in carrying out and seeing through the completion ofthe project. As a result, the students did not take the project as seriously as they did forother subjects.

Out of the 197 students who participated in the multiple intelligences interventioncluster, only 157 completed their project work (Table III). There is thus an overallresponse rate of 79.7 per cent. As before, quite a substantial number of students did notcomplete their projects. The reasons were similar to the ones stated earlier, whereby

No. of students Total Percentage

No coaching 70 119 58.8With coaching 109 160 68.1Total 179 279 64.2

Table II.Number of completedprojects

RSR35,3

470

the project work was not part of their examinable curriculum, and also because it wastaught and facilitated by a non-school teacher, students accorded less importance to it.

For the pre- and post-intervention tests by the mediated learning interventioncluster, there was a substantial response rate of 214 (76.7 per cent) and 246 (88.2 percent) respectively (Table IV). Only students who completed both the pre- andpost-intervention tests were included in the data analysis.

For the pre- and post-intervention tests by the multiple intelligences interventioncluster, there was a substantial response rate of 167 (84.8 per cent) and 174 (88.3 percent) respectively (Table V). Only students who completed both the pre- andpost-intervention tests were included in the data analysis.

ResultsProject evaluation scoresA comparison of the means of the project evaluation scores is made between thevarious sub-clusters of students within each cluster. The three independentteacher-examiners evaluated the group projects and gave a score (out of a maximumof 125 marks) each for the group projects. Each student thus obtained a group projectscore, which was the mean of the three scores given by the three examiners. The 100students who did not complete their projects were given a score of zero. Figure 2 showsthe percentage means of the evaluation scores for students who belonged to the twodifferent clusters. An independent samples t-test was done on the data, which yielded ap-value of 0.002. This value is significant at the 0.05 level.

For the mediated learning intervention cluster, it is seen that students in theexperimental sub-cluster did better than students in the control sub-cluster(difference ¼ 3:6 per cent).

No. of students Total Percentage

Random grouping with IL 23 36 63.9Homogeneous grouping with IL 71 81 87.7Heterogeneous grouping with IL 63 80 78.8Total 157 197 79.7

Table III.Number of completed

projects, groupings

No. of students Percentage

Pre- test 214 76.07Post- test 246 88.2Valid cases for pre- and post-tests 201 72.0

Table IV.Response rates formediated learning

intervention cluster

No. of students Percentage

Pre- test 167 84.8Post- test 174 88.3Valid cases for pre- and post-tests 147 74.6

Table V.Response rates for

multiple intelligencesintervention cluster

Informationliteracy

education

471

For the multiple intelligences intervention cluster, the same three independentteacher-examiners evaluated the group projects and gave a score (out of a maximum of125 marks) each for the group projects. Each student thus obtained a group projectscore, which was the mean of the three scores given by the three examiners. The 85students who did not complete their projects were given a score of zero. The mean ofstudents’ evaluation marks was also tabulated against student groupings (Figure 3).

Figure 2.Percentage means ofevaluation scores vscoaching

Figure 3.Percentage means ofevaluation scores vsgroupings

RSR35,3

472

The one-way ANOVA test was done on the data, which yielded a between groupsp-value of 0.000. This indicates a significant difference between the values of thedifferent groupings.

From the findings, it can be seen that students who were homogeneously orheterogeneously grouped obtained higher marks for their project reports, compared tostudents who were randomly grouped (difference ¼ 20:1 per cent, difference ¼ 18:8per cent respectively).

Project report analysisFour elements in the project assessment rubrics that were completed by theindependent teacher-examiners were identified as indicative of the IL competencies ofstudents and these were analysed according to whether students received coaching ornot (Table VI), and the various student groupings (Table VII). Each element was givena score on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score.

For the mediated learning intervention cluster, an independent samples t-test wascarried out on each element, which yielded p-values that are much below the significantlevel of 0.05, indicating that there are significant differences between students whoreceived close coaching and those who had not.

For the multiple intelligences intervention cluster, the one-way ANOVA test wascarried out on each element, which yielded p-values that are way below the significantlevel of 0.05. This shows that there are significant differences among students based ontheir groupings.

Pre- and post-intervention testsA comparison of the means of the pre- and post-intervention test scores is madebetween the various sub-clusters of students within each cluster. For the mediatedlearning intervention sub-cluster (Figure 4), it is seen that students in the experimentalsub-cluster did better for the pre- test (percentage mean ¼ 34:9 per cent). For thepost-test, students in the experimental sub-cluster still did better (percentage mean ¼39:0 per cent).

