ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8621
www.rsisinternational.org
This study examined the influence of information literacy and librarian interactions on students’ academic
success in higher education. Using a descriptive-correlational design, data were collected from 1,309 fourth year
undergraduate students at Mindanao State University–Main Campus, Marawi City. The study assessed students’
information literacy—specifically search skills and source evaluation—and the extent of their interactions with
librarians regarding frequency, type of assistance, and perceived helpfulness. Results revealed that students
demonstrated a high level of information literacy and moderate engagement with librarians. Both variables
showed significant positive relationships with academic success, with source evaluation and perceived
helpfulness emerging as the strongest predictors. The findings underscore the library’s instructional and
mentoring role in improving academic performance. Strengthening information literacy programs and fostering
proactive librarian-student collaboration are recommended.
information literacy; librarian interaction; academic success; higher education; student engagement;
research skills
The ability to locate, evaluate, and effectively utilize information is a fundamental competency for success in
higher education. In today’s digital and information-rich academic environment, students are continuously
exposed to vast volumes of data that require critical analysis, ethical use, and discerning judgment. Information
literacy (IL) therefore serves as an essential academic skill that empowers students to navigate this complexity,
engage meaningfully with scholarly content, and produce high-quality academic and research outputs
(Association of College & Research Libraries [ACRL], 2016).
Within this context, librarians play a transformative role in developing students’ information literacy
competencies. Beyond their traditional functions as resource providers, librarians serve as educators, mentors,
and collaborators who facilitate students’ ability to access, assess, and apply information critically (Head &
Eisenberg, 2019). Through regular and meaningful interactions with librarians, students acquire not only
technical skills in searching and retrieving information but also the confidence to evaluate sources, synthesize
ideas, and construct well-founded academic arguments.
Recognizing this, the present study investigates the interplay between information literacy and librarian
interactions and how these factors collectively influence students’ academic success in higher education. By
examining the depth and quality of students’ information literacy skills and their engagement with librarians,
this paper seeks to underscore the library’s instructional and developmental role in fostering academic
achievement and lifelong learning.
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8622
www.rsisinternational.org
The aims of the study are as follows:
1. Determine the level of students’ information literacy in terms of search skills and strategies and source
evaluation.
2. Determine the level of students’ librarian interactions in terms of frequency of interactions, type of
assistance provided, and perceived helpfulness.
3. Examine the relationship between information literacy, librarian interactions, and students’ academic
success.
4. Identify which indicators of information literacy and librarian interactions best predict academic success.
Information literacy (IL) refers to the set of skills and dispositions that enable individuals to recognize when
information is needed and to locate, evaluate, and use it effectively (Association of College & Research Libraries
[ACRL], 2016). In the context of higher education, IL is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of academic
achievement and lifelong learning. Studies have consistently shown that students with higher levels of
information literacy tend to perform better academically, demonstrating greater efficiency in research and higher-
quality academic writing (Lanning & Mallek, 2017; Katsirikou & Skiadas, 2020). Effective search strategies and
source evaluation skills, in particular, are linked to improved research productivity and the ability to produce
credible, well-informed scholarly outputs (Kurbanoğlu et al., 2018). Furthermore, integrating information
literacy instruction within academic curricula enhances students’ critical thinking, reflective judgment, and
capacity for independent learning (Weiner, 2014).
Equally important to the development of these competencies are the interactions between students and librarians.
Research has shown that librarian engagement significantly contributes to both academic and affective learning
outcomes. Haddow and Joseph (2020) found that regular student–librarian interactions correlate with improved
academic performance and greater engagement with learning resources. Collaborative activities—such as one-
on-one consultations, research assistance, and library instruction sessions—have been shown to promote
independent learning and enhance students’ confidence in managing information (Webster et al., 2019). The
perceived helpfulness and approachability of librarians also play a critical role: when students view librarians as
knowledgeable and supportive, they are more likely to seek guidance and apply feedback effectively (Blake &
Potvin, 2021).
