Introduction
Librarians frequently hear from professors: �My students won�t look beyond Google for
sources�; �They copy indiscriminately without citing�; �They complain about
reading anything longer than a screen.� The lament is different from
students: �I don�t understand why I
can�t use Google or Wikipedia�; �What�s the big deal about
copying? Everyone does it�; �I just don�t understand this long journal
article � it�s written for an expert in the field, not me.�
Most academic librarians
have lived these experiences. Those who choose to work in the
field of library instruction likely spend a great deal of time considering
students� and professors� differing expectations of student research. While a
sample of some of the research carried out is offered below, none of this
research addresses in detail students� research expectations upon beginning
their university studies. Professors and librarians acknowledge implicitly that
most students arrive at university unprepared to conduct academic research but
that as part of the learning experience their expectations will shift and align
with those of their professors; however, this paper proposes that both
professors and librarians will be better prepared to help first-year students
advance their learning if we identify and better understand the research
expectations with which students arrive at university. Understanding exactly
where students are beginning their studies will provide librarians with the
information we need to create the most appropriate research instruction
programs.
The primary goal of this study was to identify how
first-year students� and professors� expectations of student research differ,
and thus explore the role librarians can play by working with both groups to bridge this gap. To this end, a
study was undertaken at Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU), in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Canada, that investigated first-year university students� and
professors� expectations of the
academic research process as conducted by first-year students.
MSVU
is a small, predominantly undergraduate university that specializes in liberal
arts and selected professional studies. The student body numbers approximately
5,000, and the 80% female population reflects the University�s heritage as a
former female school. Embedded in the mission of the institution is a
commitment to teaching and personalized education. All attempts are made to
keep class size small, with 73% of classes enrolling fewer than 30 students
(Mount Saint Vincent University, 2012). The university�s strong commitment to
collaborative teaching and learning provided an ideal arena to investigate
differing research expectations and to propose concrete, yet collaborative
faculty-librarian recommendations that could benefit students.
Literature Review
The volume of information
literacy (IL) literature is considerable and contains research that attempts to
explain and offer interventions for the introductory scenarios that describe the
very different research expectations of professors and students. Much has been
written on university students� general research
experiences, with the majority of contemporary work focusing on students� use
of online sources. Van Scoyoc and Cason (2006),
McClure and Clink (2009), Griffiths and Brophy
(2005), and Thompson (2003) all
provide useful insights into students� use of online resources for academic
research and their inability to effectively evaluate the information they
retrieve. These studies, coupled with work undertaken in the field of
information-seeking behaviour (Head, 2008), suggest
that students are more concerned with how much time research will take than
with the accuracy of the information found (Weiler,
2005); that even though students have used abstracting and indexing databases,
many will select only articles available in full text (Imler
& Hall, 2009); and, finally, that many still prefer Google (Williamson, Bernath,
Wright, & Sullivan, 2007).
Other studies have explored the issue of student
satisfaction with their research experience (Belliston,
Howland, & Roberts, 2007; Martzoukou, 2008) and their satisfaction with library
services (Gardner & Eng, 2005; Harwood & Bydder, 1998; Voelker,
2006). Findings suggest that students
are generally happy with their research and library experiences (Gardner & Eng, 2005) but often prefer the convenience of their own
homes when conducting research (Vondracek, 2007).
Another important line of research has considered
the role the university professor plays in students� learning to carry out
academic research. Valentine (2001) looked at the disparity between students�
understanding and experience of a research assignment and the goal of the
assignment as described by the professor. Students typically evaluated an
assignment based on the degree of effort required and the grades awarded,
whereas the professor viewed a particular assignment based on its learning
experience. McGuinness (2006) writes convincingly that there
is �a tacit assumption among faculty that students would somehow absorb and
develop the requisite knowledge and skills through the very process of
preparing a written piece of coursework� (p. 577), and that becoming
information literate simply requires participation in established academic
research traditions such as research methods courses, computer skills classes,
and library instruction. McGuinness goes on to
describe faculty as believing that students will simply �pick up� information
literacy skills, and if students are motivated to become information literate,
they will learn. Little seems to have changed since Leckie (1996), in her classic article, criticized faculty who created
assignments that required students to use skills which they had not yet
developed.
The studies identified above, however, do not
adequately address the issue of research expectations. With the exception of Scutter, Palmer, Luzeckyj, Burke
da Silva, and Brinkworth (2011), Laskowski
(2002), and Long and Tricker (2004), very little work
has been done on the research expectations of students. (The bulk of student
expectation research concentrates on students� more general academic and career
expectations and aspirations.) Scutter et al. present
important data on a range of first-year student expectations that includes how
much time students expect to study for each course in which they are enrolled,
but they do not address more detailed research expectations. Laskowski tackles the issue of divergent research
expectations between students and professors by focusing on students� use of
technology. Her study shows that discrepancies exist between how and when
students and professors believe technology should be used in academic research:
�many students
believe that their professors do not appreciate or understand the wide variety
and scope of material available online and that they devalue online resources
because of format rather than content� (p. 305). Long and Tricker� surveyed only undergraduate students,
not faculty, in the United Kingdom to determine if their expectations of
university-level research differed from their experiences. They found that
students� expectations do differ from their experiences, but not substantially.
The study described below proposes that with a
better understanding of both students� and professors� expectations of
first-year student research, some light can be shed on what sometimes feels
like a widening gulf between students� research practices and professors�
research expectations. It is proposed that by adding research expectations as a
variable in the information literacy equation, librarians and professors will be better
equipped to assist first-year students with their research.�
Methods
Data
collection involved the construction of two surveys: Student Expectations of
the Research Process (Appendix A) and Faculty Expectations of Student Research
(Appendix B). Both surveys were administered with the approval of the Mount
Saint Vincent University Research Ethics Board. The student survey was designed
to gather data on students� past research experiences and their expectations of
university-level research. Students were asked very specific questions about
past research experiences and sources they had used and about more general
activities that could influence research behaviours,
such as use of technology and time spent reading. The faculty survey was
constructed to complement and compare with data gathered from the student
survey.
The
student survey was administered to first-year classes only. This choice was
made for two reasons: first, these classes were most
likely to contain recent high school graduates, making it possible to learn
more about student research expectations upon beginning university; and second,
it was necessary to identify, for professors, a specific group of
students to base their own responses on when completing the faculty survey.
Professors likely have very different research expectations of first-year and
senior students. The first-year classes were chosen from across disciplines in
an attempt to have broad student representation.