However, it was observed that the difference in scores (post 2 pre) was higher forthe experimental sub-cluster (difference ¼ 4:1 per cent) compared to the controlsub-cluster (difference ¼ 3:1 per cent) A paired samples t-test was carried out on thedata, yielding an overall significance level of 0.054 for the control sub-cluster, and avalue of 0.004 for the experimental sub-cluster. This implies that the differencebetween the pre- and post- intervention test scores is not due to chance variation and isin fact due to the intervention – more so for the experimental sub-cluster.

No coaching With coaching

Report element nMeanscore SD

Stderror n

Meanscore SD

Stderror p-value

1. Use of various information sources 70 2.2 0.49 0.06 109 2.6 0.61 0.06 0.0002. Use of reliable and authoritative

information 70 2.5 0.43 0.05 109 2.8 0.59 0.06 0.0003. Use of proper citations 70 2.1 0.58 0.07 109 2.4 0.64 0.06 0.0024. Inclusion of complete bibliography 70 1.9 0.48 0.06 109 2.6 0.67 0.06 0.000

Table VI.Analysis of project

reports, based on cluster

Informationliteracy

education

473

Ran

dom

wit

hIL

Hom

ogen

eou

sw

ith

ILH

eter

ogen

eou

sw

ith

IL

Rep

ort

elem

ent

nM

ean

scor

eS

DS

tder

ror

nM

ean

scor

eS

DS

tder

ror

nM

ean

scor

eS

DS

tder

ror

p-v

alu

e

1.U

seof

var

iou

sin

form

atio

nso

urc

es23

2.0

0.84

0.18

712.

10.

620.

0863

2.1

0.68

0.05

0.00

22.

Use

ofre

liab

lean

dau

thor

itat

ive

info

rmat

ion

232.

50.

950.

2071

2.5

0.95

0.11

632.

30.

730.

090.

000

3.U

seof

pro

per

cita

tion

s23

2.1

0.78

0.16

712.

20.

960.

1163

2.2

0.77

0.10

0.00

04.

Incl

usi

onof

com

ple

teb

ibli

ogra

ph

y23

1.5

0.71

0.15

712.

51.

000.

1263

2.3

1.07

0.13

0.00

0

Table VII.Analysis of projectreports according togroupings

RSR35,3

474

For the multiple intelligences cluster (Figure 5), it is observed that students who wererandomly grouped showed the most remarkable improvement in scores(difference ¼ 13:7 per cent). However, it must be noted that this sub-cluster ofstudents performed the worst in the pre-test (percentage mean ¼ 19:3 per cent)

Figure 4.Percentage means of pre-,

post-, and pre-postdifference scores vs

coaching

Figure 5.Percentage means of pre-,

post-, and pre-postdifference scores vs

groupings

Informationliteracy

education

475

compared to the other sub-clusters. Students who were homogeneously groupedshowed the next best improvement (difference ¼ 10:2 per cent), followed by studentswho were heterogeneously grouped (difference ¼ 5:7 per cent). The paired samplest-test p-values show that there are significant differences between the pre- and post-scores, for the various sub-clusters.

Although it is not quite clear why students who had IL training and were randomlygrouped showed the greatest improvement, one line of argument is that thephenomenon could be due to what is known as the effect of statistical regression, whichis a threat to internal validity. To elaborate, this sub-cluster of students (randomgrouping) performed the worst for the pre- test, which effectively places them at theextreme lower end scores. With the administration of a post-test, this cluster ofstudents will naturally show a regression towards the mean and perform just as well asthe others in the post-test. This in turn implies that their post-pre-test difference willdefinitely be higher than the other two classes. It was also discovered that other thanbeing made up of only one class, this sub-cluster was from the school which wasslightly better in terms of academic performance. This implies that this sub-cluster ofstudents would tend to do better in their test.

DiscussionFor the mediated learning intervention cluster, the differences in project evaluationscores, report analyses, as well as pre- and post-intervention test score differences arequite apparent between the experimental sub-cluster and control sub-cluster. This is asignificant finding in that IL competencies cannot be sufficiently learned and appliedwhen the competencies are learned through a one-time training, be it in the form oflecture-tutorial, workshops or hands-on sessions. The competencies need to beentrenched through close coaching or mediated learning so that students are able toidentify their learning gaps, rectify them and improve their learning under the closesupervision and guidance of an expert.

