31

First-Year and First-Gen: Assessing the 
Information Literacy Skills of First-Year, First-
Generation College Students

Sarah LeMire, Zhihong Xu, and Doug Hahn*

As higher education continues to focus its attention on first-generation college 
students, academic libraries are increasingly interested in designing outreach and 
instruction programs to support these students, especially during their first year of 
college. This study informs these efforts by implementing a standardized test to as-
sess the information literacy skills of first-year, first-generation college students. Study 
results reveal that first-year, first-generation college students demonstrate substan-
tial information literacy skills. However, gaps remain in comparison with first-year, 
continuing-generation students, particularly in understanding the research process 
and scholarly communication.

Introduction
Professors and employers agree that students need information literacy skills in order to be 
successful.1 However, at some academic libraries, it can be challenging for librarians to target 
information literacy instruction to the students who most need it. At Texas A&M University, 
librarians commonly note that some upper division students will have received half a dozen 
library sessions, while others will ask why they’re just now learning this for the first time. One 
way that librarians try to improve allocation of information literacy instructional resources is 
by focusing on underserved students.

At many colleges and universities, first-generation college students are an underserved 
population. Many of these colleges have developed programs to better support first-generation 
students and improve their likelihood of retention and completion.† Librarians can be an ac-
tive partner in these efforts, creating outreach programs aimed at increasing first-generation 
student awareness of library resources. However, it is unclear if there are specific ways library 

* Sarah LeMire is Professor of English at Texas A&M University, email: slemire@tamu.edu; Zhihong Xu is As-
sociate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications at Texas A&M 
University, email: xuzhihong@tamu.edu, Doug Hahn is Associate University Librarian for Information Access, 
Discovery & Stewardship at Texas A&M University, email: dhahn@tamu.edu. ©2025 Sarah LeMire, Zhihong 
Xu, and Doug Hahn, Attribution-NonCommercial (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.
 
† At Texas A&M, the 2022 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) focuses specifically on first-generation students’ 
sense of belonging, academic and professional development, and social engagement from their freshmen to their 
senior years.

mailto:slemire@tamu.edu
mailto:xuzhihong@tamu.edu
mailto:dhahn@tamu.edu
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


32  College & Research Libraries January 2025

information literacy programs could better support first-generation students. At Texas A&M, 
librarians partnered with other campus stakeholders to apply for a grant to explore this ques-
tion, and ultimately found that first-generation students demonstrated gaps in a number of 
information literacy skill areas.2

Although this information was helpful as a first start toward revamping Texas A&M’s 
libraries’ information literacy collaboration with first-generation programs, additional ques-
tions remained. Specifically, this initial research did not uncover whether first-generation stu-
dents exhibited different information literacy knowledge and skills at the first-year level. This 
question is significant at the Texas A&M University campus, as the majority of the campus’ 
first-generation programming occurs at the first-year level. This study explores the specific 
information literacy skills of first-year, first-generation college students.

The research questions for this study focus on the performance of first-year, first-gener-
ation students on three measures of a standardized information literacy test, which will be 
detailed more thoroughly in the methodology. The research questions are as follows:

1. Are there differences in information literacy outcomes between first-year, first-gen-
eration students and first-year, continuing-generation students?

2. Are there differences in information literacy dispositions between first-year, first-
generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students?

3. Are there differences in information literacy performance indicators between first-
year, first-generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students?

This study contributes to filling a gap in the literature about the information literacy skills 
of first-generation students by providing a quantitative comparison between first-generation 
and continuing-generation students during their first year of college.

Literature Review
Research on the information literacy skills of first-year students is common in the library lit-
erature. This makes sense, because librarians devote considerable effort to first-year library 
instruction. Research by Library Journal and Credo Reference suggests that as many as 97 percent 
of academic libraries provide some sort of information literacy support for first-year students.3 
Research suggests that this support is needed; scholars report that librarians and faculty com-
monly perceive that first-year students are not adequately prepared for college-level research.4

Although first-year students in general are likely to benefit from information literacy 
support, libraries are also striving to provide targeted support for underserved students. 
For example, librarians at Purdue University embedded information literacy instruction into 
a summer bridge program aimed at underserved students.5 Research by librarians at the 
University of West Georgia indicated that library instruction for summer bridge programs is 
common.6 Other librarians have provided targeted support for adult learners,7 international 
students,8 and transfer students.9 One specific underserved population that is increasingly of 
interest in higher education, and in libraries, is first-generation students. 

Research suggests that first-generation students may not be fully aware of the breadth of 
resources available at the library.10 Other scholars have found that first-generation students 
may be reluctant to seek help accessing library resources.11 For this reason, researchers advo-
cate for libraries to implement strategies to reduce access barriers for first-generation students 
and increase resource awareness. Arch and Gilman advise using teaching strategies like peer 
learning and metacognitive activities such as “asking students to engage in self-reflection about 



First-Year and First-Gen  33

the ways they use information and the ways in which conducting research can be useful and 
relevant in their own lives.”12 Folk advocates for individual consultations for first-generation 
students focused on facilitating information transfer and understanding course expectations.13 
Hands recommends transparency in assignment design, communicating clear expectations 
and requirements.14 Though the specific strategies recommended by researchers vary, each 
advocates for increased support to improve outcomes for first-generation students.

In addition to resource awareness, librarians have explored the information literacy skills 
of first-generation students. Studies suggest that, while first-generation students bring with 
them both real-world and academic experience, they may be disadvantaged compared to their 
continuing-generation peers. Ilett explored the real-world information literacy skills of first-
generation students and found that students had considerable experience finding and using 
information that could transfer to a higher education context.15 Logan and Pickard found that, 
while first-generation students varied in their understanding of the research process, they “clearly 
knew how to look for quality information.”16 However, some researchers have found that first-
generation students exhibit gaps in their information literacy skills. LeMire et al. found that 
first-generation students received lower scores on information literacy tests.17 Similarly, Graves 
et al. found that first-generation students received lower scores when tested on their ability to 
select appropriate sources.18 It is important to note that many scholars have critiqued the framing 
of differences as gaps, arguing against a deficit-based approach that shifts responsibility from 
society and systems to the individual.19 Within the library literature, many researchers have 
used a deficit-based approach to describe first-generation students, which critics have argued 
positions those students “as a problem that needs to be solved.”20 Instead, researchers have 
advocated for replacing deficit-based models with strengths-based approaches.21 

The body of library literature on first-generation students is growing rapidly, with an 
increased focus on those strengths-based approaches. However, there is little research focused 
on first-year, first-generation students. Hodge highlights the significance of this gap in her 
examination of literature on first-year, first-generation students, arguing that “first-generation 
students’ first year of college is critical to their persistence and long-term academic success, 
yet little is known about these students’ research behaviors and library use.”22 In their study 
comparing first-generation students in their first and senior years, Pickard and Logan found 
that first-year students exhibited less sophisticated information literacy skills, including a less 
advanced understanding of the research process.23 This finding suggests that the information 
literacy skills of first-generation students improve over the course of their undergraduate 
program.24 However, the extent to which first-year, first-generation students may experience 
challenges in library research compared to their continuing-generation peers remains unclear.

Hodge noted that “Additional research is needed on the first-year and first-generation 
student populations, especially where these populations overlap.”25 This study contributes 
toward filling that gap in the literature.

Methodology
This analysis is part of a larger study intended to establish a baseline of undergraduate student 
information literacy knowledge and skills. The study employed the Threshold Achievement 
Test for Information Literacy (TATIL). TATIL is a standardized information literacy test de-
veloped by Carrick Enterprises following the creation of the ACRL Framework for Information 
Literacy for Higher Education. The test was developed and tested over a period of four years 



34  College & Research Libraries January 2025

before its official launch in 2018.26 In 2023, the TATIL assessment was acquired by ACRL.27 
The researchers chose to implement a standardized test in order to collect a large set of 

quantitative data that could be analyzed in multiple ways. The TATIL assessment was selected 
due to its alignment with the ACRL Framework, its robust scope, and its ease of implementation. 

The TATIL assessment evaluates students’ information literacy skills in four separate 
modules. Table 1 lists the four TATIL modules along with Carrick Enterprises’ description of 
each module.28

In order to assess the full breadth of skills assessed by TATIL, the researchers chose to 
administer all four modules of the test. However, each module of the test can take between 
thirty to fifty minutes to complete. For this reason, the researchers opted to have students 
complete only one module of the test. When students logged in to complete the assessment, 
they were randomly assigned one of the four test modules to complete.

The assessment was administered to students enrolled in core curriculum courses at 
Texas A&M University from fall 2018 and fall 2019. After receiving institutional review board 
approval for the study, the researchers asked instructors of core curriculum courses to share 
the study with their students. Instructors could, but were not required to, offer extra credit 
for completing the assessment, which would be done out of class. As an additional incentive, 
students who participated were entered into a drawing for gift cards at the end of the semester. 
Students who opted to participate logged into the assessment’s demographic questionnaire 
with their Single Sign On (SSO) credentials and then assigned a module of the test to complete. 

TATIL Assessment
Each module of TATIL assesses information literacy skills in four ways:
1. Outcomes
2. Performance Indicators

TABLE 1
TATIL Modules and Descriptions

Module 
Number

Module Name TATIL Module Description

Module 1 Evaluating Process 
& Authority (EP&A)

This module combines concepts from two of the ACRL information 
literacy frames, Authority is Constructed, and Contextual and 
Information Creation as a Process. It focuses on the process of 
information creation, and on the constructed and contextual nature 
of source authority.

Module 2 Strategic 
Searching (SS)

This module relates to the Searching as Strategic Exploration frame. It 
focuses on the process of planning, evaluating, and revising searches 
during strategic exploration.

Module 3 Research & 
Scholarship (R&S)

This module combines elements from the Research as Inquiry, and 
Scholarship as a Conversation frames. It focuses on the knowledge-
building process and how scholars build knowledge.

Module 4 Value of 
Information (VoI) 

This module is inspired by the Information Has Value frame. It focuses 
on the norms of academic information creation and the factors that 
affect access to information.



First-Year and First-Gen  35

3. Overall scores 
4. Dispositions
The first metric, outcomes, measures students’ information literacy skills in a particular 

category. For example, Outcome 1.2 is: “Apply knowledge of authority to analyze others’ 
claims and to support one’s own claims.”29 The second metric, performance indicators, con-
sists of the individual questions that determine each outcome. Scores on each performance 
indicator are tallied to make up the score for that particular outcome. The overall scores reflect 
the outcome scores for that module. A sketch of the hierarchy of these first three metrics is 
available in Figure 1.

TATIL’s fourth metric is the disposition score. This score is separate from the other three 
metrics, and it measures attitudes or behaviors rather than skills or knowledge. This means 
that a student can score highly on their demonstrated knowledge of a concept (e.g., recogniz-
ing types of authority) but receive a lower score based on how they apply this knowledge in 
the disposition section.

Demographics
A total of 680 first-year students at Texas A&M completed the TATIL assessment. To ensure 
that students spent enough time to finish the survey questions, we dropped all the observa-
tions whose total time of finishing the survey was less than ten minutes. One hundred and 
sixty-three first-year students completed the first module of the information literacy test—
Evaluating Process and Authority. We dropped four students’ information because their total 
participation time was less than ten minutes, with 126 continuing-generation students and 
thirty-three first-generation students completing the module. One hundred and seventy-two 
students completed the second module of the information literacy test—Strategic Searching. 
Among them, nine students’ participation time was less than ten minutes. Therefore, 129 
first-year, continuing-generation students and thirty-four first-year, first-generation students’ 
information were included in the data analysis, with 163 in total. 

In the third module of the information literacy test—Research and Scholarship, ten stu-
dents’ information was dropped because of the participation time (<ten minutes). One hun-

FIGURE 1
Representation of the TATIL Overall/Outcome/Performance Indicator hierarchy



36  College & Research Libraries January 2025

dred and twenty-one first-year, continuing-generation students and thirty-three first-year, 
first-generation students’ information was included in the data analysis. In the fourth module 
of the information literacy test—Value of Information, we dropped six students’ information 
since they completed the survey in less than ten minutes. Therefore, 131 first-year, continuing-
generation students and forty-four first-year, first-generation students were included in the 
fourth module, with 175 in total. Initially, we included library experience as the control vari-
able in the data analysis. Since we did not detect any statistical significance in the covariate, 
we excluded the control variable in the final model.