Eight
introductory classes, with a total student count of 434, were surveyed on the
first day of the 2008-09 academic year. This date was
selected so that students would complete the survey before their professors had
an opportunity to discuss with them their own research expectations. A
librarian visited the classroom at a pre-arranged time and distributed
hard-copy surveys that students could complete on the spot. A total of 317
student surveys (73% return rate) were completed.
Approximately
240 full-time and part-time professors at MSVU were contacted by email and
invited to complete a web-based survey. A total of 75 faculty surveys (31%
return rate) were completed.
Results
Demographics
and Access to Information Communication Technology (ICT)
The
survey asked students to provide basic demographic information about themselves. Eighty percent of respondents were female, 71%
were in their first year of study, and 76% were age 20 or under. Over 95%
identified themselves as full-time students, and their declared majors
represented a cross-section of disciplines: 38% social science and humanities;
22% sciences; 37% professional studies; 3% with undeclared majors. Fifty-eight
percent of students reported working while going to school, and of those, over
50% reported working more than 20 hours per week.
In
order to better understand students� use of ICT, and how it may impact their
use of research resources, students were asked to indicate which technologies
they could easily access. Over 80% of students responded that they had ready
access to a laptop, the Internet, cell phone, texting, or an iPod (or similar
device). When asked to indicate how much time they spent online in an average
week during the past year participating in activities such as web browsing,
social networking, email, or gaming, approximately 27% of students indicated
they spent over 16 hours per week online; 39% spent 8-15 hours per week online;
and 34% spent fewer than 7 hours per week online.
High School
Experiences
Access
to and use of technology are an important variable
when considering how students may expect to conduct academic research. Also
important to consider are the experiences these students may have had with
previous research in high school. Students were asked to respond to questions
about their use of the Google search engine and research databases while in
high school, and also to indicate how much instruction they had received on
citation and plagiarism. Specifically, students were asked if their teachers
allowed them to use Google (or other search engines) to do research for
assignments. Sixty-six percent indicated that they were allowed to use Google
�all the time� and 21% indicated �most of the time.� By contrast, only 12% of students
indicated they used a research database �all the time� or �most of the time� to
do research. Far more common were the students (51%) who reported that they
�rarely� or �never� used a research database. It is important to note that in
the province of Nova Scotia, where 77% of students completed high school,
school boards have subscriptions to the EBSCO databases.
Students
reported on levels of citation and plagiarism instruction while in high school.
Sixty-four percent of students indicated that high school teachers discussed
the issues of citation and plagiarism with them �all the time� or �most of the
time.� By contrast, when professors where asked how much instruction they
believed students had received in high school, only 15% indicated they believed
teachers spoke about these issues �all the time� or �most of the time.� The
majority of professors indicated that they believed citation and plagiarism
were discussed only �sometimes� (40%) or �rarely� or �never� (41%).
Research
Skills
Students
and professors were asked to rank students� preparedness to do university-level
research and to indicate who they feel is most responsible for first-year
students� learning how to do research. Figures 1 and 2 show
the discord between students� and professors� views in these areas.
In
Figure 1, 70% of students reported that they were �very prepared� or �somewhat
prepared� to do university-level research. This level greatly exceeds how their
professors view their preparedness, with 87% indicating that students are �not
very prepared� to conduct such research. Related to this is the question of who
is responsible for students learning university-level research skills. It is
interesting that while students rate their preparedness as high, Figure 2 shows
that only 50% take personal responsibility for learning the necessary research
skills. By contrast, 80% of professors indicate that the students themselves
are most responsible for learning these skills.
Figure 1
First-year students� preparedness to do university-level research
Figure 2
Who is most responsible for first-year students learning how to do
research?
Students
and professors were asked to rate students� general Internet searching skills
and their academic research skills. Figures 3 and 4 show that students and
professors view students� skills in these areas very differently.
In Figure 3, results found that
almost 75% percent of students rated their general Internet searching skills as
�excellent� or �good,� whereas 84% of professors rated students� skill as only
�average� or �poor.� When students were asked to indicate how they rated their
academic research skills, that is, the ability to find scholarly information,
they were slightly less confident. As illustrated in Figure 4, 49% still
categorized themselves as �excellent� or �good.� Here professors were quite
clear in their rating of students� research skills: a full 67% indicated skills
were �poor� or �terrible.�
Students
were also asked to indicate who they believe has the best Internet searching
skills, choosing from IT professionals, librarians, professors, and students.
They ranked IT professionals as the best searchers 45% of the time, followed by
librarians 37% of the time. Students ranked themselves third (12%) and
professors last (6%).
Figure 3
Rating of first-year students�
general Internet searching skills
Figure 4
Rating
of first-year students� academic research skills
Reading and Research
Much
has been written about the decline in reading (see Jameson, 2007; Reedy, 2007;
or Salter and Brook, 2007, for discussions of the decline in reading among
college students). Given the importance of reading in higher education, the
current study sought to better understand how much time first-year students had
spent reading in the past year, and how much time they expected to dedicate to
reading to keep up with their school work and research during the upcoming
year. Professors were also asked to indicate how much time they expected
first-year students to spend reading. Figure 5 illustrates that there is a
considerable gulf between how much time students expected to dedicate to
reading and what professors expected of them in this regard.
Column
one illustrates students� reading experiences during the last year. On average
they reported reading approximately 7.8 hours per week � just a little over one
hour per day. Column two illustrates students� expected reading during the
coming year. In this case, students were asked to indicate, regardless of how
much they read in the past year, how much they expected to read in the coming
year. Students indicated that they expected to read more, predicting on average
9.8 hours of reading per week. Column three illustrates professors�
expectations of student reading. Even though students indicated that they would
be reading more than in the past, their expectations did not approach
professors� reading expectation of, on average, 14.9 hours per week.
Students
and professors were then asked to consider how long they anticipated it would
take students to conduct the necessary research for a 10-page paper or
assignment in an introductory course. Figure 6 shows
that again we see divergent research expectations between students and
professors.
Fifty-eight
percent of students indicated it would take them less
than 5 hours to research such a paper or assignment; by contrast 41% of
professors indicated they expected students to spend at least twice that amount
of time.
Figure 5
First-year
students� reading experiences and expectations (hours/week)
Note:
�Reading� was defined for students as any time spent reading in print or online
format in order to accommodate various reading media but did not include time
spent emailing, texting, gaming, social networking, or general web browsing.
Figure 6
Time required to research a 10-page paper/assignment.
