Information Seeking Behavior of University Students
________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
An academic reference librarian and a student with an information need used to be a match made in Heaven. In the days before the Internet, research almost always required a visit to the campus library. There, the reference librarian was able to provide what is essentially the essence of reference service, meeting an information need at the time and place of need and in the format required. The Internet has changed that scenario, though. In addition to face-to-face reference questions, now many reference librarians also implement Web 2.0 tools, receiving requests for information over the phone, by email, fax, and chat. Today, with the proliferation of information on the Internet, student access to the web, and the numerous electronic sources available through subscription services, reference librarians need to be knowledgeable in how to access and evaluate information in addition to being able to teach those skills to others.
However, they also need to be able to communicate and interact with students so their experience provides them with the information they need, as well as the perception that the interaction has increased the value of their library experience. But this is not simple task, as the ACRL Environmental Scan and the OCLC Perceptions survey pointed out. Today’s Generation Y, or ‘millennial’, students no longer rely solely on libraries or librarians for their information needs. To the contrary, these studies showed that the majority of students prefer to use the Internet to find information and are confident in their ability to evaluate its authority. This decrease in use of library resources, especially the services of the reference desk has led some to report on the ‘death’ of the reference desk. Mark Twain’s comment that “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated” applies here. The reference desk isn’t dead yet, and the information seeking behavior of students isn’t as effective as they may think. The following articles address both of these issues facing reference services today.
The Future of the Reference Desk
Carlson, Scott. "Are Reference Desks Dying Out? " Chronicle of Higher Education. 53. 33
(2007): A37. Retrieved through ERIC. 21 March 2009.
In this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Scott Carlson
highlights how many university librarians are adapting the reference
desk to address the reference needs of Generation Y or ‘millennial’
students. Many librarians are embracing the use of Web 2.0 tools such
as Facebook, blogs, email, wireless paging devices, and even cell
phones to respond to reference questions. Carlson touches on the
divergent views on the future of the reference desk. The ACRL
conference in 2007 highlighted the tensions that arose when the virtues
of face-to-face versus virtual references were discussed. Similar
tensions arose on the topic of desk versus no desk. At the conference,
university librarians addressed the preference of many students for
face-to-face reference interviews, which was summarily dismissed
by panelists in the workshop discussion.
Clearly, the field of reference services is at a juncture. Due to increased use of the Internet for many ready reference questions, many reference librarians find they have fewer face-to-face interviews. This had led to some universities like Colorado State University to replace reference librarians at the reference desk with trained clerical staff. Needless to say, this did not sit well with reference librarians, some of whom chose to retire early after this decision was made. Clearly, the wave of the future in reference work will be a combination of traditional services melded with many of the web 2.0 and social networking tools to reach out and meet the needs of the Gen Y patron.
Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth B, Anne C Moore, and Beth W Lang. "Reference Librarians
at the Reference Desk in a Learning Commons: A Mixed Methods
Evaluation." Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34.3 (2008): 231.
Retrieved through Project Muse. 21 March 2009.
Traditionally, staffing patterns at reference desks have followed a
‘tiered’ model, one that is staffed by student workers, library support
staff, and reference librarians. University libraries frequently have
student workers as the first line of defense on the reference desk,
providing directional information as well as answering reference
questions. These student workers are trained to refer more complex or
difficult questions ‘up the ladder’ to professionally trained reference
librarians. Studies up to this point have focused on evaluating the
effectiveness of this type of tiered system.
In this article, Fitzpatrick et al. look at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which in October 2005 opened their Learning Commons in the W. E. B. DuBois library. Replacing the tiered model for reference staffing, the Learning Commons introduced a deceptively simple, but radically different, system to reference services. Based on student surveys and focus groups prior to the development of the Learning Commons, the reference desk was renamed the Reference and Research Assistance Desk (RRAD) and is now staffed only by reference librarians. Student workers, library support staff and technical staff from the Office of Institutional Technology now staff the Learning Commons (LC) and Technical Support (TS) Desk. This frees up the reference librarians to handle only true reference questions, allowing them to conduct thorough reference interviews and focus on providing research assistance without the constant demand of fixing jammed printers or directing students to tech services to set up accounts or resolve more technical questions.
The survey by Fitzpatrick et al. focused on four areas:
- Does this type of reference desk configuration meet the needs of millennials?
- What types of questions are being asked at the RRAD now compared with those under the tiered model?
- Are students likely to user the RAAD and if so, are they satisfied?
- How satisfied are librarians with this new model of reference desk?
With an ever increasing focus on the types of services that Learning Commons provide; specifically group study rooms, computers for general use, and wireless access, factoring in the general trend in millennials toward self service, reference services need to address this change in order to remain relevant. UMASS’s Learning Commons chose to adapt to these changes in information seeking behavior with this new reference model in their LC; utilizing many Web 2.0 tools such as email, chat, blogs instant messaging to maintain contact with students and to keep open lines of communication among information services. Within a year of the opening of the LC, traffic documented that this model of blending traditional library services with newer technologically based services was a resounding success. Use increased 202% from 39,375 to 118,867 within a year.
The methodology used for this study was varied:
- Questions at the RRAD desk were classified and logged
- A focus group was held that was comprised of 10 students who had used the reference service during the study period.
- Librarians were asked to list three advantages and disadvantages to this RRAD model as compared to the tiered model.
The study results demonstrated that, contrary to commonly held
beliefs about students preferring to conduct their own research; most
students preferred an actual face-to-face reference interview. Many
appreciated having a chat or phone option available and some even
mentioned using their cell phones to call the RRAD when they were in
the stacks and were not able to locate materials they needed. The study
also showed that students were able to differentiate between the two
desks and the services both provide. This is born out by the results of
logged reference questions. Most questions were ‘true’ reference
questions not directional or technical in nature. And reassuringly for
reference librarians and for the field of reference services, users of
the RRAD reported ‘positive interactions’ as a benefit of this type of
configuration and reported they would feel comfortable returning for
help in the future.
Librarians listed advantages from relief at not having to constantly
train student workers to being able to focus on helping students with
reference questions as opposed to the many requests for assistance with
printers, computers and copiers. A disadvantage listed, though, was
librarians felt that with several desks, patrons are sometimes sent off
too quickly to the LC and TS desk when they could easily answer those
questions, especially if their RRAD desk was quiet at the time.
Overall, this study confirms what the librarians and staff at the UMASS
LC have known, that this method of providing information at the time
and place of need is easier and more effective when multiple services
are located in the same area and there is a clear division of service
delivery points.
Isbell, Dennis. "What Happens to Your Research Assignment at the Library? " College
Teaching. 56. 1 (2008): 3-6. Retrieved through ERIC. 21 March 2009.
In this article, Dennis Isbell’s intended outcome is to educate
university faculty to the process that occurs once they assign a
research paper. He clearly and concisely outlines the steps that
reference librarians go through while helping students begin the often
difficult and complex task of research. Isbell bases this on the
findings of Carol Kuhlthau that assert a student’ lack of prior
knowledge on a given subject is precisely the reason the research
process can seem insurmountable. Students frequently struggle with
finding a focus to their assignment and as a result don’t know where to
begin or which resources to use. Isbell finds that reference
librarians, not only help students refine their research topic, they
also provide instruction in the finer points of composition.
There are four strategies Isbell has found that librarians use when helping these students. They:
- Help define the assignment
- Assess the knowledge base of the student
- Explore library resources to identify a focus area
- Aid the student in further refining their topic
Not surprisingly, many students at the beginning of the research
process have no idea what is expected of them; in fact, Isbell finds
that many have not fully read the assignment. He describes the process
librarians frequently employ to identify how much the student knows
about their topic and works to engage the student and get them involved
in the process. Isbell clearly states that when librarians have the
opportunity to work side-by-side with the student to explore the
databases and searching options available, the student is better able
to develop successful information seeking behaviors. Learning how to
narrow a search, or discovering which databases to use for which topic
are invaluable lessons being learned during these sessions.
In addition to a detailed description of outstanding reference
interview behaviors that any reference would benefit from reading,
Isbell also makes two specific recommendations for faculty that would
have a direct impact on the quality of student papers.
- Clearly defining the assignment as well as teacher expectations
- Incorporating information literacy into the assignment
It seems that in addition to Isbell’s stated goal of informing the faculty of all the ‘behind the scenes’ work that goes into helping their students turn in a quality research paper, this article also provides them with suggestions and concrete examples of what they can do to increase the chance of receiving quality student work. An added bonus of this article is that it also provides future reference librarians with specific tools they can employ in their own reference interviews.
Information Seeking Behavior
Thompson, Christen. "Information Illiterate or Lazy: How College Students Use the
Web for Research." Portal: Libraries and the Academy. 3. 2 (2003): 259-68.
Retrieved through Project Muse. 21 March 2009.
In this article, Thompson attacks the premise that the Internet has ruined the quality of reference skills acquired by today’s college students and has lead to the demise of scholarly research as we know it. Using her own experiences in writing her senior thesis, she examines how today’s students approach research and why they choose the tools that they do. She questions the assumptions that college students are lazy, procrastinating and dishonest in their approach to research.
Thompson uses the American Library Association’s and the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education as a benchmark for her studies. She also defines “internet usage” as use that is solely for academic purposes. She further delineates the information students find into two categories, “web resources” that encompass information that is freely available to anyone who has a computer and access to the World Wide Web and “online information” as information that is accessed through subscription academic databases
It appears that not only are colleges and universities alarmed at the information seeking behavior of their students, Thompson found that they are also alarmed at the appalling decline in their ability to write clearly and cohesively. Again, the Internet is viewed as the culprit. Thompson cites one study by Judith Arnold and Elaine Anderson Jayne, librarians who teach web search techniques to college students, who found that students do not have the critical thinking skills needed to do ‘first stage’ or ‘second stage’ evaluation – the ability to determine the authority of a source and the ability to determine if the information accessed is relevant to their assignment.