Taken together, these studies suggest that information literacy and librarian interactions are mutually reinforcing
factors that enhance students’ academic success. The librarian’s role extends beyond providing access to
materials; it encompasses teaching, mentoring, and fostering an environment where students develop confidence
in evaluating and using information ethically and effectively. Through these instructional and relational roles,
librarians contribute not only to students’ immediate academic performance but also to their broader intellectual
growth and scholarly identity.
The study employed a descriptive-correlational design to explore relationships between information literacy,
librarian interactions, and academic success. Participants included in 1,309 fourth-year undergraduate students
from 14 colleges at Mindanao State University-Main Campus, Marawi City, during Academic Year 20242025.
Stratified sampling ensured representation across disciplines. A structured questionnaire measured information
literacy (search skills, source evaluation), librarian interactions (frequency, assistance, helpfulness), and
academic success. All items used a 5-point Likert scale with excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α .92). Descriptive
statistics summarized data, Pearson’s r measured correlations, and multiple regression identified predictors at p
< .05.
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8623
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1 Level of Students’ Information Literacy in Terms of Search Skills and Strategies
1. I know how to use keywords effectively to search for
information.
3.24
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
2. I can refine my searches using advanced search techniques (e.g.,
Boolean operators)
2.88
1.13
Sometimes
Moderately High
3. I am confident in using the library’s online catalog to locate
materials.
2.76
1.12
Sometimes
Moderately High
4. I know how to search for academic resources using online
databases.
2.95
1.14
Sometimes
Moderately High
5. I can identify the most relevant resources for my research needs.
3.01
1.09
Sometimes
Moderately High
6. I use filters (e.g., year, subject) to narrow down search results
effectively.
2.99
1.14
Sometimes
Moderately High
7. I can differentiate between primary and secondary sources
during my searches.
3.07
1.11
Sometimes
Moderately High
8. I can access full-text resources, such as e-books and journal
articles, though the library.
2.78
1.10
Sometimes
Moderately High
9. I know how to search for peer-reviewed articles using scholarly
databases.
2.82
1.10
Sometimes
Moderately High
10. I can locate and use specialized resources, such as archives or
government documents.
2.76
1.12
Sometimes
Moderately High
11. I am confident in using citation tools provided by the library’s
online platforms.
2.84
1.14
Sometimes
Moderately High
12. I know how to identify and use credible websites when
conducting online searches.
3.06
1.14
Sometimes
Moderately High
13. I can modify my search terms if I don’t find relevant results
initially.
3.03
1.11
Sometimes
Moderately High
14. I am familiar with using subject-specific databases to find
information for my coursework.
2.93
1.13
Sometimes
Moderately High
15. I know how to locate help guides or ask librarians for
assistance with search strategies.
2.89
1.12
Sometimes
Moderately High
Over-all Mean
2.93
.905
Sometimes
Moderately High
Legend:
Scale Range Description Interpretation
5 4.51-5.00 Always Very High
4 3.51-4.50 Often High
3 2.51-3.50 Sometimes Moderately High
2 1.51-2.50 Rarely Low
1 1.00-1.50 Never Very Low
Table 1 presents the students’ level of information literacy in terms of search skills and strategies. The results
show that students exhibited a moderately high level of competence (M = 2.93, SD = 0.905), indicating that they
“sometimes” applied effective search behaviors but did not do so consistently or with full confidence. The
highest-rated indicators were: “I know how to use keywords effectively to search for information” (M = 3.24,
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8624
www.rsisinternational.org
SD = 1.19), “I can differentiate between primary and secondary sources during my searches” (M = 3.07, SD =
1.11), and “I know how to identify and use credible websites when conducting online searches” (M = 3.06, SD
= 1.14). These findings suggest that students were generally comfortable performing foundational search tasks
commonly emphasized during early academic experiences and digital literacy instruction.
However, the lowest mean scores were observed in “I can locate and use specialized resources, such as archives
or government documents” (M = 2.76, SD = 1.12), “I am confident in using the library’s online catalog to locate
materials” (M = 2.76, SD = 1.12), and “I can access full-text resources, such as e-books and journal articles,
through the library” (M = 2.78, SD = 1.11). These results indicate that students experienced challenges in
navigating advanced research tools and institutional systems crucial for academic scholarship.
The relatively high standard deviations across indicators reflect variability in students’ search proficiency,
suggesting uneven access to structured information literacy instruction. This finding aligns with Gross and
Latham (2012), who noted that students often overestimate their information literacy abilities, particularly in
keyword and database searching. Similarly, Julien et al. (2018) found that inconsistent delivery of library
instruction across academic programs led to uneven skill acquisition, leaving some students proficient while
others relied solely on informal or self-directed learning.
Overall, the results highlight the need for structured, diagnostic, and discipline-based information literacy
programs that bridge the gap between students perceived and actual competencies in search strategies.
Table 2 Level of Students’ Information Literacy in Terms of Source Evaluation
1. I can evaluate the credibility of an author when
assessing a source.
3.05
1.03
Sometimes
Moderately High
2. I consider the publication date of a source to ensure
its relevance to my topic.
3.27
1.11
Sometimes
Moderately High
3. I can identify the publisher’s credibility when
3.11
1.06
Sometimes
Moderately High
selecting a source.
4. I evaluate whether a source is peer-reviewed or
academically credible.
3.04
1.05
Sometimes
Moderately High
5. I can distinguish between scholarly and nonscholarly
sources.
3.00
1.09
Sometimes
Moderately High
6. I consider the purpose of a source (e.g.,
informational, persuasive) before using it.
3.16
1.09
Sometimes
Moderately High
7. I verify the accuracy of information by
crosschecking it with other reliable sources.
3.18
1.08
Sometimes
Moderately High
8. I evaluate whether a source includes proper citations
and references.
3.22
1.10
Sometimes
Moderately High
9. I assess the objectivity of a source to determine if it
has any biases.
3.18
1.11
Sometimes
Moderately High
10. I check for the presence of supporting evidence in
a source to validate its claims.
3.19
1.09
Sometimes
Moderately High
11. I can differentiate between factual information and
opinion in a source.
3.19
1.0
Sometimes
Moderately High
12. I prioritize sources that come from established and
recognized institutions.
3.27
1.06
Sometimes
Moderately High
13. I assess the intended audience of a source to ensure
it matches my academic needs.
3.21
1.06
Sometimes
Moderately High
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8625
www.rsisinternational.org
14. I examine whether a source aligns with my research
goals or thesis.
3.32
1.15
Sometimes
Moderately High
15. I critically evaluate the language and tone of a
source to identify possible bias or agenda.
3.17
1.08
Sometimes
Moderately High
Over-all Mean
3.17
.905
Sometimes
Moderately High
Legend:
Scale Range Description Interpretation
5 4.51-5.00 Always Very High
4 3.51-4.50 Often High
3 2.51-3.50 Sometimes Moderately High
2 1.51-2.50 Rarely Low
1 1.00-1.50 Never Very Low
As shown in Table 2, students demonstrated a moderately high level of information literacy in source evaluation
(M = 3.17, SD = 0.905). The highest mean was observed for “I examine whether a source aligns with my research
goals or thesis” (M = 3.32, SD = 1.15), followed by “I prioritize sources that come from established and
recognized institutions” (M = 3.27, SD = 1.06), and “I assess the intended audience of a source to ensure it
matches my academic needs” (M = 3.21, SD = 1.06). These findings indicate that students practiced evaluative
behaviors that were task-oriented and context-driven, aligning with Saunders (2011) who noted that learners
often assess credibility based on institutional reputation and relevance to academic goals.
However, the lowest-rated indicators—“I can distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly sources” (M =
3.00, SD = 1.09), “I evaluate whether a source is peer-reviewed or academically credible” (M = 3.04, SD =
1.06), and “I can evaluate the credibility of an author when assessing a source” (M = 3.05, SD = 1.03)— suggest
moderate awareness but limited mastery of academic evaluation criteria. Michalak et al. (2017) similarly
reported students’ uncertainty in assessing scholarly authority and credibility, indicating a persistent confidence
gap between conceptual understanding and applied skills.
The data further revealed wide variability in evaluation ability, implying that while some students demonstrated
advanced critical judgment, others struggled with consistency. Bear (2020) attributed such differences to
psychological and affective factors—such as confidence and academic anxiety—that shape evaluative behaviors.