Farmer (2006) mentioned that naturally, children ask a lot of questions because theytry to understand what goes on around them. She reasoned that asking questions is acrucial component of information seeking, and that it helps them to learn and changebased on what they discover. However, she also claimed that youths may notnecessarily know the right questions to ask in order to learn, and that this needs to betaught to them. In addition, the information explosion has created the need for more –and not less – guidance in the evaluation, selection, and use of information (Foo et al.,2002). Thus, even with the widespread availability of the Internet, students still needguidance and coaching on how to use the information found online effectively. Theseare both supported by the findings of the study, where it was found that close coachingand mediated learning makes a difference to how students perform in their IL test.

Hence, the role of a coach or mediator – one who is able to ask the right questionsfor students to reflect on their learning, and who can then guide the learning process –makes a lot of difference. As Feuerstein (1980) explained, in close coaching or mediatedlearning, students learn through the intercession of a mediator whose main role is tohelp them interact more fruitfully with the learning factor, and interpret or even modifytheir responses in order to increase their understanding. As such, in this case, studentswere able to entrench the IL competencies that they learned from the IL trainingsessions, and were better able to apply these competencies in their project reports,

RSR35,3

476

through the questions posed by the mediator or coach. For instance, in this study,students were asked why they used certain information sources and not others, andhow they decided which information sources to use. When students could explain thereasons for their choices or actions, it was evident that they were able to apply the ILcompetencies that were learned. When students were not able to explain as expected,the researcher, who acted as the mediator or coach, guided them to explore the reasonsfor their choices or actions by asking more leading and probing questions.

For the multiple intelligences intervention cluster, it is obvious that students in thehomogeneous grouping sub-cluster showed the greatest improvement overall(mean ¼ 52:1 per cent) compared to those who were heterogeneously grouped(mean ¼ 50:8 per cent) or randomly grouped (mean ¼ 32:0 per cent).

A more interesting observation was that students who were homogeneouslygrouped did better than those who were heterogeneously grouped. Althoughexcessively homogeneous groups have been recognised to have a negative effect onperformance (Belbin, 1980, as cited in Moore, 1991), it must also be understood thatchildren, and even adults, learn more from imitation or copying from role models,certain common patterns of behaviour and perceptions (Ridley, 1996, as cited in Pech,2001). This is also consistent with Vygotsky’s and Bandura’s claims that children learnthrough observing and interacting with their mentors, and will tend to imitate theirbehaviours or actions. It is thus reasonable to extend their claims that a certain amountof uniformity in behaviour, or homogeneity, is conducive for learning to take place, andbefore creativity can even occur.

In addition, it has been shown in prior related studies (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al.,1999) that groups with heterogeneous make-up tend to have high probabilities oftask-related or relationship conflicts. Although task-related conflicts have been foundto have positive effects on group functions and outcomes (Jehn, 1995), relationshipconflicts have been found to be otherwise. To elaborate, heterogeneous groups withfrequent or intense relationship conflicts tend to have low group functioning because ofincreased levels of stress and anxiety that in turn have a negative effect on theircognitive abilities or potential (Staw et al., 1981). In addition, relationship conflicts canalso result in antagonistic interaction among the group members and thus hamperoverall group outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). Thus, it can be adequately explained whystudents in the homogenously grouped sub-cluster of this study managed to performbetter than the heterogeneously grouped sub-cluster.

It must be emphasised that, although students who were involved in this study weregrouped based on their individual dominant intelligence, a majority of these studentsexhibited several other intelligences simultaneously. It must also be asserted that sucha finding is neither exhaustive nor conclusive enough, and that more research andexperimentation must be carried out to confirm or even dispute the finding. It is alsonot the intent of this study to determine which type of grouping (i.e. homogeneous orheterogeneous) is better; instead, it has been sufficiently proven that the use of learningstyles (Gardner’s MI, in this case) has been effective in making students perform betterin the application of IL skills.