Appropriate
Research Resources
In
an attempt to better understand how first-year students and professors value the
Google search engine or other similar search engines as an academic research
tool, students were asked to indicate how much research material they expected
to locate by carrying out a Google search, and professors were asked to
indicate how much research material they expected/wanted students to find by
searching Google. The majority of professors (73%) indicated that Google was an
appropriate academic research tool for locating less than 20% of research
material. In contrast, 70% of first-year students expected to make use of
Google to locate between 50% and 100% of their research material.
To
understand what other resources students expected to use for academic research,
and the resources professors expected/wanted students to use, both groups were
asked to select from a list of over 40 electronic and print resources that they
expected to use, or expected students to
use, when
carrying out academic research. Table 2 summarizes the top five resources,
ranked by frequency of selection as an expected research resource.
Table 2
Resources Students Expect to Use
and Sources Professors Expect/Want Students to Use for Academic Research
|
First-Year
Students� Top 5 Research Resources
|
Professors� Top 5
Research Resources (for first-year student use)
|
|
1
|
Books
from home library
|
1
|
Journals
|
|
2
|
Google
|
2
|
Library
Website
|
|
3
|
Newspapers
|
3
|
Books
from home library
|
|
4
|
Encyclopedias
|
4
|
Library
catalogue
|
|
5
|
Library
Website
|
5
|
Databases
|
�
Getting Help
If an assignment presented challenges, students were
asked to consider where they would go for help, and professors were asked where
they expected first-year students to seek help. Figure 7 illustrates that
students and professors both see the professor as the key assignment authority,
followed closely by librarians. Both groups also see fellow classmates as a
good resource when help is needed. An interesting discrepancy found here is
that students consider their friends almost as good a source for research help
as librarians. Seventy-three present of students will seek help from a
librarian and 67% will go to friends. Professors discount the value of input
from friends (10%) and family (5%), whereas students expect to make
considerable use of these groups.
Figure 7
Where
first-year students expect to seek research assistance, and where professors
want students to seek research assistance
Discussion���������
High
School Research Experiences
The
data presented here suggest that most first-year students entering university
directly from high school developed their research skills in an environment
where Google was the primary research tool. While the data do not tell us
whether teachers advocated for the use of research databases, they do tell that
students report rarely using them. High schools students look upon their
teachers as research authorities. With Google identified as the research tool
of choice, more focused and consistent information literacy work needs to be
done in teacher education programs (Kovalik, Jensen, Scholman, & Tipton, 2010), and school boards must
reinvest in school library programs and teacher-librarian positions (Gunn &
Hepburn, 2003; Heycock, 2003).
One
interesting, yet positive, finding of this study is that students clearly
remembered receiving a fair amount of instruction on citation and plagiarism
during high school. Like many professors, librarians are frequently confronted
with students who seem unaware of conventional citation practices, and who do
not have a good grasp of the concept of plagiarism. While it appears teachers
are stressing the importance of these concepts, more focused research is
required to uncover why students are not retaining what they suggest they have
learned. Perhaps students are not getting enough practice citing and writing,
or perhaps there is not consistent instruction across high school classrooms.
Chao, Wilhelm, and Neureuther (2009) provide strong
evidence that students� ability to cite, paraphrase, and avoid plagiarism
improves with practice.
In
universities with teacher education programs or links to high schools, there is
still much work that can be done. Current and future teachers will have the
greatest impact on the research abilities of first-year students, and so it is
imperative that librarians make them aware that students entering university
continue to struggle with citation and plagiarism, and many are unfamiliar with
the academic sources found in research databases. Academic librarians who are
able to partner with high school librarians will find the results of the Oakleaf and Owen study (2010) very helpful. It describes a
successful collaboration involving syllabi review that helped prepare senior
high school students for university-level research.
Librarians
with subject responsibility for education may wish to consider approaching
education curriculum groups to advocate for more integrated instruction in the
areas of citation and plagiarism and in the use of databases and Google. In
addition, schools of education often provide in-service training for current
teachers. MSVU recently offered a well-received librarian presentation as part
of an in-service session. Topics covered included the identification of professional
literature that outlines the challenges faced by many first-year university
students and the sharing of first-year students� initial research experiences.
The
First-year Millennial Student
This
study corresponds with the results of work done by Englander, Terregrossa, and Wang (2010), and Miller (2007), in which
college students reported spending, on average, 14.3 hours and 17 hours per
week online, respectively. The current research also confirms what a number of
authors (Abram, 2007; Becker, 2009; Sweeney, 2012; Twenge,
2006) have written about Generation Y or Millennial students� high levels of
self-confidence: students are arriving at university believing they are quite
prepared to conduct university-level research, but only half are taking
personal responsibility for learning how to do such research. By contrast, most
professors rate first-year students as not very prepared to do research and
believe they must take personal responsibility for their own learning. These
differing expectations need to be addressed with students early in their
academic programs, and the idea of personal responsibility reinforced
throughout their studies.
While
professors can identify their expectations for what students learn about
research in the classroom, and the learning students are expected to pursue on
their own by seeking out library research instruction and through independent
activity (e.g., library tutorials), librarians have less direct access to
students. This is an area where a more focused collaboration between professors
and librarians could be nurtured. At MSVU, when setting up instruction
workshops with faculty, librarians have begun to ask explicitly what, if any,
research skills faculty will be teaching in their classes and what students are
expected to do on their own. This lets the librarians know where we fit in the
equation and where attention should be focused. The information gleaned is useful
regardless of the instruction format (50-minute one-shot or multi-part
seminar). While still at the informal information-gathering stage, there are
plans to pursue a more detailed study that considers where various university
constituents (i.e., faculty, student support services, and the international
student centre) expect students to learn research
skills.
Mounce (2010)
provides a thorough review of the faculty-librarian collaboration literature as
it relates to information literacy and the benefits afforded students. Anthony
(2010) also reviews this literature but with the added depth of providing
tangible examples of programs in operation. What both reviews are lacking,
however, are details on broadening the types of material covered by instruction
librarians. These librarians are often drawn into the classroom to discuss the
latest research tools when their time may be better spent initially on
non-resource instruction addressing research expectations. Instead of
immediately launching into database selection and search strategies, dedicating
time to a discussion of the basics of research, the time involved, the reading
requirements, and the careful thought and preparation required may help
students to understand that research is an involved process. Taking time for
discussion is important given how many students reported how little time they
expected to spend on the research components of their assignments. Preparing
this kind of presentation with the professor ahead of time will allow students
to hear from the librarian and from their professor, in tandem, that academic
research takes time to learn and carry out. Students must be encouraged to
accept responsibility for this complex learning (Ferlazzo,
2011). Many librarians have seen assignments that require that a specified
number of resources be consulted; we need to encourage professors to also
provide details on how long the assignment should take students to research and
write up.