Overall, the findings highlight that while students recognize the importance of evaluating information, they
require structured, confidence-building instruction that integrates evaluative tasks within the academic
curriculum and reinforces critical appraisal skills across disciplines.
Table 3 Level of Students’ Librarian Interactions in Terms of Frequency of Interactions
1. I approach librarians for assistance with finding books or
other physical resources.
2.81
1.26
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
2. I consult librarians for help with using the library’s online
catalog.
2.57
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
3. I interact with librarians to get guidance on using
academic databases.
2.60
1.16
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
4. I seek help from librarians when I have difficulty locating
specific resources.
2.73
1.22
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
5. I ask librarians for support with understanding citation
styles and formats.
2.53
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8626
www.rsisinternational.org
6. I interact with librarians to learn about advanced search
techniques.
2.49
1.17
Rarely
Less Involved
7. I seek advice from librarians on selecting appropriate
sources for my assignments.
2.51
1.14
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
8. I consult librarians when I need assistance with accessing
e-books or journal articles.
2.52
1.17
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
9. I interact with librarians for help with interlibrary loans or
special requests.
2.40
1.17
Rarely
Less Involved
10. I ask librarians for recommendations on academic
resources related to my field of study.
2.51
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
11. I consult librarians during workshops or instructional
sessions offered by the library.
2.42
1.17
Rarely
Less Involved
12. I interact with librarians to troubleshoot technical issues
with library resources (e.g., login problems).
2.49
1.18
Rarely
Less Involved
13. I ask librarians for help with developing effective
research strategies.
2.42
1.15
Rarely
Less Involved
14. I interact with librarians to learn about new resources or
tools available in the library.
2.49
1.16
Rarely
Less Involved
15. I seek out librarians to discuss or clarify my academic or
research needs.
2.43
1.18
Rarely
Less Involved
Over-all Mean
2.53
1.03
Sometimes
Moderately Involved
Legend:
Scale Range Description Interpretation
5 4.51-5.00 Always Very High
4 3.51-4.50 Often High
3 2.51-3.50 Sometimes Moderately High
2 1.51-2.50 Rarely Low
1 1.00-1.50 Never Very Low
Table 3 presents the extent of students’ interactions with librarians. The overall mean (M = 2.53, SD = 1.03)
indicates that students interacted with librarians occasionally, reflecting a moderately high but inconsistent level
of engagement. The highest means were for “I approach librarians for assistance with finding books or physical
resources” (M = 2.81, SD = 1.26), “I seek help from librarians when I have difficulty locating specific resources”
(M = 2.73, SD = 1.22), and “I interact with librarians to get guidance on using academic databases” (M = 2.60,
SD = 1.16). These results show that students primarily approached librarians for immediate, task-oriented
assistance rather than continuous academic support.
Conversely, indicators such as “I interact with librarians for help with interlibrary loans or special requests” (M
= 2.40, SD = 1.17), “I consult librarians during workshops or instructional sessions offered by the library” (M =
2.42, SD = 1.17), and “I ask librarians for help with developing effective research strategies” (M = 2.42, SD =
1.15) received the lowest ratings. This implies that students’ engagement was largely transactional rather than
developmental. According to Mackey and Jacobson (2014), such patterns reveal missed opportunities to promote
metaliteracy, where librarian interactions foster reflective and participatory learning. Rempel and Deitering
(2017) similarly emphasized that students often overlook librarians’ roles as educators, viewing them only as
service providers.
The variation in frequency scores underscores the need to redefine librarianship as a teaching and mentoring
role. Proactive, embedded librarian engagement—through course integration, faculty collaboration, and
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8627
www.rsisinternational.org
personalized instruction—could transform these interactions into sustained learning partnerships that promote
deeper information literacy development.
Table 4 Level of Students’ Librarian Interactions in Terms of Type of Assistance Provided
1. Librarians assist me in locating physical books and resources
in the library.
2.83
1.24
Sometimes
Moderately High
2. Librarians provide guidance on using the library’s online
catalog effectively.
2.66
1.20
Sometimes
Moderately High
3. I receive support from librarians in accessing digital resources,
such as e-books and databases.
2.56
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
4. Librarians help me with developing research strategies for
academic projects.
2.52
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
5. I get assistance from librarians in evaluating the credibility of
sources.
2.56
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
6. Librarians provide clear instructions on proper citation and
referencing styles.
2.57
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
7. I rely on librarians for help with troubleshooting technical
issues related to library systems.
2.59
1.21
Sometimes
Moderately High
8. Librarians assist me in understanding how to use advanced
search techniques (e.g., Boolean operators).
2.50
1.19
Rarely
Low
9. I receive help from librarians in navigating subject-specific
databases for research purposes
2.53
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
10. Librarians guide me in finding and using special collections
or archives.
2.58
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
11. I benefit from librarian’s recommendations on relevant
resources for my coursework or research.
2.56
1.16
Sometimes
Moderately High
12. Librarians assist in using library tools such as computers.
2.52
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
13. I rely on librarians for interlibrary loan requests or obtaining
resources from other institutions.
2.33
1.17
Rarely
Low
14. Librarians provide workshops or training sessions to enhance
my information literacy skills.
2.29
1.15
Rarely
Low
15. I received personalized support from librarians to address
specific academic or research challenges.
2.05
1.14
Rarely
Low
Over-all Mean
2.51
1.01
Sometimes
Moderately High
Legend:
Scale Range Description Interpretation
5 4.51-5.00 Always Very High
4 3.51-4.50 Often High
3 2.51-3.50 Sometimes Moderately High
2
1.51-2.50
Rarely
Low
1
1.00-1.50
Never
Very Low
As shown in Table 4, students demonstrated a moderately high level of interaction with librarians in terms of
assistance type (M = 2.51, SD = 1.01). The highest-rated items were “Librarians assist me in locating physical
books and resources in the library” (M = 2.83, SD = 1.24) and “Librarians provide guidance on using the library’s
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8628
www.rsisinternational.org
online catalog effectively” (M = 2.66, SD = 1.20). These findings affirm that students continue to rely on
librarians for foundational support, echoing Hussain and Abalkhail (2013) who noted that physical resource
navigation remains central to students’ library use. Similarly, Gross et al. (2015) emphasized the importance of
librarian mediation in improving students’ digital search proficiency.
However, the lowest-rated indicators—“I received personalized support from librarians to address specific
academic or research challenges” (M = 2.05, SD = 1.14), “Librarians provide workshops or training sessions to
enhance my information literacy skills” (M = 2.29, SD = 1.15), and “I rely on librarians for interlibrary loan
requests” (M = 2.33, SD = 1.17)—highlighted minimal engagement in advanced or specialized library services.
This pattern reflects Delaney and Bates (2015) and Tewell (2015), who observed that students often perceive
librarians as resource facilitators rather than collaborative educators. The limited use of interlibrary loan and
workshop participation suggests gaps in awareness, accessibility, and perceived relevance of library programs.
These results underscore the need for strategic promotion of librarian-led instruction and personalized academic
support. As Mlis (2024) emphasized, sporadic engagement can be mitigated through curricular integration and
consistent faculty-librarian collaboration that position librarians as co-educators in the learning process.
Table 5 Level of Students’ Librarian Interactions in Terms of Type of Perceived Helpfulness
1. Librarians provide clear and accurate answers to my questions.
2.98
1.20
Sometimes
Moderately High
2. The assistance I receive from librarians is timely and effective.
2.90
1.15
Sometimes
Moderately High
3. Librarians are approachable and willing to help whenever I seek
assistance.
3.00
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
4. The librarians’ guidance helps me find the resources I need
efficiently.
2.94
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
5. Librarians are knowledgeable about academic databases and
research tools.
2.97
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
6. I find librarians helpful when I need assistance with citation and
referencing styles.
2.85
1.23
Sometimes
Moderately High
7. Librarians provide useful recommendations for resources
relevant to my assignments.
2.84
1.21
Sometimes
Moderately High
8. The support pro enhances my research and academic work.
2.82
1.18
Sometimes
Moderately High
9. Librarians are patient and understanding when addressing my
concerns.
2.95
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
10. Librarians explain search strategies and library tools in a way
that is easy to understand.
2.82
1.20
Sometimes
Moderately High
11. The assistance I receive from librarians improves my
confidence in using library resources.
2.86
1.22
Sometimes
Moderately High
12. Librarians go beyond basic assistance to ensure I achieve my
academic goals.
2.77
1.19
Sometimes
Moderately High
13. Librarians make me feel valued and supported during
interactions.
2.84
1.21
Rarely
Low
14. The workshops or sessions conducted by librarians are
informative and helpful.
2.80
1.20
Sometimes
Moderately High
15. Overall, I perceive librarians as an essential and helpful
resource for my academic success.
2.96
1.20
Sometimes
Moderately High
Over-all Mean
2.89
1.06
Sometimes
Moderately High
Legend:
Scale Range Description Interpretation
5 4.51-5.00 Always Very High
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8629
www.rsisinternational.org
4 3.51-4.50 Often High
3 2.51-3.50 Sometimes Moderately High
2
1.51-2.50
Rarely
Low
1
1.00-1.50
Never
Very Low
Table 5 reveals that students perceived librarian helpfulness as moderately high (M = 2.89, SD = 1.06), indicating
generally positive yet uneven experiences. The highest mean was recorded for “Librarians are approachable and
willing to help whenever I seek assistance” (M = 3.00, SD = 1.18), followed by “Librarians provide clear and
accurate answers to my questions” (M = 2.98, SD = 1.20), and “Librarians are knowledgeable about academic
databases and research tools” (M = 2.97, SD = 1.15). These findings reflect students’ appreciation for librarians’
interpersonal warmth, accuracy, and expertise—factors identified by Johnson et al. (2018) and Bowles-Terry and
Donovan (2016) as critical in fostering effective library learning experiences.
Nevertheless, lower scores in “Librarians go beyond basic assistance to ensure I achieve my academic goals”
(M = 2.77, SD = 1.19) and “The workshops or sessions conducted by librarians are informative and helpful” (M
= 2.80, SD = 1.20) suggest that students perceived librarian support as reactive rather than proactive. This aligns
with Reynolds et al. (2017), who noted that transactional service models limit librarians’ transformative potential
in student learning. Nicholson (2015) further cautioned against the “McDonaldization” of academic libraries—
standardized, efficiency-driven practices that undermine meaningful, personalized academic interactions.
In sum, while librarians are viewed as approachable and competent, their perceived role remains constrained by
limited visibility and integration within academic instruction. Expanding librarians’ pedagogical presence and
tailoring instruction to students’ specific disciplinary needs could enhance both the perceived and actual
helpfulness of library services.
Across all variables, students exhibited moderately high levels of information literacy and librarian interaction,
yet findings point to a fragmented and uneven engagement with library resources and staff. Students
demonstrated stronger self-perceived skills in basic search and evaluation tasks but weaker performance in
advanced, critical, and context-specific research competencies. Similarly, librarian interactions were generally
positive but primarily operational rather than instructional or developmental.
The results collectively affirm that the library remains an influential but underutilized component of academic
success. Consistent with Mackey and Jacobson’s (2014) concept of metaliteracy, librarians should be
reenvisioned not only as custodians of information but as active educators and collaborators who cultivate
students’ independent learning and research confidence.
The study revealed that both information literacy and librarian interactions play a significant role in enhancing
students’ academic success. Students exhibited a moderately high level of information literacy, particularly in
source evaluation, yet showed inconsistency in advanced search strategies and resource navigation. Likewise,
librarian interactions were found to be moderately high but largely transactional rather than instructional or
collaborative in nature. These findings emphasize that while libraries are recognized as essential academic
support systems, their potential to foster deeper learning and critical engagement remains underutilized.
To strengthen these outcomes, several key measures are recommended. At the policy level, the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) should institutionalize policies that integrate information literacy and library
engagement within quality assurance frameworks and provide funding for library development and capacity
building. The university administration, particularly Mindanao State University, is encouraged to embed
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8630
www.rsisinternational.org
information literacy instruction into academic curricula, enhance library infrastructure, and promote faculty
librarian collaboration to support research and student learning.