ImplicationsFrom the findings of this study, it can be established that the application of learningtheories and styles makes a positive difference to students’ learning. It was found that

Informationliteracy

education

477

the application of learning theories adequately facilitates students’ learning, and whenstudents’ interests were taken into consideration when imparting IL skills to them, theywere more receptive and performed better in their project. Just as teachers have differentteaching styles and preferences (Smith, 2005, pp. 76-7), students also have theirrespective learning styles and preferences, which greatly shape the way they learn andhow much they retain and are able to apply what they learn. It is thus important torecognise and understand the different approaches to teaching and learning.

In the area of information studies and library science, this bears significantimplications for instructional librarians and other IL educators, in particular. Otherthan being equipped with domain knowledge in the discipline of information studiesand library science, instructional librarians must also be equipped with pedagogicalcompetencies, such as learning theories and styles, so that they are more aware of thedifferent ways in which they can impart their knowledge to students or patrons in thelibrary in order to successfully engage them (Jacobson and Xu, 2004, pp. 23-4).

Second, in schools, teachers and librarians can and should collaborate on planninglessons and learning activities (Mokhtar and Majid, 2006). This collaboration caneffectively draw on the expertise of each professional – curriculum experience andpedagogical competencies of the teacher; and domain knowledge and library skills ofthe librarian. Collaborative planned lessons would encompass a more holistic learningapproach for students so that they are able to learn and apply IL skills in theircurriculum-based subjects seamlessly. In addition, IL should also be incrementallytaught and reinforced to students, from the primary (elementary) school level, throughthe secondary (high) school level, and right up to tertiary education level. This willensure that there is continuity in students’ learning and application of IL skills.

Third, a more desirable situation would be for schools to have teacher librarians –qualified teachers who are further trained in information studies and library science(Dennis, 2001; Mokhtar and Majid, 2005). These teacher librarians would be able tosimultaneously apply their proficiencies in pedagogy and library science in theirteaching and integrate IL within the curriculum. Students would truly benefit from thisintegration. In addition, these teacher librarians can collaborate with or provideassistance to other teachers within the school, especially in weaving IL into varioussubjects, using the school library in the curriculum, and in selecting and usinginformation sources more effectively. Their grounding in pedagogy puts them at anadvantage over school librarians who may not have had any teacher training.

This research has found that students at the secondary (high) school level still donot have the necessary IL competencies. Hence, IL should be integrated within theschool curriculum, and ought to be taught in stages in a continuous manner, essentiallybeginning at the primary (elementary) school level. IL is a life skill that cannot betaught in a one-off training programme or workshop. It involves a lifelong learningprocess that should begin at the most basic level early on in a person’s life, andgradually build up with the development of more competencies, and the acquisition ofexperience through both formal and informal education. Thus, for IL researchers,educators and policy-makers in general, an information literacy pedagogical model isproposed to provide a framework for the continuous and incremental teaching andlearning of IL. Incorporating the prior implications presented and discussed in thissection, an IL pedagogical model which comprises the various levels of ILcompetencies (from novice to expert) and which assimilates the various

RSR35,3

478

permutations of IL competencies, would be utilitarian in developing IL curriculum,guiding further research, and formulating IL standards, guidelines or policies.

Proposed information literacy pedagogical modelAs a result of this study, a pedagogical IL model is proposed. The Tiered InformationLiteracy Learning Spiral (TILLS) represents how IL can be taught and learned in adevelopmental manner in schools and beyond (see Figure 6).

At the foundational or novice level, basic IL training needs to be taught so thatstudents learn the fundamental skills required to effectively search, locate, evaluate,and use information. Accompanying this training should be the application of learningstyles to facilitate the learning of IL competencies. This approach should then becoupled with the task of an IL-based assignment or project. Close coaching or mediatedlearning, or other forms of appropriate pedagogically-proven methodologies ortechniques may be employed to help students identify their learning gaps andimmediately rectify those gaps. It is needless to state that pedagogy should be appliedin tandem with IL training in order to maximise learning among students. Thus,librarians need to be equipped with pedagogical training whilst the presence andnumbers of teacher librarians need to be increased so as to facilitate this.