One
surprising piece of evidence collected in this study has to do with how
students rated their own Internet searching skills. Students consistently
ranked themselves third, behind IT staff and librarians. Professors were ranked
last in Internet searching skills, which could lead to students being hesitant
in going to their professors for some forms of research help. A study by Gunn
and Hepburn (2003), and reinforced here, suggests that high school students are
most comfortable seeking help from friends and classmates rather than from
teachers. What librarians and professors should take away from this finding,
especially in universities where library reference departments share physical
space with an information or learning commons, is that students may see
computing IT staff as most knowledgeable in Internet searching and they may opt
to approach these staff members first or exclusively. Alternatively, some
students simply may not differentiate between the staff working in a learning
commons (Bickley, 2011) and may seek help from the first
available person. At MSVU we encourage a lot of communication between
technical staff and librarians to ensure that research questions are directed
to the appropriate person. Short in-house training sessions or providing staff
with the opportunity to job-shadow in other public service areas provides
everyone with a better understanding of which questions should be handled
where.
Reading
and Research
�
The data
gathered in this study supports the 2007 report To Read or Not to Read, which details a general decline in reading
and found that 39% of college freshmen did no reading for pleasure and 26% read
no more than one hour per week. The report provides strong evidence linking
reading to literacy scores and it cites �written communication� as the skill
most lacking by employers hiring both high school and college graduates. The
current study shows a large gap between student and professor expectations
surrounding reading. A full 83% of professors believe students need to be
reading at least 12 hours per week, whereas only 31% of students reported that
they expected to read this much. Gilbert and Fister
(2011) discuss the many academic benefits of pleasure reading and also explain
that academic reading is quite difficult: students �often need help in learning
how to do �close� or in-depth analytical reading� (p. 475). Building into
information literacy workshops a statement or acknowledgement that the ability
to read critically is challenging and takes time may help students be better
prepared to tackle more advanced reading and not to shy away from lengthier
journal articles. Librarians at MSVU are beginning to include in instruction
workshops explicit statements informing students that the type of information
they find in academic databases will usually require in-depth analytical reading.
Explaining that it is common to have to read an article more than once and
often with the help of a dictionary may normalize the experience for students.
This is also an ideal time to remind them that there are academic support
services available on campus if they feel they are struggling with this type of
work.�
Related to the findings on reading, and the lack of
time students expect to take conducting research, is the matter of the
resources they expect to use when conducting research. This is another category
in which student and professor expectations varied considerably. While the list
of research resources generated by the professors contains common academic
research tools (journals, books, catalogues, databases), students appear to
have selected sources with which they are familiar, or perhaps those they used
in high school (books, Google, newspapers, encyclopedias).
One has to wonder, though, if rather than selecting the research tools they
expected to use, students instead selected resources they thought we would want
them to use when researching. Follow-up research will be necessary to better
understand these findings. It might be expected that students would use books
and Google, but also anticipated on the list might be Wikipedia, electronic books,
and general Websites. The marked absence of newer (Web 2.0) research
technologies was common to both students� and professors� lists: both surveys
asked respondents if they expected students to use blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds,
and videos for research purposes, but all were notably absent. Neither group
indicated that these were resources they expected to use for academic research.
Librarians preparing instructional sessions should not only seek guidance from
professors as to what resources they want their students consulting, but we can
also provide guidance on the diverse variety of tools available that can add
depth to students� research experiences.
Working with
Students
Faulty-librarian
collaboration has always been central to library instruction (Mounce, 2010) and this study supports the idea that it is
increasingly important that librarians and professors work together to deliver
a consistent message to students. Especially during their first year, students
need to hear a research refrain that is campus-wide and includes student
academic support services (Love & Edwards, 2009).
Coupled
with delivering a strong consistent research message is the practice of
reminding students that while they are not expected to know how to do scholarly
research when they arrive at university, they are expected to learn new ways of
doing this academic work by embracing new research tools. One specific way
librarians can focus their work is by acknowledging the positive. We must
validate for students their past research experiences. Students do not arrive
at university as �blank research slates�: they have been Googling
their research questions for years. Magolda (2012)
discusses the concept of a learning partnership whereby professors are
encouraged to �listen more carefully to students� thinking and recognize that
their experiences often prompt different, yet valuable interpretations� (p.
35). Librarians could also explore this teaching method as another way to help
students develop their research skills. If librarians and professors are overly
critical of past research practices, we risk discouraging these novice academic
researchers. We can encourage students to join the research dialogue by asking
them to describe their own research experiences and expectations. Giving
positive feedback when we see that appropriate sources are being used, and
giving suggestions for alternatives when an inappropriate source is selected,
can help students refine expectations early in the research process. We can
reinforce that Google is the perfect tool for locating food guide standards,
for example, but it is not an acceptable academic source for critiques of the
standards. Each discipline and course needs to have such a relevant example at
its fingertips when a teachable moment arrives. Exploring innovative ways to
initiate these dialogues with students, and the outcomes, is another area for
future research.
Working with
Professors and Cross-campus Support Services
Working
with professors is both rewarding and challenging. A number of authors
(Anthony, 2010; McGuinness, 2006; Mounce,
2010) discuss the challenges librarians have engaging some faculty in
information literacy initiatives. HHowever,
success stories are also available in the literature : Corso,
Weiss, and McGregor (2010) describe the embedding of IL skills by a team of
librarians, writing program coordinators, and professors; Kenedy
and Monty (2011) discuss how student learning is enhanced as a result of a
librarian and faculty member collaboration that ties together information
literacy, research skills, and other essential post-secondary skills; Kobzina (2010) describes partnering with faculty in the
teaching of a specific course that addresses research skills for specialized
subject areas. These examples illustrate that information literacy instruction
can be broad-based and very rich. Most instruction librarians are more than
happy to partner with professors on curriculum or assignment review (Brown & Kingsley-Wilson, 2010) to
determine how information literacy can be addressed more explicitly. At MSVU,
librarians have begun to actively invite faculty to discuss syllabi and
assignments with us regardless of whether or not we visit their classrooms.