Data Analysis
We employed four multivariate multiple regressions to investigate the difference in information 
literacy outcomes across four modules—Evaluating Process & Authority; Strategic Searching; 
Research & Scholarship; Value of Information—between first-year, first-generation students 
and first-year, continuing-generation students (the first research question). In the analysis, 
outcome scores were treated as the dependent variables and the group condition (first-year, 
first generation or first-year continuing-generation students) as the independent variable, 
with library experience as covariates. We chose multivariate multiple regression because the 
outcome scores are correlated. The least-squares estimation was utilized as the parameter 
estimation method. 

To answer the second research question, four multivariate multiple regressions were 
analyzed to examine the difference in information literacy dispositions between first-year, 
first-generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students. The group condition 
and the library experience were used as independent variables while the disposition scores 
were used as the dependent variables. The least-squares estimation was utilized as the pa-
rameter estimation method. 

Four multivariate multiple regressions were conducted to investigate the differences in 
information literacy performance indicators between first-year, first-generation students and 
first-year, continuing-generation students (third research question). The group condition and 
the library experience were used as independent variables while the performance indicator 
scores were used as the dependent variables. The least-squares estimation was utilized as the 
parameter estimation method. 

Results
Overall Scores
First, we analyzed first-year, first-generation students’ overall scores in comparison to those 
of first-year, continuing-generation students. We did this by calculating students’ percent-

TABLE 2
Number of Participants

Module First-Generation Continuing- Generation Total
EP&A 33 126 159
SS 34 129 163
R&S 33 121 154
VoI 44 131 175
Total 144 507 651



First-Year and First-Gen  37

age rate of knowledge performance levels for first-year students. According to TATIL, three 
performance levels—Conditionally Ready, College Ready, and Research Ready—are used to 
describe student achievement on the knowledge section of the test, with a cutoff score for each. 
Conditionally Ready is the lowest of the three scores, College Ready is the intermediate score, 
and Research Ready is the highest score. Table 3 and Table 4 provided detailed information 
about first-year students’ percentage rate of knowledge performance levels for each outcome 
score across modules and overall score for each module. 

The majority of first-generation and continuing-generation students scored at the Col-
lege Ready level or higher for each of the four modules. Both groups scored fairly high on 
the Strategic Searching (SS) module, with two (5.88 percent) first-generation students and 
eleven (8.53 percent) continuing-generation students performing at the Conditionally Ready 
level. Similarly, few students (four, or 12.12 percent of first generation students and ten, or 
7.84 percent of continuing-generation students) scored at the Conditionally Ready level for 
the Evaluating Process & Authority (EP&A) module. For both EP&A and SS, few students 
scored at the highest level; only one (2.94 percent) first-generation student and six (4.65 per-
cent) continuing-generation students scored at the Research Ready level for SS. Notably, no 
student, regardless of first-generation status, scored at the Research Ready level for EP&A.

Students performed more highly for the Research & Scholarship (R&S) and Value of 
Information (VoI) module. Both first-generation and continuing-generation students scored 
highly in the Value of Information (VoI) category, with only two (4.55 percent) first-generation 
students and one (0.76 percent) continuing-generation students performing at the Conditionally 
Ready level. For R&S, very few students (three, or 9.09 percent of first-generation students and 
zero continuing-generation students) tested at the Conditionally Ready level. Additionally, 
quite a few students tested at the Research Ready level for the R&S module, which is the high-
est of the three performance levels. For R&S, three (9.09 percent) first-generation students and 
thirty-five (28.93 percent) continuing-generation students tested at the Research Ready level. 

To understand if there were significant differences between the outcome scores of first-
generation and continuing-generation students, we employed four t-tests. We found that there 
were no significant differences between the two groups in module 1 (p=0.21), and module 
2 (p=0.06). In module 3 (R&S), first-year, first-generation students’ overall scores (M=430.33, 

TABLE 3
First-Year Students’ Percentage Rate of Knowledge Performance Levels for Overall Scores  

(CdR= Conditionally Ready; CR = College Ready; RR= Research Ready) 
Module 1 (EP&A) Module 2 (SS) Module 3 (R&S) Module 4 (VoI)

Group n Overall 
Score (%)

n Overall 
Score (%)

n Overall 
Score (%)

n Overall 
Score (%)

Firstgen CdR 4 12.12 2 5.88 3 9.09 2 4.55
Firstgen CR 29 87.88 31 91.18 27 81.82 40 90.90
Firstgen RR 0 0 1 2.94 3 9.09 2 4.55
Continuing CdR 10 7.94 11 8.53 0 0 1 0.76
Continuing CR 116 92.06 112 86.82 86 71.07 115 87.79
Continuing RR 0 0 6 4.65 35 28.93 15 11.45



38  College & Research Libraries January 2025

SD=139.17) were statistically lower than first-year, continuing-generation students’ (M=529.34, 
SD=135.87) (p<0.001). In module 4 (VoI), first-year, first-generation students’ overall score 
(M=442.16, SD=123.91) was statistically lower than first-year, continuing-generation students’ 
(M=490.66, SD=129.24) (p<0.05).

Outcomes
In addition to examining overall knowledge performance levels, we examined the knowledge 
performance levels on each of the eight outcomes across the four different test modules. The 
outcome scores are incorporated into the overall scores but provide greater granularity to 
expose whether student performance is consistent or varies within a module. Results revealed 
that there was some variation, particularly within EP&A, R&S, and VoI. In EP&A, first-
generation and continuing-generation students alike were more likely to struggle with O12, 
“Apply knowledge of authority to analyze others’ claims and to support one’s own claims.”30 
Within R&S, both groups of students were more likely to struggle with O31, “Understand 
the processes of scholarly communication and knowledge building.”31 And within VoI, both 
groups of students were more likely to struggle with O42: “Recognize social, legal, and eco-
nomic factors affecting access to information.”32

Multivariate multiple regression results showed statistical significance in information 
literacy outcome scores O31 [t (153) = -3.77, p < 0.001], O32 [t (153) = -2.76, p < 0.01], and O42 [t 
(174) = -2.83, p < 0.01] between first-year, first-generation students and first-year, continuing-
generation students across the four modules. Outcome score O12 [t (158) = -1.98, p =0.05] 
was also found to be marginally statistically different between the groups. First-year, first-
generation students scored statistically lower than first-year, continuing-generation students 
across all scores. Descriptive statistics and the detailed information from the multivariate 
multiple regression results about the information literacy outcomes are included in Table 5 
and Table 6. 

TABLE 4
First-Year Students’ Percentage Rate of Knowledge Performance Levels 
(CdR= Conditionally Ready; CR = College Ready; RR= Research Ready)

Module 1 (EP&A) Module 2 (SS) Module 3 (R&S) Module 4 (VoI)
Group n O11 

(%)
n O12 

(%)
n O21 

(%)
n O22 

(%)
n O31 

(%) 
n O32 

(%) 
n O41 

(%) 
n O42 

(%)
Firstgen 
CdR

3 9.09 9 27.27 5 14.71 6 17.65 8 24.24 2 6.06 3 6.82 5 11.36

Firstgen CR 29 87.88 24 72.73 28 82.35 26 76.47 25 75.76 18 54.55 27 61.36 37 84.09
Firstgen RR 1 3.03 0 0 1 2.94 2 5.88 0 0 13 39.39 14 31.82 2 4.55
Continuing 
CdR

11 8.73 22 17.46 23 17.83 15 11.63 7 5.79 0 0 2 1.53 6 4.58

Continuing
CR

114 90.48 104 82.54 97 75.19 104 80.62 100 82.64 54 44.63 92 70.23 113 86.26

Continuing 
RR

1 0.79 0 0 9 6.98 10 7.75 14 11.57 67 55.37 37 28.24 12 9.16



First-Year and First-Gen  39

Dispositions
Next, we examined the disposition scores. Disposition scores in TATIL are separate from the 
Overall and Outcome scores, as they are intended to measure student “judgments regard-
ing strategies. Students earn high scores on these items if they judge behaviors associated 

TABLE 5
First-Year Students’ Outcome Scores

Module 1 (EP&A) Module 2 (SS) Module 3 (R&S) Module 4 (VoI)
Group n O11 

(M/SD)
O12 

(M/SD)
n O21 

(M/SD)
O22 

(M/SD)
n O31 

(M/SD)
O32 

(M/SD)
n O41 

(M/SD)
O42 

(M/SD)
Firstgen 33 453.85/ 

159.59
461.73/ 
141.50

34 473.62/ 
114.25

462.50/ 
167.74

33 409.19/ 
157.08

447.94/ 
155.39

44 400.41/ 
171.64

469.36/ 
159.01

Continuing 126 466.00/ 
143.62

517.13/ 
143.81

129 512.00/ 
152.10

523.88/ 
188.16

121 532.11/ 
168.22

527.15/ 
143.62

131 408.39/ 
182.37

543.83/ 
148.03

TABLE 6
Multivariate Regression Analysis Results for First-Year Students’ Information Literacy 

Outcome Scores (Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001).
Estimate Standard Error t-value p-value

O11
Intercept 466.00 13.10 35.58 0.000
First-year Firstgen/Continuing -12.15 28.75 -0.42 0.673
O12
Intercept 517.13 12.77 40.50 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -55.41 28.03 -1.98 0.050*
O21
Intercept 512.00 12.78 40.06 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -38.38 27.98 -1.37 0.172
O22
Intercept 523.88 16.21 32.31 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -61.38 35.50 -1.73 0.086
O31
Intercept 532.11 15.09 35.27 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -122.93 32.59 -3.77 0.000***
O32
Intercept 527.15 13.29 39.67 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -79.21 28.71 -2.76 0.007**
O41
Intercept 408.39 15.71 26.00 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -7.98 31.32 -0.25 0.799
O42
Intercept 543.83 13.18 41.27 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -74.47 26.28 -2.83 0.005**



40  College & Research Libraries January 2025

with the disposition to be useful and behaviors not associated with the disposition to be not 
useful.”33 Because disposition scores measure attitudes rather than knowledge, students can 
perform highly on an outcome and lower on a related disposition, or vice versa. From the 
multivariate multiple regression analysis, we detected that there was statistical significance 
between first-year, first-generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students in 
D32 [t (153) = -2.28, p < 0.05]. TATIL describes Disposition 3.2 as, “Learners who are disposed 
to demonstrate self-reflection in the context of research and scholarship consistently question 
their own assumptions as they are challenged by new knowledge.”34 Specifically, first-year 
first-generation students scored 5.72 units lower on the D32 score (M = 70.36, SD = 14.51) than 
the first-year continuing-generation students (M = 76.08, SD = 12.29). Detailed descriptive 
statistics for information literacy dispositions were reported in Table 7. The detailed informa-
tion from the multivariate multiple regression analysis for information literacy dispositions 
were reported in Table 8.

TABLE 7
First-Year Students’ Disposition Scores

Module 1 (EP&A) Module 2 
(SS)

Module 3 (R&S) Module 4 (VoI)

Group n D11
(M/SD)

D12
(M/SD)

D13
(M/SD)

n D21
(M/SD)

n D31
(M/SD)

D32
(M/SD)

D33
(M/SD)

n D41
(M/SD)

D42
(M/SD)

First
gen

33 52.45/ 
10.01

58.85/ 
11.82

63.61/ 
11.48

34 62.98/ 
10.54

33 53.73/ 
11.36

70.36/ 
14.51

49.97/ 
8.84

44 64.48/ 
11.72

70.93/ 
6.92

Continuing 126 54.61/ 
10.66

56.79/ 
12.65

67.63/ 
13.61

129 65.93/ 
8.63

121 57.02/ 
11.26

76.08/ 
12.29

51.93/ 
9.40

131 66.24/ 
11.97

71.52/ 
8.60

TABLE 8
Multivariate Regression Analysis Results for First-Year Students’ Information Literacy 

Dispositions (Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001)
Estimate Standard Error t-value p-value

D11
Intercept 54.61 0.94 58.22 0.000
First-year Firstgen/Continuing -2.16 2.06 -1.05 0.297
D12
Intercept 56.79 1.11 51.05 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing 2.06 2.44 0.84 0.400
D13
Intercept 67.63 1.18 57.49 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -4.02 2.58 -1.56 0.121
D21
Intercept 65.93 0.80 82.68 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -2.96 1.75 -1.70 0.092
D31
Intercept 57.02 1.03 55.59 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -3.29 2.22 -1.48 0.140



First-Year and First-Gen  41

Performance Indicators
Finally, we analyzed the most granular aspect of the four TATIL modules, the performance 
indicators and individual disposition questions. We employed four multivariate multiple 
regressions to examine the difference in information literacy performance indicators between 
first-year, first-generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students across four 
modules. 

