FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN DE RECOGIDA DE DATOS

A number of key lessons were learned from Cycle One observations, instructor reflection and student feedback.

6.4.4.1 Library Sessions

Observations indicated that librarians seemed entrenched in the way they delivered 50-minute workshops. However, focusing on database searching did not acknowledge students’ existing knowledge and information search practices (predominantly internet via Google searches). Therefore, we needed to discuss the focus of future library workshops to reflect the students’ reality.

Librarians also struggled to engage students in dialogue during the sessions. When trying to involve students in discussion, librarians were often faced with the ‘wall of silence’ when they asked “who can tell me..?” and no-one responded. This is a challenge of teaching a one-off session to a group of unknown students. Strategies for overcoming this were needed for Cycle Two.

While the lecture-based library sessions were informative and demonstrated a range of search strategies, students lacked opportunities to put learning into practice. Learning-by-doing helps make the process visible and supports learning by trial and error (see 3.3.5). One fourth-year student indicated the ineffectiveness of repetitive library sessions that simply told students how to search but did not explicitly extend search capabilities:

22

This is a term the librarians and I adopted to describe the way students can use functions of databases and search engines to extend searches from existing documents they have.

148

They’ve been drilling it into us every year. They send us to those library classes…, but it’s not like we don’t know it, we just don’t know how to do it and I don’t think they can teach us that (SFG/4-1&D/C1/A).

In Course 1-1, even though we had adapted the library session content to upcoming assessment tasks, and key strategies were modelled using relevant materials, students still lacked opportunities to search and ask questions as problems arose. This was recognised by students who had attended more interactive library sessions in other courses:

I think that because it was in the classroom and not the library itself … all the other ones we have done we have been in the library and we’ve had a computer each so you can sort of do what she’s doing at the same time …well, that’s how I learn anyway. I just didn’t find it as interesting …or as helpful as the other ones because you are just being told (SFG/1-1/C1/D).

Students suggested that when they started searching they had forgotten much of what the librarian told them:

It was cool that she made it Planning geared, but the only real thing I remember is she typed in ‘sustainab’ and then a little asterisk thing and I thought I can do that,. But there’s probably lots of little things in the back of my head, but that’s what I remember her doing (SGF/1-2/C1/D).

6.4.4.2 Students’ ineffective search strategies

Students had an awareness of their search strategies, but their research processes seemed underdeveloped:

Because you just search through the database and keep looking until you find that good one, and “I’ll keep that”, and then try and find the next one (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

I guess I’m just looking, although my research process is probably quite basic. I just want stuff that’s related to the topic. Not too concerned with what journals do really. It’s probably not a very sophisticated kind of process (SFG/2-2/C2/C).

Some students had a preference for books, and employed shelf-browsing strategies in the library to locate relevant sources:

I love doing [shelf-browsing]. When I actually decide I’m gonna find a book, you find the section and you can literally go along the titles and be like “oh that’s a good book too. That one is quite good too. Oh, gonna take a look at this one as well”. Usually you find something better than what you had actually searched out for (SFG/3-1/C1/B).

However, most students seemed to randomly search Google or Google Scholar, and most were either unaware of or didn’t purposefully employ search trail techniques or utilise database tools (related articles, ‘cited by’ functions) to extend searches and connect resources:

S1: On Google Scholar, I always look and see how many people have cited them, but books and stuff, not really. I just use them.

S2: I didn’t know you could do that on Google (SFG/2-2/C1/B).

Some students struggled to identify key words that generated useful sources, and were frequently unable to access NZ-based Planning information sources:

It’s quite difficult to find information specifically about NZ. I don’t know whether that’s because I am using the wrong databases or because there is not a lot of academic literature out there about our stuff (SFG/1-2/C1/C).

[I’m overwhelmed] sometimes, but at other times I’m overwhelmed by the lack of stuff that it can bring. Sometimes it’s like only one article with one paragraph that could be slightly relevant. And that is when you are in a pickle more (SFG/4-1&D/C1/A).

When full-text articles were not available, students became frustrated and seemed to lack strategies to search for full-text elsewhere:

If I can’t get it electronically, I’ll just find something else (SFG/1-1/C1/D).

I find the perfect article and an abstract comes up [that] I want, and then [institution] doesn’t have it. Why put it up there if you are not going to let us see it? (SFG/1-2/C2/D). It’s pretty annoying when you find a journal article and you don’t have access to it. I read the abstract It’s like, “Oh my god, that’s gold! That’s what I want” and it’s never available (SFG/1/4&D/C1/A).

When fourth-year students were asked what else they could do to try to access the article, the response was:

S1: There’s nothing you can do. You just search the databases you have access to but if it’s not there and it’s asking you to pay $30, I’m like ‘Nah’

AF: Have you ever looked to see if the library holds a paper copy and gone down to the journal section to photocopy it?

S1: Nope, I’ve never really been down to the journal section.

S2: I didn’t even know there was one. Nope, I’ve never done that (SFG/4&D/C1/A).

Interloaning sources was also not a feature of their search process due to both the time factor and lack of knowing they could:

S1: Not until we had that library session. That’s when I learned about [inter-loans]. S2: I knew about it, but I never really actually cared before this year, because most of the time for your assignments you’ve got three weeks and by the time you get the book it would be too late (SFG/4-1&D/C1/A).

Students indicated that they either didn’t spend enough time searching, or struggled to know when to stop wasting time on ineffective searching:

S1: I say I spend too much time looking for information in relation to actually reading and writing it.

S2: I get overwhelmed by how much I have found and then I try to read through it and I get confused and – ugh – I research too much I think (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

Overall, the student data suggested an increased focus on effective research processes was needed to help students understand how to search effectively.

6.4.4.3 Google

While there was recognition that they should be using more scholarly sources, observations, assignment review and student feedback suggested all students, including those at third and fourth year, had not developed IL appropriate to their level of education and many relied on Google and Google Scholar over other search tools:

S1: I am getting better at using the Google Scholar thing.

S2: I don’t use it as much, like I’ll start using the other Google one before Google Scholar. I don’t know why (SFG/3-1/C1/B).

A number of students were unaware that Google’s advanced search techniques could narrow sources substantially, and some students were not even aware that Google Scholar existed:

I never even knew Google Scholar existed until right now, so just regular Google (SFG/1-1/C1/D).

The complexity of the databases put students off seeing them as useful information search tools, as they preferred to access scholarly information in books or via Google Scholar:

You end up giving up and just using Google Scholar, and using those articles because if they come up then you can access them … I don’t really use articles just because I can’t function [databases] (SFG/2-2/C1/C).

[Databases] are not as clear. They’re not as easy to use…. not as straightforward (SFG/4-1&D/C1/A).

I’m pretty chronic of just going on Google Scholar. Just because it’s familiar and I know how to use it. And then when I luck out, I go to other database searches from the [institution] library website (SFG/4-1&D/C1/A).

Those who used Google Books (thus saving them a physical trip to the library) were not concerned about whether pages were missing in the previews available, as fast access was their priority. Supporting students to become more effective at Google searching became a focus for Cycle Two.

6.4.4.4 Evaluating source quality and relevance

Students struggled to evaluate sources for quality and relevance. Source selection appeared largely random and disconnected, and students struggled to identify quality scholarly sources. They had no sense of the ‘conversation’ information sources represent in academic learning. First and second-year (and some third-year) students tended to focus on content over other quality and credibility indicators and would often use a source if it contained the idea they wanted, even if they knew it lacked quality:

S1: At the end of the day, content.

S2: Yeah. I’d be more content, but if there’s the same document just updated I’d obviously use that, but referencing a document from 1980 that’s still the same thing now, I’d have no problems doing that.

S3: Yeah, to me the author is not so important right now. Maybe later down the track. Date-wise and that sort of stuff I sort of evaluate it before I look at the content and then content’s the big one (SFG/1-1/C2/E).

If it makes my point or improves my point, then chuck it in there. And if it’s not from Wikipedia …. To be fair though, it would have relevance if it’s been published in a journal and not just by some complete nutter … the people of the actual journal would have gone through it before they put it in there, right? (SFG/3-1/C1/B).

Comments indicated that some students throughout the programme focus on quick and easy access to information and may not carefully consider the credibility of information they were selecting to complete assessment tasks:

AF: So how concerned are you about the credibility of your sources? S1: I consider it, but it’s not a priority.

S2: If it’s like a journal, then I just assume it’s credible, as opposed to Wikipedia or something (SFG/4-1&D/C2/B).

Encouraging students to consider ‘What is information, and why should I care?’ (Ward, 2001) became a key theme for Cycle Two.