Many professors seemed hesitant to seek out this kind of input when they were
not willing to provide dedicated classroom time for library instruction. While
we would prefer to also be invited to give an IL workshop, we recognize that
sometimes having access to syllabi can provide students with basic yet
significant research information. One professor who had never seen value in
having a librarian present during class time did agree to include library
research information and a subject librarian�s contact information on the
course syllabus. It was encouraging to see that reference traffic increased
slightly in this area. This is a very small success story, but when we see how
unprepared many first-year students are for university research, we decided
that any contact with students � even only through an email � was better than
no contact.
While
most librarians will actively seek out opportunities to engage professors at
their home institution, librarians can also strive to get their messages out in
alternate venues, for example, discipline-specific teaching journals and
non-librarian conferences. Engaging professors in their own domains may remind
those who have partnered with librarians in the past to reconnect, and it may
convince others of the teaching and research abilities of their librarian
colleagues. At MSVU, librarians take part in cross-campus research seminars
where faculty and librarians are invited to present current research projects.
Teaching faculty members have been consistently interested in any work on
student learning.
�
While
much has been written about librarian collaboration with faculty, far less work
has been done on librarians partnering with other cross-campus support services
(Hollister, 2005). A few studies (Love & Edwards, 2009; Swartz, Carlisle,
& Uyeki, 2007) have more recently provided an
excellent introduction to the mechanics of this type of collaboration and
provide evidence that there is much to be gained when libraries partner with
student support services. A disappointing result of the current study was the finding
that only half of first-year students and 75% of professors reported that they
expected students who need help to take advantage of student support services
such as writing centres.
In
order to broaden library instruction services, more libraries may want to
consider partnering with student support services such as writing and
international student centres. Walter and Eodice (2005) caution� that it is important for librarians to
work with colleagues to find �common language through which learning objectives
can be defined� (p. 220). Librarians, who are used to partnering with faculty,
may be unfamiliar with the learning objectives of student support services. It
is incumbent upon us to not just take IL needs to student support services, but
to understand the values and goals of these units and whenever possible try to
support their initiatives without duplicating them. As described earlier, a new
initiative has MSVU librarians explicitly linking the concept of in-depth
reading to the retrieval of scholarly articles. Providing a referral to a
support service is always helpful, but introducing the concept of in-depth
reading in a way that complements the instruction students get in a support
unit just makes sense. Students will perceive that there is a coordinated
effort that may help them be more successful. MSVU librarians are trying to
become better informed about the office of Students Services, and as a result
have been invited to sit on student retention and student experience
committees. While little of this work links directly to our initiatives in IL,
librarians feel better informed about support services for students. We are
optimistic that the time we put in now will benefit some of our own instruction
initiatives in the future.
One
other area in which librarians should direct their attention relates to
representation on committees that give them access to program and curriculum
design, which will put them in a position to provide input on research and IL
skill development (Anthony, 2010). Such forums often allow administrators and
student support staff to hear, sometimes for the first time, about some of the
gaps in research expectations described in this study. The better everyone
understands the unpreparedness of many first-year students, the better we will
be at bridging this gap and coordinating efforts to support students�
adjustment to university-level research.
Conclusion
This
study provides evidence that the research expectations of first-year students
and professors vary considerably. Students arrive at university believing that
they have better online skills than their professors and that they are prepared
to do university-level research; they are often overconfident about their
research skills and therefore may not ask for help; they expect that it will
take less time to do research than is in fact the case; and many are reading
less than is likely necessary to grasp a subject in depth. While some
professors will tell librarians that they know these facts, many may be
struggling with what to do with the knowledge. Librarians who work closely with
both students and professors are afforded the unique view of both worlds and are ideally positioned to provide not only research instruction, but
research insight to students, professors, and the wider university community.
An unexpected outcome of this study is the acknowledgement that not
only is the faculty-librarian relationship significant in students� research
development, but that there is also an important need for broad cross-campus collaboration.
This
article draws attention to the idea that students deserve to get consistent
research messages across campus. The more we work with faculty and academic
support services, the more we are able to provide integrated, coordinated
instruction. When there is a strong campus-wide voice addressing research
expectations, librarians can work with students with greater certainty.
This
study covers many topics at a general level and raises many further questions.
There is a need for more focused work in a number of areas, specifically
relating to students� understanding of citation and plagiarism as they
transition from high school to university, the sources students expect to
consult for academic research purposes, and the broadening of library instruction
portfolios to include instruction on critical thinking skills such as in-depth
reading.
References
Abram,
S. (2007). Millennials: Deal with
them! Part I. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(1), 57-58.
Anthony, K.
(2010). Reconnecting the disconnects: Library outreach
to faculty as addressed in the literature. College
& Undergraduate Libraries, 17(1), 79-92. doi:10.1080/10691310903584817
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2012). Building learning
partnerships. Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 44(1), 32-38. doi:
10.1080/00091383.2012.636002
Becker, C. H.
(2009). Student values and research: Are millennials
really changing the future of reference and research? Journal of Library
Administration, 49(4), 341-364.
Belliston,
C. J., Howland, J. L., & Roberts, B.C. (2007).
Undergraduate use of federated searching: A survey of preferences and
perceptions of value-added functionality. College
& Research Libraries, 68(6), 472-486.
Bickley, R. & Corrall, S. (2011). Student
perceptions of staff in the Information Commons: A survey at the University of
Sheffield. Reference Services Review, 39(2), 223-243. doi:10.1108/00907321111135466
Brown, C., & Kingsley-Wilson, B. (2010). Assessing organically: Turning
an assignment into an assessment. Reference Services Review,
38(4), 536-556. doi:10.1108/00907321011090719
Chao,
C.-A., Wilhelm, W. J., & Neureuther, B. D.
(2009).
A study of electronic detection and pedagogical approaches
for reducing plagiarism. Delta Pi
Epsilon Journal, 51(1), 31-42.
Corso,
G. S., Weiss, S., & McGregor, T. (2010). Information literacy: A story of
collaboration and cooperation between the writing program coordinator and
colleagues 2003-2010. Paper presented at the National Conference of the Council
of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved 21 Aug.
2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED529197
Englander,
F., Terregrossa, R. A., & Wang, Z. (2010). Internet
use among college students: Tool or toy? Educational Review, 62(1),
85-96. doi:10.1080/00131910903519793
Ferlazzo,
L. (2011). How do you help students see the importance of personal
responsibility? Helping students motivate
themselves: Practical answers to classroom challenges (pp. 14-28). NY: Eye
on Education.
Gardner,
S., & Eng, S. (2005).
What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic
library. portal : Libraries and the Academy, 5(3),
405-420.
Gilbert,
J., & Fister, B. (2011).