Although this inability to evaluate authority and relevancy is a ‘hot topic’ in regard to information seeking behavior, Thompson found few scholarly studies to support these claims. The three that are frequently cited are the ones by John Lubans, librarian at Duke University, Shippensburg University in March of 2000, and the OCLC Preferences survey. All three surveys reached the same conclusion; except where professors or teaching assistants recommended specific websites, students preferred to make their own decisions on sources to use and preferred not to ask for the help of librarians or to access information through the library’s website. Not surprisingly, the majority of students surveyed rated their skills favorably. Thompson feels a more accurate assessment would be for faculty and professional librarians at the schools to evaluate the information as well as the information literacy in place of self-report.
Thompson recommends increased faculty and librarian collaboration and involvement in the research process, as well as a smoother interface of electronic resources accessed through the main campus website. In conclusion, Thompson believes that the research doesn’t support a definitive answer to the question, “Are today’s students are more or less lazy than previous generations?” What is needed, she feels, is a concerted effort on the part of faculty and academic librarians to help students improve their level of information literacy as well as studies based on teacher evaluation in the place of self-evaluation.
Van Scoyoc, Anna M., and Caroline Cason. "The Electronic Academic Library:
Undergraduate Research Behavior in a Library Without Books." Portal:
Libraries and the Academy. 6. 1 (2006): 47-58. Retrieved through Project Muse. 21 March 2009.
This article looks at the University of Georgia’s (UGA) information commons, which is not housed in their library, like most Information Commons, but instead occupies space in the Student Learning Center. This electronic library houses 500 computers, wireless connectivity throughout, as well as access to 45,000 full-text journals, 37,000 full-text books, and over 200 research databases. In an effort to provide a smooth interface with the university’s library, each desktop has clear links to the libraries’ online resources in addition to software offered through the University’s various libraries. Again, like the UMASS Learning Commons, care was taken in the planning stages to centrally locate the reference desk. In addition, icons were placed on the desktop interface to link directly to library resources and the interior was designed in keeping with a traditional library to honor the IC as a ‘place’.
Van Scoyoc and Cason report on their survey which sought to determine what effect this specific type of electronic library environment would have on students’ research behavior. They hypothesized that there would be greater use of general internet sources by first and second year students but as students moved up and had been exposed to literacy courses that their increased knowledge of the resources the library offers would ultimately lead to greater use of those resources. Surprisingly, neither of these assumptions was borne out by their research findings. The authors’ study found that class rank made little difference in the use of electronic library resources which included OPAC, subscription databases, subject guides, etc.
The one factor they found that influenced student use of the library resources was the use by instructors of the WebCT modules linking online library sources with specific class content. These ‘hidden libraries” as they called them, were more likely to see student traffic than the same databases if students would need to access them independently. While these ‘hidden libraries’ resulted in the increased use of the electronic resources available through the UGA libraries, the authors found that this type of shortcut’ to library resources undermines learning opportunities for students to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to select, evaluate and use resources independently.
Williams, Lesley. "Making "E" Visible - To Draw Patrons Past the Googles of
the World, We Need to Revolutionize How Electronic Resources Are Promoted." Library Journal. 131. 11 (2006): 40. Retrieved through ERIC. 24 March 2009.
One of the student recommendations in the OCLC Perceptions survey was for libraries to have their own search engine. Any student who has tried to sort through the electronic resources available on their university’s website knows the source of this recommendation. The interface of most university electronic offerings is cumbersome at best. Who hasn’t struggled with the decision of which resource would be most appropriate for the task at hand? In this article, Williams, Head of Information Services at the Evanston Public Library, IL addresses this very issue. The statistics are bewildering. Why do only two percent of college students surveyed begin their research through their library website, only 16% ever use the expensive databases provided and only 30% of respondents ever even use the library site? These figures stand in comparison to the 72% who report using free search engines.
Williams attributes this information seeking behavior to what she describes as “the free stuff conundrum.” Somehow the perception that ‘you get what you pay for’ no longer hold true for this generation of students. She cites the latest Pew Internet & American Life Project study that found an astounding 93% respondents who do not trust information more if they pay for it. This does not bode well for libraries, which are willing to spend thousands of dollars each year for individual databases because they know the breadth and depth of the information they offer. The quality of this information just isn’t available for free on through Google or any other free search engine.
Williams also addresses the perception by students that the library brand is “books” and that databases are synonymous with “complicated and techie.” She found exactly what the UMASS study reviewed above, that the use of ‘insider language’ could hinder use of services. The UMASS focus groups wondered why ‘reference’ wasn’t called ‘research’ and Williams wonders why libraries don’t rebrand their online services to sound more user-friendly. She recommends use of words like ‘desktop library’, ‘24-hour library’, or possibly even ‘e-library’ to describe what is offered. She points out that many students have no idea what ‘EBSCOhost’ or ‘WilsonSelect’ offer and recommends grouping databases by topic and placing them at multiple locations on the site. Another recommendation she feels would improve student use is to streamline login access. Many times students are frustrated by the numerous usernames and passwords required to access library database. She wonders why this has to be. Although many of Williams’ recommendations appear deceptively simple, that is the crux of what she feels libraries should be doing to woo students away from using Google as their primary search tool. In other works ‘Keep it Simple’.