In module 1, we found that first-year, first-generation students’ outcome score D12a (M 
= 14.09, SD = 4.59) was statistically higher than first-year, continuing-generation students’ 
D12a (M = 12.02, SD = 4.81) (D12a [t (158) = 2.23, p < 0.05]). This disposition, titled Toleration 
of Ambiguity, is described by TATIL as follows: “Learners who are disposed to demonstrate 
toleration for ambiguity when they are evaluating sources of information treat authority as 
subjective because it is based on the context of the information need.”35

Performance indicators p2111 [t (154) = -1.98, p < 0.05] and D21c [t (154) = -2.88, p < 
0.01] in module 2 were also found to be statistically significant different between first-year, 
first-generation students and first-year, continuing-generation students. Many performance 
indicators in module 3 showed statistical difference between the first-year, first-generation 
students and first-year, continuing-generation students. They were performance indicators 
p312 [t (153) = -2.15, p < 0.05], p314 [t (153) = -2.22, p < 0.05], p325 [t (153) = -2.52, p < 0.05], 
p3112 [t (153) = -2.38, p < 0.05], p326 [t (153) = -3.25, p < 0.001], p3212 [t (153) = -4.04, p < 0.001], 
p319 [t (153) = -2.37, p < 0.05], p3114 [t (153) = -3.31, p < 0.001], and D32b[t (153) = -2.72, p 
< 0.01]. Results also showed that there was statistical difference in performance indicators 
p416 [t (174) = -2.99, p < 0.01] in module 4. In all these performance indicators, first-year, 
first-generation students scored statistically lower than the first-year, continuing-generation 
students except in D12a. Detailed information about information literacy performance indi-
cator scores and multivariate multiple regression analysis for performance indicators were 
provided in Table 9 and Table 10. 

TABLE 8
Multivariate Regression Analysis Results for First-Year Students’ Information Literacy 

Dispositions (Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001)
Estimate Standard Error t-value p-value

D32
Intercept 76.08 1.16 65.45 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -5.72 2.51 -2.28 0.024*
D33
Intercept 51.93 0.84 61.50 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -1.96 1.82 -1.07 0.285
D41
Intercept 66.24 1.04 63.68 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -1.76 2.07 -0.85 0.398
D42
Intercept 71.52 0.72 99.67 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -0.59 1.43 -0.41 0.682



42  College & Research Libraries January 2025

TABLE 9
First-Year Students’ Performance Indicator Scores

Module 

1 (EP&A)

Module 2 (SS) Module 3 (R&S) Module 

4 (VoI)

Group D12a 
(M/SD)

p2111 
(M/SD)

D21c 
(M/SD)

p312 
(M/SD)

p314 
(M/SD)

p325 
(M/SD)

p3112 
(M/SD)

p326 
(M/SD)

p3212 
(M/SD)

p319 
(M/SD)

p3114 
(M/SD)

D32b 
(M/SD)

p416 
(M/SD)

Firstgen 14.09/ 
4.59

166.59/ 
228.95

14.12/ 
2.73

164.55/ 
253.41

138.42/ 
248.50

307.67/ 
213.44

310.18/ 
242.64

122.27/ 
136.02

332.55/ 
253.88

257.15/ 
206.55

235.45/ 
176.58

11.70/ 
3.07

358.09/ 
304.78

Continuing 12.02/ 
4.81

256.12/ 
236.06

15.60/ 
2.67

278.23/ 
272.55

259.55/ 
285.50

397.72/ 
172.37

445.88/ 
301.86

200.08/ 
117.92

525.14/ 
240.98

345.59/ 
185.44

345.40/ 
167.17

13.13/ 
2.57

510.77/ 
289.21

TABLE 10
Multivariate Regression Analysis Results for First-Year Students’ Performance Indicators in 

Information Literacy Skills (Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01;***p<0.001)
Estimate Standard Error t-value p-value

Module 1 (EP&A)
D12a
Intercept 12.02 0.42 28.31 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing 2.08 0.93 2.23 0.027*
Module 2 (SS)
p2111
Intercept 256.12 20.66 12.40 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -89.54 45.23 -1.98 0.049*
D21c
Intercept 15.60 0.24 66.13 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -1.49 0.52 -2.88 0.005**
Module 3 (R&S)
p312
Intercept 278.23 24.42 11.39 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -113.69 52.76 -2.15 0.033*
p314
Intercept 259.55 25.28 10.27 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -121.12 54.62 -2.22 0.028*
p325
Intercept 397.72 16.53 24.07 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -90.05 35.70 -2.52 0.013*
p3112
Intercept 445.88 26.40 16.89 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -135.70 57.03 -2.38 0.019*
p326
Intercept 200.08 11.09 18.05 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -77.81 23.95 -3.25 0.001***



First-Year and First-Gen  43

Discussion
Study results reveal that, while some disparities exist between first-year, first-generation 
students and their continuing-generation counterparts, there are also several commonali-
ties between the two groups. These commonalities will be discussed below, followed by the 
disparities.

Common Strengths and Weaknesses
As a whole, first-year students demonstrated substantial information literacy knowledge 
and skills. The majority of students in both the first-generation and continuing-generation 
groups scored at the College Ready level or higher in the overall scores for each module of 
the TATIL assessment. Only thirty-three students (5 percent) received a score in the lowest 
level, Conditionally Ready, on the overall score for any module. This finding suggests that 
librarians should not assume that first-year students, regardless of their first-generation status, 
are entering college with low-level information literacy skills.

Students from both groups shared strengths in the R&S and VoI categories, areas which 
focus on scholarly communication, ethical use of information, and the research process. Only 
five students (3 percent) received Conditionally Ready scores in this category, indicating that 
few students struggle significantly in this area. Indeed, a considerable number of students 
excelled: thirty-eight (25 percent) students scored at the highest level, Research Ready, in R&S, 
while seventeen (10 percent) students attained Research Ready status in VoI. 

In contrast, students were more likely to struggle in the EP&A module, which is focused 
on the ACRL Framework’s Authority is Constructed and Contextual and Information Creation as 
a Process frames.36 This module received the largest number of students who scored as Con-

TABLE 10
Multivariate Regression Analysis Results for First-Year Students’ Performance Indicators in 

Information Literacy Skills (Note: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01;***p<0.001)
Estimate Standard Error t-value p-value

p3212
Intercept 525.14 22.16 23.70 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -193.60 47.87 -4.04 0.000***
p319
Intercept 345.59 17.28 20.00 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -88.44 37.33 -2.37 0.019*
p3114
Intercept 345.40 15.38 22.46 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -109.94 33.23 -3.31 0.001***
D32b
Intercept 13.13 0.24 53.82 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -1.44 0.53 -2.72 0.007**
Module 4 (VoI)
p416
Intercept 510.77 25.61 19.94 0.000
Firstgen/Continuing -152.68 51.08 -2.99 0.003**



44  College & Research Libraries January 2025

ditionally Ready, with fourteen (9 percent) scoring in this lowest category. Additionally, no 
student from either group attained Research Ready status in EP&A. Students from both groups 
particularly struggled with O12, “Apply knowledge of authority to analyze others’ claims and 
to support one’s own claims.”37 This finding suggests that, while librarians should not assume 
that first-year students lack information literacy skills, they should consider implementing 
pre-assessments to determine whether their first-year students would benefit from additional 
instruction in understanding the context and complexity of authority when evaluating sources.

Disparities
Although there are similarities between the overall scores of first-generation and continuing-
generation students, there are also differences that may support calls for additional informa-
tion literacy support for first-year, first-generation students. 

The most significant differences between first-generation and continuing-generation 
students appeared in the R&S and VoI modules. As was noted previously, students in both 
groups scored most highly in these two categories, with a substantial number of students even 
attaining Research Ready status in this category. Despite these positive results, first-generation 
students received significantly lower scores in these two modules, which are focused on the 
ACRL Framework Research as Inquiry, Scholarship as a Conversation, and Information has Value 
frames.38

The largest cluster of significant differences appeared in module 3, R&S. Although most 
first-generation students received College Ready scores, their outcome and performance level 
scores revealed that first-year, first-generation students experience knowledge gaps in this 
area in comparison to their continuing-generation peers. Disposition scores also revealed 
that first-generation students scored lower in Disposition 3.3, Mindful self-reflection. Table 
11 depicts the significant R&S outcomes and performance indicators. Based on this finding, 

TABLE 11
R&A Outcomes and Performance Indicators with First-Generation Gaps

Outcome 3.1 Understand the processes of scholarly communication and 
knowledge building.

Performance Indicator 3.1.2 Given a literature review, identify the gap that the authors have identified 
in the existing research.

Performance Indicator 3.1.4 Recognize that scholars bring their own perspectives to the study of a 
research topic.

Performance Indicator 3.1.9 Identify venues for scholarly communication, such as books, journals, 
conventions, blogs.

Performance indicator 3.1.12 Evaluate an emerging scholar’s likelihood of being accepted into the 
scholarly conversation.

Performance Indicator 3.1.14 Given a set of research needs, match them to appropriate research methods.
Outcome 3.2 Understand stages of the research process.
Performance Indicator 3.2.5 Order the stages of the research process when writing a research paper.
Performance Indicator 3.2.6 Explain why research inquiry can be appropriate for personal information 

needs in addition to academic needs.
Performance Indicator 3.2.12 Classify descriptions of specific actions taken during the research process 

by the stage in the research process when they are most likely to happen.



First-Year and First-Gen  45

first-generation students appear to have a less sophisticated understanding of the scholarly 
conversation and research process.

A second set of disparities is apparent in module 4, VoI. This module, which is based on 
the Information has Value frame,39 reveals a more specific knowledge gap, as depicted in Table 
12 below. Based upon this finding, first-year, first-generation students may benefit from ad-
ditional instruction on the conceptual reasons for citing sources.

In addition to the areas where the scores of first-generation students suggested knowledge 
gaps, there was also an area where first-generation students demonstrated more sophisticated 
information behavior compared to their continuing-generation peers. First-generation students 
received significantly higher scores on one disposition question, D12a, which is part of the 
“Toleration of Ambiguity” disposition. This disposition assesses students’ research behavior 
and choice of authoritative sources. First-generation students’ high scores in this area support 
Ilett’s assertion that first-gen students “recognize various types of authority and seek help 
from appropriate sources accordingly.40 

Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study was implemented at a single in-
stitution. Results may not be generalizable to other institutions. Next, it is important to note 
that standardized tests have limited utility. Students’ ability to select a correct answer from 
multiple choices may not correlate with their ability to implement that knowledge in actual 
practice. There are also limitations to the way this study was implemented. The assessment was 
administered over multiple semesters to students enrolled in several different courses, with 
results aggregated into a single data set. It is possible that there were factors that differenti-
ated results from different semesters or courses that are not accounted for in the results. The 
assessment was completed by students on their own time outside of the classroom environ-
ment. Because students opted into completing the assessment, there is potential for selection 
bias in the sample. Further, the lack of a controlled testing environment could have impacted 
the results. Finally, the assessment was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which 
substantially impacted the academic experience.

Next Steps and Future Directions
The results of this study suggest several potential changes to librarian practice. First, librarians 
should consider the pre-existing knowledge and skills of both first-generation and continuing-
generation students. Both groups of students demonstrated substantial information literacy 
knowledge at the first-year level, indicating that librarians should not assume that students 
are entering college without information literacy skills. Additionally, both groups experienced 
the most challenges with the EP&A module, which focused on evaluating sources and con-
sidering issues of authority. Librarians may wish to consider increasing information literacy 
support in this area for all first-year students.

TABLE 12
VoI Outcomes and Performance Indicators with First-Generation Gaps

Outcome 4.2 Recognize social, legal, and economic factors affecting access to information.
Performance Indicator 4.1.6 Given a list, select the purposes of citation.



46  College & Research Libraries January 2025

Librarians may also adjust how they work with first-generation students. Librarians 
who have the opportunity to engage directly with first-generation students should consider 
focusing information literacy support in the areas where first-generation students exhibited 
gaps. Additional support in understanding scholarly communication and the research pro-
cess could help first-generation students gain better understanding of the larger information 
literacy landscape. 

This study also reveals several opportunities for additional research. One potential area 
is the application of first-generation research skills. Although standardized testing revealed 
gaps, it is unclear if those gaps appear in actual practice. Additional research is needed to 
better understand how first- and continuing-generation students apply information literacy 
knowledge and skills. Research is also needed into effective information literacy support. 
Identifying effective library interventions in supporting first-generation student information 
literacy skill development would provide practitioners with insights that could guide practice. 

Conclusion
As libraries strive to better support first-generation students, information literacy instruction 
will be an important part of that support. Understanding the specific information literacy 
strengths and needs of first-generation students is an important step toward advocating for, 
designing, and implementing appropriate information literacy support. At many libraries, 
information literacy instruction is heavily concentrated at the first-year level. This study 
reveals that first-year, first-generation college students demonstrate substantial information 
literacy skills, especially in the areas of Research as Inquiry, Scholarship as a Conversation, and 
Information has Value. Despite these strengths, first-generation students appear to lag behind 
their continuing-generation peers in these same knowledge areas. 

Closing the gap between first-generation and continuing-generation college students is 
key to ensuring an equitable academic experience for first-generation students. Librarians 
should consider whether first-generation students experience information literacy gaps and 
access barriers on their campuses. Although removing barriers and highlighting strengths 
is a best practice for supporting first-generation students,41 librarians should also consider 
whether they can implement additional information literacy support to help first-generation 
students excel.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dr. Valerie Balester and Dr. Leroy Dorsey for their contributions to this project.



First-Year and First-Gen  47

Appendices

Appendix A: TATIL Outcomes
Code Module TATIL Outcome TATIL Outcome Description42

O11 1 (EP&A) Outcome 1.1 Apply knowledge of source creation processes and context to 
evaluate the authority of a source.

O12 1 (EP&A) Outcome 1.2 Apply knowledge of authority to analyze others’ claims and to 
support one’s own claims

O21 2 (SS) Outcome 2.1 Plan, conduct, evaluate, and revise searches to achieve relevant 
results.

O22 2 (SS) Outcome 2.2 Compare and contrast a range of search tools.
O31 3 (R&S) Outcome 3.1 Understand the processes of scholarly communication and 

knowledge building.
O32 3 (R&S) Outcome 3.2 Understand stages of the research process.
O41 4 (VoI) Outcome 4.1 Recognize the rights and responsibilities of information creation.
O42 4 (VoI) Outcome 4.2 Recognize social, legal, and economic factors affecting access to 

information.

Appendix B: TATIL Dispositions

Code Module TATIL Disposition TATIL Disposition Description43

D11 1 (EP&A) Disposition 1.1 Mindful self-reflection
D12 1 (EP&A) Disposition 1.2 Toleration of ambiguity
D13 1 (EP&A) Disposition 1.3 Responsibility to community
D21 2 (SS) Disposition 2.1 Productive persistence
D31 3 (R&S) Disposition 3.1 Productive persistence
D32 3 (R&S) Disposition 3.2 Mindful self-reflection
D33 3 (R&S) Disposition 3.3 Responsibility to community
D41 4 (VoI) Disposition 4.1 Mindful self-reflection
D42 4 (VoI) Disposition 4.2 Responsibility to community

Appendix C: TATIL Performance Indicators and Individual Disposition 
Descriptions

Code Module TATIL Performance 
Indicator/Individual 
Disposition 

TATIL Performance Indicator/Individual Disposition 
Description44

D12a 1(EP&A) Disposition 1.2 Toleration of ambiguity
p2111 2 (SS) Performance Indicator 

2.1.11
Apply nested logic structures, Boolean operators, and 
truncation to successfully construct an advanced search.

D21c 2 (SS) Disposition 2.1 Productive persistence
p312 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 

3.1.2
Given a literature review, identify the gap that the authors 
have identified in the existing research.



48  College & Research Libraries January 2025

p314 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.1.3

Recognize that scholars bring their own perspectives to 
the study of a research topic.

p319 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.1.9

Identify venues for scholarly communication, such as 
books, journals, conventions, blogs.

p3112 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.1.12

Evaluate an emerging scholar’s likelihood of being 
accepted into the scholarly conversation. 

p3114 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.1.14

Given a set of research needs, match them to appropriate 
research methods.

D32b 3 (R&S) Disposition 3.2 Mindful self-reflection
p325 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 

3.2.5
Order the stages of the research process when writing a 
research paper.

p326 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.2.6

Explain why research inquiry can be appropriate for 
personal information needs in addition to academic 
needs.

p3212 3 (R&S) Performance Indicator 
3.2.12

Classify descriptions of specific actions taken during the 
research process by the stage in the research process 
when they are most likely to happen.

p416 4 (VoI) Performance Indicator 
4.1.6

Given a list, select the purposes of citation.

Notes
 1. Laura Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome,” Journal 

of Academic Librarianship 38, no. 4 (2012): 226-236; Sharon Weiner, “Information Literacy and the Workforce: A 
Review,” Education Libraries 24, no. 2 (2011): 7-14.

 2. Sarah LeMire et al., “Assessing the Information Literacy Skills of First-Generation College Students,” 
College & Research Libraries 82, no. 5 (2021): 730-754.

 3. Library Journal, “First-Year Experience Survey: Information Literacy in Higher Education,” (Credo Refer-
ence, 2017). https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebVault/research/LJ_FirstYearExperienceSurvey_Mar2017.pdf.