Reading, risk, and reality: College students and reading for pleasure. College & Research Libraries, 72(5),
474-495.
Griffiths,
J. R., & Brophy, P. (2005).
Student searching behavior and the web: Use of academic resources and Google.
Library Trends, 53(4), 539-554.
Gunn,
H., & Hepburn, G. (2003). Seeking
information for school purposes on the Internet. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,
29(1). Retrieved 21 Aug. 2012 from http://hdl.handle.net/10515/sy5b853w9�
Harwood,
N., & Bydder, J. (1998). Student expectations of, and satisfaction with, the university
library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(2), 161-171.
Haycock,
K. (2003). The crisis in Canada�s school libraries: The
case for reform and re-investment. Executive summary.
Toronto, ON: Association of Canadian Publishers. Retrieved 21 Aug. 2012 from http://www.accessola.com/data/6/rec_docs/ExecSummary_Ha_E1E12.pdf
Head, A. J.
(2008). Information literacy from the trenches: How do humanities and social
science majors conduct academic research? College & Research Libraries,
69(5), 427-445.
Hollister, C.
(2005). Bringing information literacy to career services.
Reference Services Review, 33(1),
104-111. doi:10.1108/00907320510581414
Imler,
B., & Hall, R. A. (2009). Full-text articles: Faculty
perceptions, student use, and citation abuse. Reference Services Review, 37(1),
65-72.
Jameson,
D. A. (2007). Literacy in decline: Untangling the evidence.
Business Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 16-33.
Kenedy,
R., & Monty, V. (2011). Faculty-librarian
collaboration and the development of critical skills through dynamic purposeful
learning. Libri: International Journal of Libraries &
Information Services, 61(2), 116-124. doi:10.1515/libr.2011.010
Kobzina,
N. G. (2010). A faculty-librarian partnership: A unique opportunity for course
integration. Journal of Library
Administration, 50(4), 293-314. doi:10.1080/01930821003666965
Kovalik,
C. L., Jensen, M. L., Schloman, B., & Tipton, M.
(2010).
Information literacy, collaboration, and teacher education.
Communications in Information Literacy, 4(2), 145-169. Retrieved 21 Aug.
2012 from http://www.comminfolit.org�
Laskowski,
M. S. (2002). The role of technology in research: Perspectives from students
and instructors. portal: Libraries and the Academy,
2(2), 305-319.
Leckie,
G. J. (1996). Desperately seeking citations: Uncovering
faculty assumptions about the undergraduate research process. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 201-208.
Long, P.,
& Tricker, T. ( 2004,
Sept.). Do first year undergraduates find what they expect? Paper presented at
the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Manchester. Retrieved 21 Aug. 2012 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003696.doc
Love,
E., & Edwards, M. B. (2009). Forging inroads between libraries and academic, multicultural and
student services. Reference
Services Review, 37(1), 20-29. doi:10.1108/00907320910934968
Martzoukou,
K. (2008). Students' attitudes towards web search engines - increasing
appreciation of sophisticated search strategies. Libri:
International Journal of Libraries & Information Services, 58(3),
182-201.
McClure,
R., & Clink, K. (2009). How do you know that? An
investigation of student research practices in the digital age. portal: Libraries & the Academy, 9(1), 115-132.
McGuinness,
C. (2006). What faculty think-exploring the barriers to information literacy
development in undergraduate education. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
32(6), 573-582. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.002
Miller, M. J.
(2007). Internet overuse on college campuses: A survey and analysis of current
trends. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Technology and diversity in higher education: New
challenges (pp. 146-163). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Mounce,
M. (2010). Working together: Academic librarians and faculty
collaborating to improve students' information literacy skills: A literature
review 2000-2009. Reference Librarian,
51(4), 300-320. doi:10.1080/02763877.2010.501420
Mount
Saint Vincent University. Office of Institutional
Analysis. Common
university data. Retrieved 25 June 2012 from http://www.msvu.ca/en/home/aboutus/home/institutionalanalysis/commonuniversitydata/default.aspx
Oakleaf,
M., & Owen, P. L. (2010). Closing the 12-13 gap together: School and college librarians supporting 21st
century learners. Teacher Librarian, 37(4),
52-58.
Reedy,
J. (2007). Cultural literacy for college
students. Academic Questions, 20(1), 32-37.
Salter,
A., & Brook, J. (2007). Are we becoming an aliterate society? The demand for
recreational reading among undergraduates at two universities.
College & Undergraduate Libraries, 14(3), 27-43. doi:10.1300/J106v14n03�
Scutter,
S. D., Palmer, E., Luzeckyj, A., Burke da Silva, K.,
& Brinkworth, R. (2011). What do commencing
undergraduate students expect from first year university? The International
Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 2(1), 8-20. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v2i1.54
Swartz,
P. S., Carlisle, B. A., & Uyeki, E. C. (2007).
Libraries and student affairs: Partners for student success. Reference Services Review, 35(1),
109-122. doi:10.1108/00907320710729409
Sweeney, R. T.
(2012). Millennial behaviors and higher education focus group results: How
are millennials different from previous generations
at the same age? Retrieved 21 Aug. 2012 from http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Millennial-Summary-Handout.doc�
Thompson, C.
(2003). Information illiterate or lazy: How college students use the web for
research. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2),
259-268.
To read or not
to read: A question of national consequence (2007).
Washington, DC: Office of Research & Analysis, National Endowment for the
Arts. Retrieved 21 Aug. 2012 from http://www.nea.gov/research/ToRead.pdf�
Twenge,
J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today�s young Americans are more confident,
assertive, entitled � and more miserable than ever before. NY: Free Press.
Valentine, B.
(2001). The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus
faculty expectations. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 107-115.
Van
Scoyoc, A. M., & Cason, C. (2006).
The electronic academic library: Undergraduate research behavior in library
without books. portal: Libraries & the
Academy, 6(1), 47-58.
Voelker,
T. J. E. (2006). The library and my learning community: First year students'
impressions of library services. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(2),
72-80.
Vondracek,
R. (2007). Comfort and convenience? Why students
choose alternatives to the library. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 7(3), 277-293.
Walter,
S., & Eodice, M. (2005). Meeting the student learning imperative: Supporting and sustaining
collaboration between academic libraries and student services programs. Research Strategies, 20(4), 219-225.
doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2006.11.001
Weiler,
A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation,
critical thinking, and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
31(1), 46-53.
Williamson,
K., Bernath, V., Wright, S., & Sullivan, J.
(2007).