At the transitional or intermediate level, students who have received IL training andwho have learnt how to apply the learnt IL competencies in the form of an assignmentor task can be taught other information-related literacies such as media and IT literacy,cultural literacy, and research literacy. To elaborate, media and IT literacy would

Figure 6.The Tiered Information

Literacy Learning Spiral(TILLS)

Informationliteracy

education

479

consist of an awareness and knowledge regarding all forms of media such as television,newspapers, radio, and the internet, and this includes the ability to use, interpret,evaluate, and produce both print and electronic media. Naturally, IT literacy wouldfacilitate the access and use of the various media forms. Cultural literacy would involvethe understanding regarding various cultures that exist such as racial, religious, andgeographical, among others. Literacy in this area is important as a person must becognisant of the various cultural differences and sensitivities that exist in the globalsociety, so that good judgement can be made in any situation or context, be it personal,academic or professional. Research literacy would comprise the ability to search,locate, decipher, evaluate, critique and use research findings for application in theoryor practice. It is logical that information literacy must precede media and IT literacy aswell as cultural and research literacies, as IL lays the foundation for the ability tosearch, locate, evaluate, and ethically use information in general.

At the advanced or expert level, students who have had experience in IL, media andIT, and research literacy would now be able to apply their competencies in specificdisciplines and delve deeper into particular domains, such as finance, health, legal,business, and science. For instance, students who are interested in finding out moreabout medical and health-related developments would be able to consolidate the variousliteracies that they have acquired so far and apply them when looking up information inthis area. They know how to access and use various media to facilitate their search, aswell as make sense of research findings in the area to fulfill their information needs.

The TILLS model is definitely not exhaustive. The top part of the model allows formore spirals and thus literacies to be added, depending on global developments, andresearch and technological advancements. The model culminates in an individual whois worldly wise and who has embraced worldly knowledge.

It must also be emphasised that the shape of the TILLS model is not permanent orunalterable. The spiral shape of the model can be broader or narrower, depending onthe learning environment and learning rate of the individual. For instance, a studentwho enrols in an information and library science programme at the intermediate levelof the model may submit to a broader spiral shape at this level due to greater exposureto the various forms of literacies they encounter in the programme. On the other hand,if that same student proceeds to a specialised academic programme (e.g. in Business, orLaw) at the next (advanced) level, they may submit to a narrower spiral shape due tothe precise literacies learned within that specialisation.

LimitationsFirst, the study was conducted with only about 200 different students for each cluster.There was a relatively high average attrition rate of 35.8 per cent for the mediatedlearning intervention cluster, and 20.3 per cent for the multiple intelligencesintervention cluster, based on the number of students who completed their projects.Additionally, there was a relatively high average attrition rate of 28.0 per cent for thefirst cluster, and 26.4 per cent for the second cluster, based on the number of studentswho answered both the pre- and post-intervention tests. One possible reason for thishigh attrition rate is because the IL training was carried out as an enrichmentprogramme and did not form part of the examinable curriculum for students. As aresult, students put in less effort and placed little importance to the programme and incompleting the given tasks. Although the results are quite significant and convincing,

RSR35,3

480

it would be ideal if the study can be replicated with a larger pool of students, so as tominimise the attrition rate and improve the accuracy of the findings.

Next, although the content of the IL training course that was given to studentscomprised the necessary competencies, feedback was obtained that the course shouldbe more interactive and interesting, and that more hands-on sessions should beincluded. With this consideration, it is recommended that the IL training be carried outmore frequently with shorter duration, so as to allow more interactive activities andhands-on sessions to be incorporated. It can be assumed that with more interactive andhands-on activities, the attrition rate can also be reduced.

The study was also carried out with a lot of time constraints, especially since it wasdone with students during the actual school semester. Thus, replication of the study toverify findings could not be done. This limitation, however, also ties in with thelimitation of carrying out the study with students as an additional activity that is notwithin the examinable school curriculum. As the IL-project work activity was not partof the main examinable curriculum, it was found that students did not put in as mucheffort as they ought to into the project work that was given to them. Some students didnot complete or submit their projects, whilst others were found to have put in minimaleffort into completing their projects. It would thus be ideal if the IL-project workactivity were integrated within an examinable subject within the school curriculum.

Finally, due to time and manpower constraints, the study was carried out with 13 to15-year-old students only. It would be good to extend the study to include both olderand younger students. However, this would then require both the IL topics and taskrequirements to be customised to suit the different levels of student abilities.

ConclusionAppropriate pedagogical approaches on the part of instructional librarians, teacherlibrarians, and other IL educators, need to be in place so that IL instruction is ingrainedand effective. It must also be recognised that IL education is not meant to be fleeting,and that a long-term, continuous IL teaching approach based on sound pedagogy, willbe more successful in ensuring that students are equipped with IL competencies andare able to apply these competencies in their schoolwork, co-curricular activities, andeven their vocation later on in life.

When instructional librarians, teacher librarians, and other IL educators are able tocontinuously monitor their students’ progress and application of IL competencies, andconstantly provide many opportunities for those competencies to be applied, theneffective learning of IL is able to occur. There is no specific pedagogical approach thatcan be claimed to teach IL most effectively. However, an effort to experiment with thevarious pedagogical approaches in teaching IL, to find one or a combination of a fewmethods that are best suited to the students that are taught, ought to be made. It is thusrecommended that instructional librarians, teacher librarians, and other IL educators beequipped with pedagogical training in addition to their domain knowledge in library andinformation science, which is, after all, a user-centred and instruction-based discipline.

It is anticipated that while the current study has been able to shed some light on ILpedagogy, it has also paved the way for further investigations to be carried out on thetopic of IL and other associated disciplines. In-depth studies and experimentations intothese areas will contribute to greater understanding of how IL can be imparted moreeffectively, become more utilitarian in our daily life, and result in people being more able

Informationliteracy

education

481

to embrace the information explosion and becoming more omniscient. Ultimately, it ishoped that research on IL and its related disciplines will continue in an upward spiral, bemore omnipresent and contribute even further to human knowledge in general.

References

American Library Association (1989), Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: FinalReport, American Library Association, Washington, DC, 10 January, available at: www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.htm

Behrens, S. (1994), “A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy”,College and Research Libraries, Vol. 55, July, pp. 309-22.

Ben-Hur, M. (1998), “Mediation of cognitive competencies for students in need”, Phi DeltaKappan, Vol. 79 No. 9, pp. 661-7.

Bruce, C.S. (2002), “Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: a backgroundpaper”, white paper presented at UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries andInformation Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy. InformationLiteracy Meeting of Experts, Prague, July, available at: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf

Candy, P.C. (2002), “Lifelong learning and information literacy”, white paper presented atUNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and theNational Forum on Information Literacy. Information Literacy Meeting of Experts,Prague, July, available at: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/candy-fullpaper.pdf

Carr, J.A. (1998), “Information literacy and teacher education”, ERIC Digest, ED 424231, ERICClearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, Washington DC, available at: www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb ¼ true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0 ¼ ED424231&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0 ¼ no&_pageLabel ¼ ERICSearchResult&newSearch ¼ true&rnd ¼ 1161061549490&searchtype ¼ basic

Dennis, N. (2001), “Using inquiry methods to foster information literacy partnerships”, ReferenceServices Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 122-31.

Farmer, L.S.J. (2006), “What is the question?. Session thread: school libraries and resource centers– information literacy for young people – evolving models in a changing world”, paperpresented at the World Library and National Congress: 72nd IFLA General Conference andCouncil, Libraries: Dynamic Engines for the Knowledge and Information Society,20-24 August, Seoul, available at www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/papers/142-Farmer-en.pdf

Feuerstein, R. (1980), Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for CognitiveModifiability, University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.

Foo, S., Chaudhry, A.S., Majid, S. and Logan, E. (2002), “Academic libraries in transition:challenges ahead”, keynote address at the Academic Libraries Seminar, World LibrarySummit – Global Knowledge Renaissance, National Library Board Singapore, 24-26 April,available at: www.ntu.edu.sg/home/assfoo/publications/2002/02wls_fmt.pdf

Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York,NY.

Gardner, H. (1993), Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Gee, J.P., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C. (1996), The New Work Order: Behind the Language of theNew Capitalism, St Leonards, Allen and Unwin.

RSR35,3

482

Gibson, M.R. (2002), “A qualitative investigation for designing intermediate (grades 4-6)information literacy instruction: Integrating inquiry, mentoring, and on-line resources”,unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Greenberg, K.H. (1992), “Cognitive enrichment network overview”, Elementary and EarlyChildhood Education, ED 351103, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources,Syracuse, NY.

Hughes, S. (1998), “The teacher, teacher librarian and critical thinking”, in Hay, L. and Henri, J.(Eds), The Net Effect: The School Library Media Centers and the Internet, The ScarecrowPress, Lanham, MD.

Kapitzke, C. (2003), “Information literacy: a positivist epistemology and a politics ofoutformation”, Educational Theory, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 37-53.