Library administrators and associations should design strategic programs and professional development
initiatives that enhance librarians’ instructional and technological competencies while promoting innovation in
user engagement. Librarians themselves are urged to take proactive instructional roles through orientations,
workshops, and personalized consultations that strengthen students’ research and critical evaluation skills.
Faculty members should collaborate closely with librarians in integrating library resources into teaching and
assessment activities.
Finally, students are encouraged to maximize library services and participate in information literacy programs
to develop strong research habits, while future researchers may extend this study by incorporating additional
variables such as digital literacy, learning environment, and faculty support using longitudinal or mixedmethod
designs.
By reinforcing the synergy among policymakers, institutions, librarians, and students, academic libraries can
evolve from being mere information providers to becoming dynamic partners in advancing research, critical
inquiry, and lifelong learning.
1. Association of College & Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher
education. ACRL. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
2. Bear, A. (2020). Confidence and information literacy: Understanding students’ evaluative behaviors.
Journal of Information Literacy, 14(2), 45–62.
3. Blake, K., & Potvin, S. (2021). Student–librarian engagement and information confidence in higher
education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 102–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102110
4. Bowles-Terry, M., & Donovan, C. (2016). Serving the whole student: Integrating affective learning in
library instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(2), 107–125.
5. Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the academic library: A reflection on roles, relevance, and
relationships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 30–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2014.911194
6. Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2012). 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(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21681
7. Gross, M., Latham, D., & Julien, H. (2015). The marginalized majority: Information skills and
perceptions of information literacy instruction among undergraduates. Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
15(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0000
8. Haddow, G., & Joseph, J. (2020). Librarian interactions and student academic outcomes: Evidence from
academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 81(5), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.5.751
9. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2019). Project Information Literacy: How students engage with
information. Information School, University of Washington.
10. Hussain, A., & Abalkhail, A. (2013). Determining library use and its impact on academic performance
of students: A case study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–16.
11. Johnson, A. M., Becker, K., & Craig, C. (2018). Librarian approachability and student engagement:
Exploring affective factors in academic libraries. Reference Services Review, 46(3), 400–417.
12. Julien, H., Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2018). Survey of information literacy instructional practices in U.S.
academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 79(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.2.179
13. Katsirikou, A., & Skiadas, C. (2020). Information literacy and academic performance in Greek
universities. Library Management, 41(4/5), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-07-2019-0054
14. Kurbanoğlu, S., Boustany, J., & Špiranec, S. (2018). Information literacy in the digital age: Global
perspectives. De Gruyter Saur.
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education
Page 8631
www.rsisinternational.org
15. Lanning, S., & Mallek, J. (2017). Factors influencing information literacy competency of undergraduate
students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 386–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.005
16. Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower
learners. ALA Neal-Schuman.
17. Michalak, S., Rysavy, M., Hunt, K., & Smith, B. (2017). Assessing students’ evaluation of sources in
academic writing. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2), 420–441.
18. Mlis, R. (2024). Rethinking librarian engagement in the post-pandemic university: Curricular integration
and collaboration. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 16(1), 23–39.
19. Nicholson, K. P. (2015). The “McDonaldization” of academic libraries and the values of transformational
change. College & Research Libraries, 76(3), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.3.328
20. Reynolds, R., Leeder, C., & Chiu, M. (2017). Beyond transactions: Reframing reference services to
support student learning. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(3), 161–172.
21. Saunders, L. (2011). Information literacy as a student learning outcome: The perspective of institutional
accreditation. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(2), 331–351.
22. Tewell, E. (2015). The practice and promise of critical information literacy: Academic librarians’
involvement in critical library instruction. College & Research Libraries, 76(6), 812–833.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.6.812
23. Weiner, S. A. (2014). The contribution of information literacy to student success: Reflections on the
literature. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–10.
24. Webster, J., Thomas, L., & Ivey, S. (2019). Librarian–faculty collaboration and student learning
outcomes. Journal of Library Instruction, 15(3), 210–225.