Research students in the electronic age: Impacts of changing information
behavior on information literacy needs. Communications in Information
Literacy, 1(2), 47-63.
Appendix
A
Student Expectations of the
Research Process
1.
Age:�
��������������������������������������������
2.
Sex: ����������� ��������� Female
� Male
3. ������ In
what year did you graduate from high school? �����������������������������������
4. ������ Where
are you from?
� ����� Nova Scotia
� ����� Another Canadian province:�
� ����� Somewhere else in the world: �����������������������������������������������
5.������� In
what year of study are you (include time spent at other universities)?
� ����� 1st year
� ����� 2nd year
� ����� 3rd year
� ����� 4th year
� ����� More than 4 years
� ����� Other ��������������������������������������������������������������������
6. ������ Major:������� ������������������������������������������������������������
(If
undecided, give as much information as possible: Arts, Social Science, Science,
Professional Studies.)
7. ������ Are you
a full-time (3+ courses) or part-time (1-2 courses) student?
� ����� Full-time
� ����� Part-time
8. ������ Are
you working at a job while going to school?
� ����� Yes��
_______ hours per week.
� ����� No
9.������� Are
you volunteering anywhere while going to school?
� ����� Yes��
_______ hours per week.
� ����� No
10. ���� Which
of the following do you own or have easy access to?� Check all that apply.
� ����� Laptop computer
� ����� Desktop computer
� ����� Internet: high-speed (fast connection)
� ����� Internet: modem access (slow connection
over phone line)
� ����� Wireless Internet
� ����� Cell phone
� ����� Cell phone with text messaging
� ����� Blackberry or similar PDA
� ����� Ipod/MP3 player
(or similar device)
� ����� Gaming consoles or devices
HIGH SCHOOL RESEARCH: Q. 11-13
The
next three (3) questions ask you to reflect on your experiences in high school.
If you have been out of high school for too long or can�t remember, skip to
Question 14.
11.����� In
high school did your teachers allow you to use Google (or other search
engines) to do research for your assignments?
� ����� Yes, all the time
� ����� Most of the time
� ����� Sometimes
� ����� Rarely
� ����� Never
� ����� Not sure
12. ���� In
high school did you ever use a research database (such as EBSCO�s
Academic Search) to do research?��
� ����� Yes, all the time
� ����� Most of the time
� ����� Sometimes
� ����� Rarely
� ����� Never
� ����� I�m not sure what a databases is
13. ���� In
high school, when teachers gave out an assignment, did they discuss the issues
of citation and plagiarism with you?�
����
� ����� Yes, all the time
� ����� Most of the time
� ����� Sometimes
� ����� Rarely
� ����� Never
� ����� I�m not sure what citation and plagiarism
are
14.����� During the last year, approximately how many hours per
week did you spend reading books, magazines, journals and/or newspapers for
school, work and/or pleasure?� Reading could
be in print or online, but shouldn't include general web browsing, e‑mail
or gaming.
� �0-3 hours per week
� �4-7 hours per week
� �8-11 hours per week
� 12-15
hours per week
� 16-19
hours per week
� 20+
hours per week
15.����� During the last year, approximately how many hours per
week did you spend online, e.g., general web browsing, Facebook, e‑mail,
gaming, etc.
� �0-3 hours per week
� �4-7 hours per week
� �8-11 hours per week
� 12-15
hours per week
� 16-19
hours per week
� 20+
hours per week
16. ���� Do you
feel prepared to do university-level research?�
� ����� Yes, I feel very prepared
� ����� I am somewhat prepared
� ����� I�m not sure
� ����� I don�t think I�m very prepared
� ����� No, I know I�m not prepared
17.����� How
would you rate your academic research skills? (Your ability to find academic
or scholarly information.)
� ����� Excellent - I almost always find what I�m
looking for
� ����� Good - I usually find what I need
� ����� Average - sometimes it takes me awhile to
find something useful
� ����� Not very good - I�m usually disappointed
with my results
� ����� Terrible - I never find what I need
18. ���� Who do
you think is responsible for you learning the skills necessary to succeed at
carrying out university-level research? �
Rank
the following in order from 1 (most responsible) - 6 (least responsible)
������ ��� Professors
������ ��� Librarians
������ ��� Me
������ ��� Student Affairs (through their academic
support programs)
������ ��� My friends or family
������ ��� Other students����
19.����� What
percentage of your research material do you expect to find using Google?
�� ���� 0-20%
� ����� 21-40%
�� ���� 41-60%
�� ���� 61-80%
�� ���� 81-100%
20. ���� You
have just been assigned a 10-page paper/assignment for an introductory
course.� Approximately how long would you
spend on the research component of this assignment (before you start the
real writing)?
� ����� 1-3 hours
� ����� 3-5 hours
� ����� 5-7 hours
� ����� 7-9 hours
� ����� 10+ hours
21.����� How
much time do you expect to spend reading each week to keep up with all your
courses?� Reading could be in print or
online, but shouldn't include general web browsing, e‑mail or gaming.
� �0-3 hours per week
� �4-7 hours per week
� �8-11 hours per week
� 12-15
hours per week
� 16-19
hours per week
� 20+
hours per week
22. ���� How
would you rate your overall internet searching skills?
� ����� Excellent - I almost always find what I�m
looking for
� ����� Good - I usually find what I need
� ����� Average - sometimes it takes me awhile to
find something useful
� ����� Not very good - I�m usually disappointed
with my results
� ����� Terrible - I never find what I need
23. ���� Who do
you think has the best internet searching skills?� Rank 1 (best) - 4(worst).
������ ��� Professors
������ ��� Librarians
������ ��� Students
������ ��� People working in IT/Computing
24.� Please
indicate which of the following resources you expect to use for research
purposes.�
������ Check
all that apply.
Electronic Resources:
� E-mail
� IM/chat
(Instant Messaging)
� Google
(or other search engines)
� Wikipedia
� Library
web site
� Facebook,
MySpace (or similar social networking sites)
� MSVU�s
online library catalogue (Novanet)
� Other
online catalogue (public library)
� Databases
like EBSCO�s Academic Search to find articles
� Online
journals
� Online
magazines
� Online� newspapers
� E-books
(online books, reports)
� Scholarly,
government, professional web sites
� General,
popular web sites����������
� Films,
documentaries, DVDs
� Games:
computer or virtual
� YouTube
(or similar video sites)
� iTunes
(or similar music sites)
� Flickr
(or similar photo sites)
� Blogs
� RSS
feeds
� Podcasts
Print Resources:
� Journals
� Magazines
� Newspapers
� Books,
reports from MSVU Library
� Books,
reports from other universities (Dalhousie, SMU)
� Books,
reports from the public library
� Encyclopedias
� Dictionaries
� Archival
(historical) material
Other:
� Art
� Music
� Experts
in the field
� Your
own experiences
� Other:______________________________
25. ���� Which of
the following people do you expect to go to if you need help with your
assignments?� Check all that apply.
� Professors
� Librarians
� Friends
� Classmates�����
� Student
Services (Writing Centre)
� Family
� Other:
_______________________
Appendix B
Faculty
Expectations of Student Research
1.����� Primary department:��������������������������������������������������������������������
2.����� How long have you taught at the university level (MSVU and
other institutions): ����������
3.����� Are you
a full-time or part-time faculty member?��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
� Full-time faculty
� Part-time faculty
� Other
4.����� While students were in high school do you believe teachers
allowed them to use Google (or other search engines) to do research for their
assignments?
� �Yes, all the
time
� �Most of the
time
� �Sometimes
� �Rarely
� �Never
� �Not sure
5. ���� While students were in high school do you believe they ever used
a research database (such as EBSCO�s Academic Search) to do
research?��
� �� Yes, all the
time
� �� Most of the
time
� �� Sometimes
� �� Rarely
� �� Never
� �� Not sure
6.����� What percentage of first-year students do you think know what a
research database is?
�� ��� 0-20%
�� ��� 21-40%
�� ��� 41-60%
�� ��� 61-80%
�� ��� 81-100%
�� � Not sure
7.����� When high school teachers give assignments to their students do
you believe they discuss the issues of citation and plagiarism with
them?� �
� �� Yes, all the
time
� �� Most of the
time
� �� Sometimes
� �� Rarely
� �� Never
� �� Not sure
8. What percentage of
first-year students do you think know what citation and plagiarism are?
� �� 0-20%
� �� 21-40%
� �� 41-60%
� �� 61-80%
� �� 81-100%
� �� Not sure
9.����� During the last year, approximately how many hours per week do
you think first-year students spent reading books, magazines, journals and/or
newspapers for school, work and/or pleasure?�
Reading could be in print or online, but shouldn't include general web
browsing, e‑mail or gaming.
�
0-3 hours per
week
�
4-7 hours per
week
�
8-11 hours per
week�����
�
12-15 hours
per week
�
16-19 hours
per week������
�
20+ hours per
week
� ������������ ��Not sure
10.��� Do you believe the majority of first-year students are prepared
to do university-level research?�
� �� Yes, they are
very prepared
� �� They are
somewhat prepared
� �� I�m not sure
� �� I don�t think
they are very prepared
� �� No, they are
not prepared at all
11.��� How would you rate first-year students� academic research
skills? (Their ability to find academic or scholarly information?)
� �� Excellent -
they almost always find what expect
� �� Good - they
usually find what I expect
� �� Average - they
find a combination of useful and un-useful results
� �� Not very good
- I�m usually disappointed with their results
� �� Terrible -
they never find what I expect
� �� Not sure
12.��� Who do you think is responsible for first-year students learning
the skills necessary to succeed at carrying out university-level research?�
Rank the following in order from 1 (most responsible)
- 6 (least responsible)
������ �Professors
������ �� Librarians
������ �� The Students
themselves
������ �� Student Affairs
(through their academic support programs)
������ �� Friends or
family
������ �� Other students���������
13.��� In first-year classes, what percentage of research material do
you believe students expect to find using Google?
�� ��� 0-20%
�� ��� 21-40%
�� ��� 41-60%
�� ��� 61-80%
�� ��� 81-100%
�� Not sure
14.��� In first-year classes, what percentage of research material do you
want/expect students to find using Google?
�� ��� 0-20%
�� ��� 21-40%
�� ��� 41-60%
�� ��� 61-80%
�� ��� 81-100%
������ Not sure
15.��� You have just assigned a 10-page paper/assignment to an
introductory class.� Approximately how
long would you expect students to spend on the research component of
this assignment (before the real writing starts)?
� �� 1-3 hours
� �� 3-5 hours
� �� 5-7 hours
� �� 7-9 hours
� �� 10+ hours
� �� Not sure
16.��� How much time do you expect first-year students to spend reading
each week in order to keep up with all their course work (not just your
course)?� Reading could be in print or
online, but doesn�t include general web browsing, e-mail or gaming.
�
�0-3 hours per week
�
�4-7 hours per week
�
�8-11 hours per week
�
12-15 hours per week
�
16-19 hours per week
�
20+ hours per week
� Not sure
17. �� How would you rate your first-year students� overall internet
searching skills?
� �� Excellent - they
almost always find what I expect
� �� Good - they
usually find what I expect
� �� Average - they
find a combination of useful and un-useful results
� �� Not very good
- I�m usually disappointed with their results
� �� Terrible -
they never find what I expect
� �� Not sure
18.��� Please indicate which of the following resources you expect
(want) first-year students to use for research purposes.� Check all that apply.
Electronic Resources:
�
E-mail
�
IM/chat (Instant Messaging)
�
Google
�
Wikipedia
�
Library web site
�
Facebook, MySpace (or similar social networking sites)
�
MSVU�s online library catalogue (Novanet)
�
Other online catalogue (public library)
�
Databases like EBSCO�s Academic Search to find articles
�
Online journals
�
Online magazines
�
Online� newspapers
�
E-books (online books, reports)
�
Scholarly, government, professional web sites
�
General, popular web sites��������
�
Films, documentaries, DVDs
�
Virtual games
�
YouTube (or similar video sites)
�
iTunes (or similar music sites)
�
Flickr (or similar photo sites)
�
Blogs
�
RSS feeds
�
Podcasts
Print Resources:
�
Journals
�
Magazines
�
Newspapers
�
Books,reports from MSVU Library
�
Books, reports from other universities (Dalhousie, SMU)
�
Books,reports from the public library
�
Encyclopedias
�
Dictionaries
�
Archival (historical) material
Other:
�
Art
�
Music
�
Experts in the field
�
Your own experiences
�
Other: ___________________________
19. �� Which of the following people do you expect first-year students to
go to if they need help with their assignments?�
Check all that apply.
� �� Professors
� �� Librarians
� �� Friends
� �� Classmates�����
� �� Student
Services (Writing Centre)
� �� Family
� �� Other:
_______________________
�2012 Raven. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 2.5 Canada
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if
transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar
license to this one.