 4. Library Journal, “First Year Experience Survey”; Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “What’s Skill Got To 
Do With It?: Information Literacy Skills and Self-views of Ability among First-Year College Students,” Journal of 
the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, no. 3 (2012): 574-583; Catherine Baird and Tiffany 
Soares, “Faculty Perceptions of Students’ IL Learning in First-Year Writing,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 20, 
no. 3(2017): 509–532; Eleonora Dubicki, “Faculty Perceptions of Students’ Information Literacy Skills Competen-
cies,” Journal of Information Literacy 7, no. 2 (2013): 97-125.

 5. Hal Kirkwood and Roy Dejoie, “Business Information Literacy Integration into a Freshman Summer Bridge 
Course for Underrepresented Minorities,” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 21, no. 3/4 (2016): 198–209.

 6. Anne C. Barnhart and Andrea Stanfield, “Bridging the Information Literacy Gap: Library Participation 
in Summer Transition Programs,” Reference Services Review 41, no. 2 (2013): 201–218.

 7. Andy Foskey and Amanda Roper, “Constructing Authority: Using the ACRL Framework to Connect with 
Underserved Students,” College & Research Libraries News 81, no. 10 (2020): 508–511. 

 8. Mandi Goodsett, “Going the Distance for International Students: Academic Integrity Support Online,” 
Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 14, no. 3–4 (2020): 209–227. 

 9. Andrew Kearns et al., “Agoge: An Information Literacy Game for Transfer Students,” Reference Services 
Review 45, no. 2 (2017): 314-334.

10. Steve Borrelli et al., “Investigating First-Generation Students’ Perceptions of Library Personnel,” Perfor-
mance Measurement and Metrics 20, no. 1 (2019): 27-36. 

11. Juliann Couture et al., “’We’re Gonna Figure This Out’: First-Generation Students and Academic Librar-
ies,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 21, no. 1 (2021): 127-147.

12. Xan Arch and Isaac Gilman, Academic Library Services for First-Generation Students. (Libraries Unlimited): 
97.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebVault/research/LJ_FirstYearExperienceSurvey_Mar2017.pdf


First-Year and First-Gen  49

 13. Amanda L. Folk, “Exploring the Development of Undergraduate Students’ Information Literacy through 
Their Experiences with Research Assignments,” College & Research Libraries 82, no. 7 (2021): 1035.

14. Africa S. Hands, “Tapping into the Assets of First-Generation Students during Times of Transition,” 
Information and Learning Sciences 121, no. 7/8 (2020): 611–618. 

 15. Darren Ilett, “Beyond the Research Paper: First-Generation Students and the Framework in Everyday 
Contexts,” College & Research Libraries News 81, no. 6 (2020): 287. 

 16. Firouzeh Logan and Elizabeth Pickard, “First-Generation College Students: A Sketch of Their Research 
Process,” in College Libraries and Student Culture: What We Now Know, eds. Lynda M. Duke and Andrew D. Asher, 
(American Library Association, 2012): 113.

 17. LeMire et al., “Assessing the Information.”
 18. Stephanie J. Graves et al., “Uncovering the Information Literacy Skills of First-Generation and Provision-

ally Admitted Students,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47, no. 1 (2021): 102260.
 19. Yana Kuchirko, “On Differences and Deficits: A Critique of the Theoretical and Methodological Under-

pinnings of the Word Gap,” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 19, no. 4 (2019): 533-562.
 20. Darren Ilett, “A Critical Review of LIS Literature on First-Generation Students,” portal: Libraries & the 

Academy 19, no. 1 (2019): 183.
 21. Ilett, “A Critical Review of LIS Literature”; Amanda L. Folk, “Drawing on Students’ Funds of Knowledge: 

Using Identity and Lived Experience to Join the Conversation in Research Assignments,” Journal of Information 
Literacy, 12, no. 2 (2018), 44–59. 

 22. Megan L. Hodge, “First-Generation Students and the First-Year Transition: State of the Literature and 
Implications for Library Researchers,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48, no. 4 (2022): 2.

 23. Elizabeth Pickard and Firouzeh Logan, “The Research Process and the Library: First-Generation College 
Seniors vs. Freshmen,” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 4 (2013): 399–415.

 24. Ilett, “A Critical Review of LIS Literature.”
 25. Hodge, “First-Generation Students,” 11.
 26. “How the Test Was Developed,” Threshold Achievement Test for Information Literacy, accessed January 

6, 2023, https://thresholdachievement.com/the-test/background 
 27. Gena Parsons-Diamond, “ACRL Acquires Threshold Achievement Test for Information Literacy (TATIL),” 

ACRL Insider, accessed May 18, 2023, https://acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/acrl-acquires-threshold-achievement-test-for-
information-literacy-tatil/.

28. “Test modules,” Threshold Achievement Test for Information Literacy, accessed January 6, 2023, https://
thresholdachievement.com/the-test/test-modules. 

29. “Module descriptions,” Threshold Achievement Test for Information Literacy, accessed January 6, 2023, 
https://thresholdachievement.com/files/Module-Descriptions.pdf.

30. “Module descriptions.”
31. “Module descriptions.”
32. “Module descriptions.”
33.  “How the Test Was Developed.” 
34. “Module descriptions.”
35. “Module descriptions.”
 36. “Test modules.”
37. “Module descriptions.” 
38. “Test modules.”
39. “Test modules.”
40. Darren Ilett, “Beyond the Research Paper: First-Generation Students and the Framework in Everyday 

Contexts,” College & Research Libraries News 81, no. 6 (2020): 287. 
41. Xan Arch and Isaac Gilman, “First Principles: Designing Services for First-Generation Students,” College 

& Research Libraries 80, no. 7 (2019): 996-1012
42. “Module descriptions.” 
43. “Module descriptions.” 
44. “Module descriptions.”

https://thresholdachievement.com/the-test/background
https://acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/acrl-acquires-threshold-achievement-test-for-information-literacy-t
https://acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/acrl-acquires-threshold-achievement-test-for-information-literacy-t
https://thresholdachievement.com/the-test/test-modules
https://thresholdachievement.com/the-test/test-modules
https://thresholdachievement.com/files/Module-Descriptions.pdf