Kasowitz-Scheer, A. and Pasqualoni, M. (2002), “Information literacy instruction in highereducation: trends and issues”, ERIC Digest, ED 465375, ERIC Clearinghouse onInformation and Technology, Syracuse, NY.

Kuhlthau, C.C. (1990), “Information skills for an information society: a review of research”,Information Reports and Bibliographies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 14-26.

Jacobson, T.E. and Xu, L. (2004), Motivating Students in Information Literacy Classes,Neal-Schuman Publishers, New York, NY.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), “How task and person conflict shape therole of positive interdependence in management teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 117-41.

Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 530-57.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a fieldstudy of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44(4, pp., Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-63.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (1997), Masterplan for IT in Education 1, Ministry ofEducation, Singapore, available at: www.moe.gov.sg/edumall/mpite/overview/index.html

Ministry of Education, Singapore (2002), Masterplan for IT in Education 2, Ministry ofEducation, Singapore, available at: www.moe.gov.sg/edumall/mp2/mp2.htm

Ministry of Education, Singapore (2004), Teach Less, Learn More, Ministry of Education,Singapore, available at: www.moe.gov.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm

Mitchell, P. (1996), “Online technology in the curriculum: a reality”, ASLA XIV Beyond theHorizon Conference Proceedings 1-5 October 1996, Australian School Library Association(ASLA), Fremantle.

Mobley, V. (1996), “Evolving roles of the teacher-librarian”, ASLA XIV Beyond the HorizonConference Proceedings 1-5 October 1996, Australian School Library Association (ASLA),Fremantle.

Mokhtar, I.A. and Majid, S. (2005), “Use of school libraries by teachers in Singapore schools”,Library Review, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 108-18.

Mokhtar, I.A. and Majid, S. (2006), “An exploratory study of the collaborative relationshipbetween teachers and librarians in Singapore primary and secondary schools”, Libraryand Information Science Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 265-80.

Moore, A.C. (2001), “The impact of hands-on information literacy instruction onlearning/knowledge of information literacy concepts and mastery of the researchprocess in college courses: a quasi-experimental study”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Informationliteracy

education

483

Moore, P. (2002), “An analysis of information literacy education worldwide”, white paperpresented at UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science,and the National Forum on Information Literacy. Information Literacy Meeting of Experts,Prague, July, available at: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/moore-fullpaper.pdf

Moore, S. (1991), “Understanding and managing diversity among groups at work: key issues fororganisational training and development”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23Nos 4-5, pp. 208-17.

Nolen, J.L. (2003), “Multiple intelligences in the classroom”, Education, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 115-9.

Pech, R.J. (2001), “Termites, group behaviour, and the loss of innovation: conformity rules!”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 559-74.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44,pp. 1-28.

Rader, H.B. (2002), “Information literacy – an emerging global priority”, white paper presentedat: UNESCO, the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and theNational Forum on Information Literacy, Information Literacy Meeting of Experts,Prague, July, available at: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/rader-fullpaper.pdf

Smith, J.B. (2005), Teaching and Testing Information Literacy Skills, Linworth Publishing,Worthington, OH.

Smith, M.K. (1999), “Learning theory”, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, infed, availableat: www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm

Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1981), “Threat-rigidity effects in organizationalbehavior: a multilevel analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 501-24.

Stern, C.M. (2002), “Information literacy unplugged: teaching information literacy worldwidewithout technology”, white paper presented at UNESCO, the US National Commission onLibraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy.Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, July, available at: www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/stern-fullpaper.pdf

Virkus, S. (2003), “Information literacy in Europe: a literature review”, Information Research,Vol. 8 No. 4, available at: http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html

Weiler, A. (2005), “Information-seeking behaviour in Generation Y students: motivation, criticalthinking, and learning theory”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 46-53.

Yeap, L.L., Myint, S.W., Lim, L.H. and Low, G.T. (2005), To Empower, Be Empowered,McGraw-Hill Education (Asia), Singapore.

Further reading

Mokhtar, I.A., Majid, S. and Foo, S. (in press), “Teaching information literacy through multipleintelligences and mediated learning: a quasi experimental study”, Singapore Journal ofLibrary and Information Management.

RSR35,3

484

Appendix

Figure A1.

Informationliteracy

education

485

Corresponding authorIntan Azura Mokhtar can be contacted at: iam@pmail.ntu.edu.sq

Figure A1.

RSR35,3

486

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints