Home⇛Information Generation & Management⇛vol. 5 no. 1 (2025)

Faculty Engagement with Library Resources and the Availability of Cited References in University Course Syllabi

Muriel Jeanne Carnaje | Sovie Jhane Sua-an | Elra Di Madalogdog

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

Statement of the Problem: This study examined the alignment between cited references in undergraduate course syllabi and their availability within the university library collection. Specifically, it aimed to identify the resource type, publication year, and the extent to which these materials are represented in the library collection. Methods: Employing a descriptive citation analysis approach, course syllabi from four undergraduate programs were categorized and verified through bibliographic checking in consultation with library professionals. A Chi-Square Test of Independence was then utilized to determine whether resource availability varied significantly across the programs. Results: Findings revealed that course syllabi contain a variety of instructional resources, with print materials and online resources being commonly cited. However, gaps were observed between these cited references and those available in the library collection. Additionally, incomplete citation details hindered the verification and retrieval of some resources. Finally, the Chi-Square Test showed that resource availability is similar across all undergraduate programs, meaning this is a general campus challenge rather than a problem unique to any single department. Conclusions: The study highlights the importance of continuously evaluating the relationship between curricular requirements and library collections. The findings emphasize the need for sustained faculty–librarian collaboration in resource selection, collection development, and curriculum support, consistent with the collaborative approach encouraged by CHED CMO No. 22, s. 2021. The study provides insights that may guide academic libraries in improving the responsiveness and relevance of their collections to instructional needs.



References:

  1. American Library Association. (2025). Acquisitions procedures. Selection & reconsideration policy toolkit. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/acquisitions
  2. Albrecht, M. L. (2009). Getting started: Writing the course syllabus. HortTechnology, 19(2), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.19.2.240
  3. Alcock, E., & Rose, K. (2016). Find the gap: Evaluating library instruction reach using syllabi. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.11645/10.1.2038
  4. Aldred, B. G. (2018). Following the arc of learning: Using syllabi to target instruction in a professional graduate program. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(4), 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.04.012
  5. Ashilungu, M., & Onyancha, O. B. (2024). Faculty–librarian cooperation in collection development at the university of Namibia library, with special reference to electronic resources. Collection and Curation, 43(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-11-2022-0041
  6. Boss, K., & Drabinski, E. (2014). Evidence-based instruction integration: A syllabus analysis project. Reference Services Review, 42(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2013-0038
  7. Butler, K., & Calcagno, T. (2020). Syllabus mining for information literacy instruction: A scoping review. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(4), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29800
  8. Commission on Higher Education. (2021). CMO No. 22 series of 2021 –Minimum requirements for libraries of higher education institutions common to all programs. https://legacy.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-22-s.-2021.pdf
  9. Chung, H., & Kim, J. (2016). An ontological approach for semantic modeling of curriculum and syllabus in higher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(5), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.715
  10. Estrada, C. Y. E., Gutierrez, F. V. O., Valdez, M. G., & Alenzuela, R. C. (2023). Enhancing academic success through utilization of library resources in a public University in the Philippines. https://doi.org/10.57200/apjsbs.v21i0.351
  11. Fitzgerald, S., Turner, C. N., & Graham, A. (2024). The faculty role in college affordability: syllabus creation and resource affordability. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.5.755
  12. Hafsera, D., Rahmi, L., Husna Zalmi, F. N., & Harahap, I. K. (2022). Checklist method in evaluation of collection development. Khizanah Al-Hikmah: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, Dan Kearsipan, 10(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.24252/kah.v10i1a8
  13. Jakubs, D. (1989). Qualitative collection analysis: the conspectus methodology. SPEC Kit 151. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services, 1527 New Hampshire Ave. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED325121
  14. Jeffery, K. M., Houk, K. M., Nielsen, J. M., & Wong-Welch, J. M. (2017). Digging in the mines: Mining course syllabi in search of the library. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 12(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8GP81
  15. Jindal, S., & Pant, A. (2013). Availability of e-books in science: Case study of University of Delhi. The Electronic Library, 31(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2010-0159
  16. Johnson, P., & Weber, M. B. (2025). Fundamentals of collection development and management (5thed). American Library Association(ALA) Editions.
  17. Lucas, D. (2011). Faculty in-service: How to boost academic library services. Collaborative Librarianship, 3(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.29087/2011.3.2.03
  18. McDonald, J., Siddall, G., Mandell, D., & Hughes, S. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: Student-faculty perspectives of the course syllabus. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 112. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v3i0.3249
  19. Miller, M., & Neyer, L. (2016). Mapping information literacy and written communication outcomes in an undergraduate nursing curriculum: A case study in librarian-faculty collaboration. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice, 4(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2016.121
  20. Natividad, K. C. V., & Vallente, R. D. (2022). Looking closely: An analysis of resources in course syllabi of the graduate school of business [Paper presentation]. PAARL 2022 National Summer Conference, Philippines.
  21. Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875
  22. Parrott, J., & Lindsay, B. D. (2017). Utilizing syllabi to support access services and beyond: A case study. Journal of Access Services, 14(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2017.1281138
  23. Reitz, J. M. (2013). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO. https://odlis.abc-clio.com/
  24. Sanchez-Rodriguez, N. A. (2018). Mixed methods of assessment: Measures of enhancing library services in academia. Collection and Curation, 37(3), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-09-2017-0042Scripps-
  25. Hoekstra, L., & Hamilton, E. R. (2016). Back to the future: Prospects for education faculty and librarian collaboration thirty years later. Education Libraries, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.26443/el.v39i1.10
  26. Shirkey, C. (2011). Taking the guesswork out of collection development: Using syllabi for a user-centered collection development method. Collection Management, 36(3), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2011.580046
  27. Singh, V. (2020). Applying participatory action approach to integrating professional librarians into open source software communities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(2), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619836724
  28. Smith, C., Doversberger, L., Jones, S., Ladwig, P., Parker, J., & Pietraszewski, B. (2012). Using Course Syllabi to Uncover Opportunities for Curriculum-Integrated Instruction. RUSQ: A Journal of Reference and User Experience, 51(3), 263-271. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.51n3.263
  29. Tenopir, C. (2003). Use and users of electronic library resources: An overview and analysis of recent research studies. Council on Library and Information. https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub120.pdf
  30. Tuamsuk, K.,& Nguyen, L. T. (2022).“Developing a faculty-librarian collaboration model to support teaching and research at Vietnamese universities.” Library Management 43, no. ½ (January 1, 2022): 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-09-2021-0077.
  31. Wagner, J. L., Smith, K. J., Johnson, C., Hilaire, M. L., & Medina, M. S. (2023). Best practices in syllabus design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 87(3), ajpe8995. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8995
  32. Wilhelm, J., & Vaaler, A. (2019). Looking for the library: Using an undergraduate business syllabi analysis to inform an instruction program. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(3–4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2019.1624451
  33. Williams, L. M., Cody, S. A., & Parnell, J. (2004). Prospecting for new collaborations: Mining syllabi for library service opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(4), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2004.04.009
  34. Yousef, A. (2010). Faculty attitudes toward collaboration with librarians. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/libphilprac/512/
  35. Yu, T. (2009). A new model of faculty‐librarian collaboration: The faculty member as library specialist. New Library World, 110(9/10), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800910997454

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic