Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS NEEDS
OF FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATES AND INTO AN APPROPRIATE
METHOD OF ASSESSING INCOMING STUDENTS’ INFORMATION
LITERACY ABILITIES AT CARDIFF UNIVERSITY.
A study submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Arts in Librarianship
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
REBECCA MOGG
September 2002
Abstract
2
This dissertation aims to answer a problem posed by Cardiff University
regarding the information literacy skills needs of first-year undergraduates and how
incoming students’ information literacy abilities could best be assessed. An
investigation was conducted into the pertinent literature and 17 stakeholders at
Cardiff University were interviewed in order to fulfil these two aims. The findings
from the interview data regarding the first aim were compared with the SCONUL
seven headline skills (1999) in order to establish which of the skills were required of
first-years. As a result of this it was found that the information literacy needs of
first-year undergraduates vary according to the department in which they study and
the assignments they are required to complete. This led to the recommendations that
information literacy skills outlines, teaching programmes and assessments should be
tailored to the needs of first-year students studying particular subjects. The findings
from the interview questions posed, regarding the second aim of this dissertation,
were that there are a number of alternative methods that could be used to assess the
information literacy abilities of first-year undergraduates, all of which have their
advantages and disadvantages. This led to the conclusion that the method selected
will be dependent upon the intentions of Cardiff University for the results of the
assessment. It is recommended that a simple but still effective approach would be to
use a problem-based assignment to assess a sample of first-year students during their
first semester in order to inform their training for the remainder of the year. The
disadvantages associated with each method as well as the reservations expressed by
some respondents regarding the value of conducting a diagnostic assessment, also led
to the alternative conclusion that efforts may be better spent improving and
extending the information literacy training that already occurs at Cardiff University.
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2
PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................................ 2 AIMS ................................................................................................................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 3 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 7
DEFINING INFORMATION LITERACY .................................................................................................... 7 INFORMATION LITERACY STANDARDS AND SKILLS IN HIGHER EDUCATION...................................... 10 INFORMATION LITERACY EDUCATION .............................................................................................. 13 INFORMATION LITERACY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHOD ........................................................... 20
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 20 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................... 21 THE SAMPLE...................................................................................................................................... 26 CONDUCTING THE SURVEY................................................................................................................ 29 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS............................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER FOUR: THE INFORMATION LITERACY NEEDS OF FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATES: RESULTS ................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER FIVE: THE INFORMATION LITERACY NEEDS OF FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATES: DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS AND COMPARISON................... 74
COMPARISON AND EXPLANATION OF THE RESULTS ........................................................................... 74 SUMMARY AND FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS................................................................... 92
CHAPTER SIX: INFORMATION LITERACY EDUCATION AND ASSESSMENT: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................................... 96
INFORMATION LITERACY EDUCATION AT CARDIFF UNIVERSITY ...................................................... 96 INFORMATION LITERACY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................ 119
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................... 119 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY ....................................................................................... 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 124
APPENDIX ONE ............................................................................................................................. 132
APPENDIX TWO ............................................................................................................................ 135
0
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the help and comments of my dissertation tutor,
Sheila Webber, who advised me throughout the process of completing this
dissertation. I would also like to thank Stephen Griffiths, Linda Kelly and Neil
Penry at Cardiff University for all their assistance regarding the planning of this
dissertation and during my stay in Cardiff. At Cardiff University I would also like to
thank all those who agreed to be interviewed for the benefit of this dissertation. Also
gratefully appreciated was the help and support of family and friends.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
Problem
This dissertation presents the literature review, method and findings of an
investigation into the information literacy skills needs of first-year undergraduate
students and a suitable diagnostic test by which these could be assessed at Cardiff
University. The initial suggestion to investigate this topic was provided by Learning
and Support Team and refined by Stephen Griffiths from Academic Registry at
Cardiff University. He presented the following problem:
“How do we best assess the need of incoming students for information
literacy skills training? In preparation for a training needs assessment
exercise next session, which is linked to the implementation of Cardiff
University’s Information Literacy Policy, this project would investigate
how to assess skills needs, formulate the tests and how to translate the
findings into effective training.”
After discussion with Stephen Griffiths it was established that the desired outcome
from a study on this problem was that it would indicate the information literacy skills
needs of first-year undergraduates and establish a method of conducting an
assessment of the skills incoming undergraduates possess before they receive any
training. The results of this assessment would then be used to better satisfy the
training needs of first-years. From this information the following aims and
objectives were formulated:
Aims
- To investigate the opinions of stakeholders regarding the information literacy
skills they believe first-year undergraduates need to possess.
2
- To investigate an appropriate method for assessing the information literacy skills
needs of incoming undergraduates.
Objectives
• To examine the literature on information literacy in higher education as well
as assessment of information literacy skills.
• To investigate stakeholder opinion at Cardiff University regarding the
information literacy needs of first-year undergraduates and to compare this
with the literature.
• To investigate stakeholder opinion regarding suitable methods for assessing
the information literacy skills of incoming undergraduates at Cardiff
University.
• To suggest a diagnostic assessment method based on the findings.
The first aim of this study is to identify the information literacy abilities
undergraduates require during their first-year at Cardiff University by researching the
literature on the subject and investigating the opinions of stakeholders at Cardiff
University regarding their needs. It is anticipated that the findings will inform the
establishment of a set of information literacy skills for first-year undergraduates.
The second aim of this study is to identify a suitable diagnostic testing method
through which the skills of incoming undergraduates could be assessed based on the
literature and the opinions of stakeholders at Cardiff University. It is anticipated that
the findings of the first aim could then be used as the basis upon which to design an
appropriate diagnostic assessment. A diagnostic assessment conducted with
incoming undergraduates would indicate a potential gap that may exist between
students’ abilities before they begin their first-year and the abilities they will require.
The information gained from the results of such a test could then be used to better
tailor information literacy training to first-year undergraduates’ actual needs.
3
Background
Cardiff University
Cardiff University has a student population of nearly 16,000 and has 22
academic departments. There are eleven libraries distributed across the campus
situated in close proximity to the departments they serve. Despite the fact that these
libraries all belong to the Information Services division they provide training and
services tailored to the departments they serve. The Information Services division
has recently introduced its Learning and Training Policy which states its intention to
“facilitate the development of a cohesive multi-faceted yet flexible approach to
supporting the differing needs of the University community”. This document sets
out five competencies an information literate person should possess:
• Determine the extent of information needed
• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
• Evaluate information and its sources critically
• Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base
• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
This dissertation, as well as attempting to answer the problem posed by Stephen
Griffiths, will thus contribute towards the implementation of this policy.
The need for the dissertation
There are numerous definitions of information literacy but, according to the
American Library Association (1989:1):
“To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is
needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed
information”.
The ACRL suggest that attaining these skills “is increasingly important in the
contemporary environment of rapid technological change and proliferating
information resources” (2000:1). This is no less important in the context of higher
education where the growth of information resources, especially in electronic format,
4
and the increasing use of ICT is requiring students to learn new skills in order to
overcome information overload and use information effectively to complete their
studies (Hepworth, 2000). The skills associated with information literacy are also
important to employers of graduates who want workers who are able to cope with the
increasing amount of information available in a variety of formats (Plotnick, 1999;
Catts, 2000).
Information literacy standards, specifically for higher education have been
produced by the ACRL (2000) in the USA and SCONUL (1999) in the UK but the
need for students to possess information literacy skills has been particularly
recognised in the USA and Australia where information literacy courses and
assessment methods have been devised in individual universities. This has, however,
occurred to a lesser extent in the UK indicating a need for more effort to be put
towards providing students with the information literacy skills they require during
their university life.
The information literacy standards produced by national bodies such as
ACRL and SCONUL are broad in design and require interpretation by individual
institutions. They do not set specific enough standards for particular status groups
within higher education. SCONUL (1999) do suggest which competency levels first-
year students probably require but this is a broad generalisation and no specific
examples are provided. Thus, there is a need to establish the particular information
literacy needs of different levels of university members as it has been indicated in the
literature that these needs may differ (Peacock, 2002; Indiana University
Bloomington Libraries, 1996). This has led to the problem identified by Cardiff
University. It is important that any training and assessment students receive is
appropriate to their needs so that they are learning relevant skills at the right level.
This is particularly important for first-year students as it can be assumed that they
will enter the university with varying information literacy abilities. There is also a
difference in the demands placed on students at school or college and during their
first year at university (Dow and Geer, 1995). It is important that first-years are
equipped with the necessary skills they require to complete their level one courses.
This will then provide them with a basis with which to continue throughout their
university education.
5
As has been pointed out, it is important that students receive the information
literacy training that they require. To provide training without first finding out what
skills they already possess is to assume abilities that they may or may not have.
Thus, a method needs to be devised for assessing their abilities before they embark
on information literacy training. Pre-information literacy skills training assessment
or diagnostic testing is an area that has received little coverage in the information
literacy literature although many evaluative and summative assessments have been
devised. These also tend to assess the skills that the authors of the assessments
believe students need to know and are not necessarily based on evidence of what is
actually required. Numerous assessment methods have been mentioned in the
literature, all of which have their advantages and disadvantages and it needs to be
ascertained which would be most suitable for Cardiff University.
This dissertation attempts to answer these questions and achieve its aims by
carrying out structured interviews of a sample of academic and non-academic staff at
Cardiff University. It is hoped that the findings of the dissertation may also be of
interest to other higher education institutions who intend to improve their
information literacy training provision to first-year undergraduates. The dissertation
does not present the opinions of the all the members of staff pertinent to this study,
only a sample, due to the time-frame of the investigation. It also does not gain the
point of view of students on the subject as they were on vacation during the survey
period. The study only investigates the information literacy skills needs and a
suitable diagnostic test for first-year undergraduates, other years are not included.
The rest of the dissertation begins with a literature review in Chapter Two
which identifies and discusses the main themes relating to this study. Chapter Three
outlines, in detail, the methodology of the investigation and the survey method. The
results of the survey are then presented and discussed in Chapters Four to Six.
Chapter Seven presents the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made as a
result of this investigation as well as recommendations for future study.
6
Chapter Two
Literature Review
This chapter discusses the main themes from the literature related to this
study associated with information literacy with particular focus on the higher
education sector. It begins by discussing generally how information literacy has
been defined as well as the information literacy standards particularly associated with
higher education. This is followed by discussion of information literacy training and
assessment in higher education. The relevant literature will also be referred to during
discussion of the results in Chapters Five and Six.
Defining information literacy
Since Paul Zurkowski first introduced the concept of information literacy in
1974, numerous different definitions of the term have been produced (Spitzer et al,
1998). As Bruce (1997) points out, the majority of those definitions are actually
descriptions of the skills required to be information literate. The most famous is that
produced by the American Library Association (1989):
To be information literate, a person must be able to recognise when information is
needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed
information….Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how
to learn therefore they know how knowledge is organized, how to find information, and
how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them.
In 1992 Doyle described the information literate person as one who:
- “recognizes that accurate and complete information is the basis for intelligent decision
making
- recognizes the need for information
- formulates questions based on information needs
- identifies potential sources of information
- develops successful search strategies
- accesses sources of information including computer-based and other technologies
- evaluates information
7
- organizes information for practical application
- integrates new information into an existing body of knowledge
- uses information in critical thinking and problem-solving” (Quoted from Doyle,
1994:2-3)
These descriptions indicate that to be information literate requires a diverse range of
skills.
As Spitzer et al (1998) point out, information literacy applies not just to the
printed word but to other literacies including visual, media and computer.
Information literacy is frequently confused with other terms such as library skills,
computer literacy, IT literacy, information skills and learning to learn and authors
have sought to emphasise the differences between these terms (Snavely and Cooper,
1997; Bruce, 1997; Johnson, 2001; Corrall, 2000; Bawden and Robinson, 2001).
Library and IT skills, for example are just two aspects of being information literate
(Corrall, 2000).
In the 1990s, Bruce began to argue against defining information literacy
according to particular skills needed to be information literate (Bruce, 1997). In her
opinion information literacy is experienced and so is not easily definable as a set of
skills. As she argues, these skills can become quickly outdated and many of these
descriptions have been designed and accepted without being subject to testing “they
have not been derived from observation of the processes of information users; nor
have they been examined to determine the extent to which they might be applicable”
(p. 39). An example of this are the seven headline skills produced by SCONUL
(1999) which will be discussed later, which “represent a synthesis of those
[previously published definitions] which we felt best represented our own views”
(SCONUL, 1999:4). During the course of her research in the 1990s Bruce
interviewed a large number of Australian academics to establish a definition of
information literacy but large scale research in this area has yet to be conducted in
the UK.
Bruce (1997) recommended basing a definition of information literacy on the
ways in which it is experienced by people. Through phenomenographic research she
8
identified seven conceptions of information literacy among academics in Australia
(p.110)
“1 The information technology conception
• information literacy is seen as using IT for information retrieval and communication.
2 The information sources conception
• information literacy is seen as finding information
3 The information process conception
• information literacy is seen as executing a process
4 The information control conception
• information literacy is seen as controlling information
5 The knowledge construction conception
• information literacy is seen as building up personal knowledge base in a new area of
interest
6 The knowledge extension conception
• information literacy is seen as working with knowledge and personal perspectives
adopted in such a way that novel insights are gained
7 The wisdom conception
• information literacy is seen as using information wisely for the benefit of others”
Bruce explains that none of these conceptions is inaccurate as they provide a picture
of how information literacy is perceived by higher educators. A disadvantage of the
conceptions approach is that it is impossible to base information literacy assessments
and training courses on conceptions of information literacy alone. The skills based
approach to defining information literacy, however, allows for this because, although
they must be frequently updated, assessments and training courses can be more easily
built around a set of required standards.
The remainder of this literature review will focus upon information in higher
education as the literature on this subject spans a broad area including information
literacy in the workplace, further education colleges and secondary education. The
study relates to information literacy in the higher education sector and therefore it is
appropriate to concentrate on the literature in this area. The wide range of definitions
and descriptions of what skills are required to be information literate mean that it is
necessary for institutions to define information literacy according to their own needs.
9
Information Literacy standards and skills in Higher Education
Standards of information literacy have been established specifically for
higher education (SCONUL 1999; ACRL, 2000). The SCONUL (1999) model is
designed specifically for UK higher education and features seven headline skills
required to be information literate (Figure 1).
Figure 1 (SCONUL, 1999:5)
The seven headline skills 1 The ability to recognise a need for information 2 The ability to distinguish ways in which the information ‘gap’ may be addressed
• knowledge of appropriate kinds of resources, both print and non-print • selection of resources with ‘best fit’ for task at hand • the ability to understand the issues affecting accessibility of sources
3 The ability to construct strategies for locating information • to articulate information need to match against resources • to develop a systematic method appropriate for the need • to understand the principles of construction and generation of
databases 4 The ability to locate and access information
• to develop appropriate search techniques (e.g. use of Boolean) • to use communication and information technologies, including terms
international academic networks • to use appropriate indexing and abstracting services, citation indexes and
databases • to use current awareness methods to keep up to date
5 The ability to compare and evaluate information obtained from different sources
• awareness of bias and authority issues • awareness of the peer review process of scholarly publishing • appropriate extraction of information matching the information need
6 The ability to organise, apply and communicate information to others in ways appropriate to the situation
• to cite bibliographic references in project reports and theses • to construct a personal bibliographic system • to apply information to the problem at hand • to communicate effectively using appropriate medium • to understand issues of copyright and plagiarism
7 The ability to synthesise and build upon existing information, contributing to the creation of new knowledge.
10
Figure 2 (SCONUL, 1999:6)
Con
stru
ct st
rate
gies
for l
ocat
ing
Loca
te a
nd a
cces
s
Information literacy
Nov
ice
Adv
ance
d be
ginn
er
Com
pete
nt
Pro
ficie
nt
Exp
ert
Com
pare
and
eva
luat
e
Org
anis
e, a
pply
and
com
mun
icat
e
Synt
hesi
se a
nd c
reat
e
Basic Library Skills IT Skills
Rec
ogni
se in
form
atio
n ne
ed
Dis
tingu
ish
way
s of a
ddre
ssin
g ga
p
SCONUL (1999) have designed a model based on these skills (Figure 2). Using this
model they suggest that
First-year undergraduates will largely be at the bottom of the arrow, perhaps only
practising the first four skills, whilst postgraduate and research students will aim to be
towards the expert end, and will be aspiring to the seventh (SCONUL, 1999:7).
However, this is only an assumption and neither SCONUL or ACRL provide
standards that are tailored specifically to individuals at different levels of educational
status. As SCONUL suggest, their model is a useful framework for education and
assessment but it may need to be interpreted to suit individual needs (Town, 2000)
thus, institutions must establish their own levels of competency loosely based on
these recommendations. The first aim of this dissertation intends to use this
framework to establish the information literacy skills needs of first-years at Cardiff
University.
11
Indiana Bloomington University Libraries (1996) recognise the need to
correlate standards of information literacy ability with the level of the student. They
suggest that there are two levels of information literacy: basic and
advanced/research. For each level they have outlined a set of goals. They expect
their students to have acquired the basic level skills by the end of their sophomore
year of study. This system acknowledges that students of different levels require
different information literacy abilities and teaching and assessment is based on this
acknowledgement. A similar project has been conducted at Queensland University
of Technology which has developed ‘Learning for Life: Information Literacy
Framework and Syllabus’ which they say is closely correlated with the Australian
Information Literacy Standards but is much more in-depth (Peacock, 2002). This
includes a proficiency map, which outlines the information literacy standards and
learning outcomes which should be achieved at each level and to what degree of
proficiency as well as learning pathways which state proficiency levels according to
specific disciplines within the University (Peacock, 2002). This is an extremely
detailed approach that takes into consideration the different information literacy
needs of different levels and disciplines within Universities. Opinion and feedback
at different stages of the project was sought from a range of different stakeholders
(Peacock, 2002) and was therefore based upon relevant local opinion which is the
aim with this dissertation.
Thus in order to design training courses and conduct assessments suitable to
particular year groups and subject disciplines there is a need for more granularity
than is provided in the standards outlined by national bodies such as SCONUL. This
would be useful for establishing national levels similar to key skills stages which are
currently lacking in the UK for the subject of information literacy although elements
are present in the communication and IT key skills levels (Murphy, 2001; Hepworth,
2000). SCONUL are currently considering the development of a transferable module
for first year level undergraduates with accreditation that will be similar in design to
the European Computer Driving License (Johnson, 2001).
12
Information Literacy Education
The literature concerning information literacy education is diverse and is
mainly beyond the scope of this literature review. It can, however, be said, as
Hepworth (2000) points out, that the spectrum of information literacy training is
diverse. At one end of the scale is the teaching of discrete skills in isolation by
library staff. For example the learning outcomes assessed by Smalley (2000) relate
to the abilities of students to locate web-sites, books and journals on a particular
topic. Ren (2000) criticises this approach as it does not encourage continuous self-
improvement. Also as Bruce (1997) points out, the question can be raised as to
whether they can be described as information literacy courses as these do not
provide students with the diverse range of skills they need to become information
literate. At the other end of the spectrum is the total integration of information
literacy training into the curriculum of particular disciplines which tend to take a
resource-based approach (Hepworth, 2000). According to Hepworth (2000), this
approach gives students good problem-solving skills which they will be able to
adapt and continue using.
In between these two poles there is evidence of the existence of
comprehensive information literacy education courses. For example, Lawson
(1999) describes a course aimed at first-year college students which includes
searching the OPAC, Boolean logic, simple searching, choosing appropriate sources
of information, using a variety of electronic and print resources as well as email.
These more in-depth courses have usually been accompanied by attempts to
incorporate information literacy into the student curriculum (Hepworth, 1999;
Weetman, 2002; Lawson, 1999; Cribb and Woodall, 1997; Peacock, 2002). For
example, at Ohio State University, an information literacy training course conducted
using the Internet on a distance learning basis introduces first-year students to the
Internet, web and email as well as searching online resources but it also teaches
them about research strategies, intellectual property rights, citation of sources and
evaluation of web resources (O’Hanlon, 2001). Because of the way the course is
delivered it is orientated towards electronic resources but it does incorporate the
wider skills associated with information literacy into its curriculum. Together with
this development of more comprehensive information literacy training programmes
13
is a move towards teaching students to become more self-efficacious in their use of
information resources (Ren, 2000; MacAdam, 1990) so they are capable of
satisfying their own information needs (Snavely and Cooper, 1997). It is suggested
that this will motivate them to continue learning (Ren, 2000). An information
literacy teaching programme conducted at the University of South Australia which
stresses that students should be able to find their own information is an example of
this approach (Dow and Geer, 1995). Their course includes training in searching
electronic resources and the web, email and word-processing (Dow and Geer, 1995).
Learning which encourages independent information skills is increasingly important
due to the rise of an increasingly ‘information-dependent environment’ (MacAdam ,
1990).
There seems to be agreement in the literature (Cribb and Woodall, 1997;
Pausch and Popp, 1997; Samson, 2000; Rader, 1995; Peacock, 2002) that librarians
and faculty need to work more closely together in order to make the incorporation of
information literacy training into the curriculum a success. Greer et al (1991), for
example, consulted faculty regarding the skills at which they felt incoming freshmen
should be proficient. User education of information literacy should focus on what
the users need to learn which requires co-operation with faculty to discover what
these needs are. Librarians need to be able to assure academic staff that they are
teaching students relevant skills. Without asking them what is required this will be
difficult to achieve. This approach is considered to be the most successful and it can
be said that information literacy training should also be related to the degree subject
in order that the course seems more relevant and serves a purpose to students
(Lupton, 1992; Bruce, 1995). Breivik (1999) takes this a step further arguing that
delivery of information literacy training must be shared between wider educational
institutions, policy-makers and administrators.
“Information literacy cannot be taught by librarians or faculty, it must be learned by
students through experiences shaped by librarians and faculty…As long as librarians
equate information literacy with a librarian standing in front of a group of students,
librarians doom themselves to limited success in achieving desired outcomes…because
there simply are not enough librarians to fill the growing learning needs of students”
(Breivik, 1999:272)
14
Breivik (1999), thus, argues that information literacy training is not solely the role of
librarians. The difficulty with this vision is achieving collaboration between
universities and other parties. Thus, it appears that there needs to be more
consultation of academic staff in universities regarding the establishment of
information literacy needs of students which is what this study aims to do.
Information Literacy Assessment
Reasons for assessment
The majority of assessments carried out by libraries in the higher education
sector focus on assessing library skills. The need is identified in the literature for
more assessment tools through which it is possible to assess information literacy
rather than just library skills (Maughn, 2001; Caravello et al, 2001).
A large number of the assessments described are evaluative and informal in
that they aim to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of library courses with a
view to improving them (Bragan-Turner, 2000). For example, Hill (2000) used a
survey, focus group session, assessment and observation methods to evaluate an
information skills course for engineering students at Queensland University. Ren
(2000) and Smalley (2000) both report of exercises where students’ pre-test and post-
test scores were compared before and after information literacy instruction sessions
in order to establish the effect of the class on student performance. Evaluating the
effect of information literacy or library skills in this way is important as an indicator
of student improvement but the courses themselves are not necessarily designed upon
the basis of indicators of what skills or processes students need to know, rather they
are being taught skills librarians assume they need. This type of evaluation is only
based on establishing the extent of students’ abilities after receiving instruction but if
they are being shown skills they do not require there is little benefit as students will
not perceive them to be relevant. It is important to ensure that the courses are
teaching students the skills they require based on evidence not assumption.
There is also evidence of the use of summative assessment to ensure that
students have achieved designated learning outcomes although these are less
common than evaluative assessment (Webber and Johnston). Weetman (2002)
15
describes an example of a formal assessment of information skills at De Montfort
University where students on some courses are given an assignment at the end of a
series of information skills teaching sessions which count as a percentage of their
overall module. Similarly, Cribb and Woodall (1997) asked engineering students to
complete a workbook on the web to assess their information skills abilities.
Examples of diagnostic assessment in the information literacy literature are
uncommon and there is little evidence to suggest that diagnostic testing is widely
used to assess the need of students for training in information literacy. Kunkel et al
(1996) surveyed a group of their current freshmen students in order to better
understand their needs and tailor training courses to these needs. At California State
University a diagnostic test was used to assess ‘information-competence’ (CSU,
1999). This was with a view to developing benchmarks for entry-level information
competence skills. A diagnostic placement test is also used at Swinburne University
of Technology which assesses entry level students’, who enrol on the Information
Methods module, computer-literacy skills which, if passed, exempts students from
certain parts of the module (Badger and Roberts, 2001). As has been described,
diagnostic tests can be used for comparing pre- and post-training results as a way of
evaluating a training course but they can also be used to identify the strengths or
weaknesses of students which can then be catered for through better designed
programmes (Miller et al, 1998). They are also useful as a benchmark measure of
competence (CSU, 1999). This type of testing is already evident, although is little
used, in higher education where diagnostic tests have served to establish students’
suitability for particular courses and to guide lecturers planning or modifying the
content or mode of presentation of courses (Miller et al, 1998; Knight, 2001).
Assessment Methods
The most common approach of assessing students’ information literacy or
information skills is by means of questionnaires or multiple choice tests (Greer et al,
1991; Maughn, 2001; Caravello et al, 2001). They are popular because they are
useful for testing large numbers of people and are quick to administer and analyse
(Astin, 1993). But as Webber (2001) points out, multiple choice assessment methods
allow for guess work and a relatively good mark can be obtained with little
knowledge. They also only test for superficial knowledge (Astin, 1993) and self-
16
assessment style questionnaires require students to accurately assess their own
abilities which they may not do (Webber and Johnston; Knight, 2001). Students may
rate their abilities too high or too low thus devaluing the assessment.
Two other popular types of assessment include compiling bibliographies or
performing searches in answer to specific questions (Webber, 2001; Cribb and
Woodall, 1997; Smalley, 2000). For example, Smalley (2000) describes a test
instrument that asks students to find suitable books, periodicals and Internet sites on
a specified topic. These types of assessment are particularly suited to information
literacy because they require students to show that they have used information
resources in order to retrieve the answers and have knowledge of information-
seeking processes. Tasks can be set which cover all the necessary learning
outcomes. This approach also lends itself to teaching students to be self-efficient in
practising information literacy because they are required to solve the problem
themselves. However, because they require greater effort on the part of the student
than questionnaires they are more difficult to administer. Webber and Johnston also
argue that these instruments only tend to address lower order skills and do not gain a
deep understanding of students’ abilities.
Spitzer et al (1998) suggest portfolio assessment and learning and research
logs as other methods through which students can demonstrate knowledge of the
processes needed to be information literate. These are useful methods of identifying
if students have achieved higher as well as lower order information literacy skills but
are not appropriate diagnostic testing methods unless they are carried out in the
educational institutions students attend before coming to university. Universities
could then use this information to continue to improve student’s abilities. This is an
ideal example and would require much more co-operation between schools or
colleges and universities than is currently the case in the UK. Hepworth (1999)
reports of the use of task analysis, talk-through and observation but all of these are
time-consuming and difficult to implement on a large-scale. Williams (2000)
suggests further alternatives to multiple choice assessment which may be more
suitable for mass assessment including selected response, constructed response, essay
and complex answers for each of which she points out the advantages and
17
disadvantages. She argues that each should be chosen to best suit the individual
situation.
There is also an identifiable trend in the literature towards assessment on the
Internet. Caravello et al (2001) sent their questionnaires to students via email.
Samson (2000) reports of a test being available on the Web administered at the end
of an instruction session. CSU (1999) put their diagnostic test online. Cribb and
Woodall (1997) used a webbook format which consisted of a workbook of exercises
which students completed on the Web. The advantages of web-based assessment are
that they are easy to administer, mark and analyse, there is less likelihood of error on
the part of the marker and students can gain instant feedback on their performance
(Caravello et al, 2001; Cribb and Woodall, 1997; Samson, 2000; Badger and
Roberts, 2001). However, factors to consider are that students will have to be
computer literate and the assessment instrument would need to be fairly simplistic
which again may only establish surface level skills (Webber and Johnston).
Recommendations have also been made as to the situations in which it is best
to conduct assessments. A case study of a diagnostic assessment project conducted
by O’Brien et al (1996:90) in an academic institution found that this type of
assessment was best incorporated into a compulsory course rather than “added on”.
They found that if a grade was received at the end the students would be more likely
to take the test seriously. This recommendation is unfortunately unsuitable for
diagnosing the skills of incoming students as they will have yet to have received any
training but the fact that O’Brien et al (1996) identify that students need motivation
to participate in diagnostic assessments properly is useful. If these were placed at the
beginning of training courses students would see the need for the assessment as a
way of determining whether they require certain training or not. Although self-
assessment may not be a suitable method as students may not be honest about their
abilities if they believe a good result will exempt them from lectures. Similarly to
the point made above, in the section on information literacy education, the American
Association for Higher Education has identified that assessment is most successful
“when representatives from across the educational community are involved” (quoted
in Banta et al, 1996:35). Thus it is important to employ the expertise of different
18
status groups in order to best design assessments, which the methods of investigation
used in the this study aimed to achieve.
Information Literacy Assessment Criteria
Criteria used in assessment of information literacy are varied. The majority
focus on the basic library skills aspects of information literacy (Smalley, 2000; Hill,
2000; Samson, 2000); the ability to locate and access information to a basic degree
being the main target for assessment. Badger and Roberts (2001) for example assess
first year students in using the OPAC and searching electronic resources. These
assessment criteria do not truly assess whether students are information literate.
Fewer assessments test for higher order skills such as evaluating the
information found (Hill, 2000), defining the research topic and the information need
and organising and synthesising information (Caravello et al, 2001) the ethical, legal
and socio-political issues surrounding information, organising information in a
manner that permits analysis, evaluation, synthesis and understanding (CSU, 1999).
The majority of these learning outcomes seem to have been developed on the basis of
a mixture of locally identified criteria as well as being derived from professional
literature or national standards (Caravello et al, 2001). Thus, criteria are dependent
upon the level of skills institutions feel they need to encourage in their students.
This chapter has discussed the main points of the relevant literature on the
topics relating to this dissertation. The next chapter will explain and justify the
methodology and methods used in the conducting of the investigation.
19
Chapter Three
Methodology and Method
This chapter outlines and justifies the methodology and methods of
investigation adopted for this study. It includes a discussion of the research
approach, the methods of investigation, the survey instrument, the sample, the
conducting of the research and the analysis of the results.
Methodology
The research approach It was necessary to adopt an inductive approach to this dissertation as there
were no pre-defined hypotheses or response criteria against which to measure the
results. Instead it was the intention to gain in-depth, contextual data from which
patterns could be identified and hypotheses constructed in order to achieve the aims
and objectives of the investigation (Mason, 1996; Mellon, 1990). For this reason it
was decided to use qualitative rather than quantitative methods as these are better
suited to in-depth investigations (Mason, 1996). The use of a quantitative means of
conducting this study was also rejected because it was deemed the nature of the study
was too complex and that it was important to gain the opinions of the respondents in
order to better fulfil the aims of this study (Mason, 1996). Gaining the opinions of
stakeholders was considered to be the most effective way in which to establish what
information literacy skills first-year undergraduates need and how their abilities can
best be assessed (Gorman and Clayton, 1997). Thus, the use of qualitative methods
was deemed most suitable because the methods of investigation associated with this
approach lend themselves to gaining the opinions of stakeholders on complex issues.
Generalisability
As McCracken (1988) points out, having generalisable results is not
necessarily an issue with a qualitative research study because the opinions of the
stakeholders are more important. Therefore the findings of this dissertation were not
based upon a generalisable sample as it was considered that this was not the aim
(McCracken, 1988), although the sample included in this investigation, which is
discussed below, was large enough to improve the prospects of generalising the
20
results. In addition this study was the result of a dissertation suggestion from Cardiff
University, which meant the investigation took the form of a case study in that only
stakeholders at Cardiff University were involved. Thus, the findings are likely to be
of most benefit to Cardiff University. It is recognised that a single case study may
limit the generalisability of the results as they could be context dependent and that
conducting the study in additional institutions would have been interesting for
comparative purposes but as the study was suggested and financed by Cardiff
University, and the time-frame in which to conduct it was short, it was the only
possible approach. However, the research is transferable in the sense that the
research approach and methods of investigation could be applied in other universities
where the results could be further tested and compared (Mason, 1996). The findings
may also be of interest to other higher education institutions who wish to improve
their information literacy training to first-years. They could use the results of this
investigation to inform their own training.
Methods of investigation
The literature review
As has been shown in Chapter Two, an extensive review of the literature
relevant to the field of information literacy, especially within the context of higher
education was conducted. This placed the study in the context of previously
conducted research and contributed to the construction of the interview schedule.
The literature was also discussed in relation to the findings of this study in Chapters
Five and Six.
The survey method
Interviews were chosen as the most appropriate qualitative method through
which to conduct this investigation as they were most suited to its aims and
objectives. This method was selected instead of a questionnaire administered by
email or post, which was a possible alternative, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it
could not be assumed that the concept of information literacy is familiar to all the
stakeholders and it was felt that some of the themes that needed to be covered may
warrant some explanation from the interviewer which would not be possible with a
questionnaire (Mason, 1996). It was necessary for the interviewer to be able to
21
clarify any misunderstandings and to ensure that the answers to the questions were
explored as fully as possible (Gorman and Clayton, 1997). It was also anticipated
that respondents would either not respond or be unwilling to go to the effort of
offering detailed answers if asked to complete a questionnaire. Finally, it was
considered that asking questions with a fixed set of responses, which would be the
format of a questionnaire, would not allow for alternative responses previously
unanticipated by the author. Interviews allow respondents to provide in-depth data
and the interviewer does not need to anticipate all the possible responses before the
interview.
Alternative qualitative survey methods were also deemed unsuitable for this
investigation. Observation was unfeasible because it was not possible to observe
first-year undergraduates to gain an understanding of the skills they need due to the
fact that the survey was conducted during their summer vacation. Observing other
stakeholders would have yielded no information about the needs of first-year
undergraduates. Observational methods would also not have achieved the second of
the aims of this study to investigate a suitable method of carrying out an assessment
of the abilities of incoming undergraduates as observation alone does not allow for
intervention on the part of the investigator. In addition, this method would have been
too time-consuming. It was also felt that focus groups would have been problematic
for finding a suitable time for all the stakeholders to meet, especially during the
vacation period. This approach also does not allow the researcher to gain individual
opinion on a topic which was required in this study in order to fulfil the aims and
objectives.
Despite the difficulties and limitations of using alternative methods, it is
recognised that conducting interviews as a sole method of investigation has
disadvantages. As Mason (1996) suggests, it is only possible to draw information
from respondents using the questions, it is not possible to read their minds. Thus, the
interview results can only be as good as the interview schedule allows. Interviews
have also been criticised as being open to bias caused by the influence of the
interviewer. As Gorman and Clayton (1997:126) point out, “the approach,
personality and even appearance of the interviewer always has a significant effect on
the quality and direction of an interview”. Triangulation, using both a qualitative and
22
a quantitative method would have been the ideal approach (McCracken, 1988),
although this too has been criticised as being ineffective by Mason (1996), as this
would have provided both wide-ranging and in-depth survey results. However, as
previously explained, the time constraints, the difficulty of the subject matter as well
as the distance between Sheffield and Cardiff meant that it was only feasible to
conduct the interviews which are the most time-consuming but favourable option.
The interview schedule was structured so as to eliminate as much bias as possible
with the same questions being posed to every interviewee from each stakeholder
group. The results of the investigation were also compared with the literature and so
the findings were examined within the context of previous research.
The interview schedules
Two interview schedules were constructed (see Appendices 1 and 2). The
first schedule related to interviews with academic staff, the other was posed to staff
from the libraries, Academic Registry and Dyslexia Unit who will henceforth be
referred to as non-academic staff. The schedule for the academic staff was longer,
containing 22 questions, than that for the non-academic staff which consisted of 17
questions. It was felt that the non-academic staff would be unable to answer five of
the six extra questions on the schedule for academic staff because they referred to the
coursework that the students are set and how it is marked. Another question
(Question 18 on the academic and Question 15 on the non-academic interview
schedules) was similar in intent but was re-worded for the sake of clarity depending
on the status of the interviewee. The remaining questions were the same on both the
academic and non-academic staff interview schedules in order that proper
comparison could be made between the two groups of stakeholders.
Although interviews were chosen as the survey method in order to gain more
in-depth responses, it was still felt that a structured rather than unstructured
interview without any pre-determined questions was required. As McCracken (1988)
points out, the structure helps to ensure that all topics are covered during the
interview and that each respondent is asked the same questions in the same order.
This consistency helps to ensure that the data is reliable and comparable (Keats,
2000; Gorman and Clayton, 1997). Having a structure is also a more suitable
method for inexperienced interviewers because it requires less skill than conducting
23
unstructured interviews as it ensures all the topics are covered, that bias is kept to the
minimum and that questions are asked in the same way making them easier to
compare (Bell, 1999; Gorman and Clayton, 1997). The intention was to discover
very specific information rather than to explore a broad field thus a structured
interview schedule ensured that specific information was provided by the interviews.
A final reason for choosing to conduct structured interviews was in order to ease the
processes of synthesis and discussion of the data (Gorman and Clayton, 1997; Bell,
1999).
However, despite the interview schedule being structured, the majority of the
questions were open as this allowed respondents to express opinions or offer
additional information and to respond using their own words while ensuring relevant
responses (McCracken, 1988). Structured probes or examples were used to gain
further, more specific, information from respondents after they had responded to the
initial open question or if the respondent had difficulty answering the question and
required clarification. Where only a yes or no response was required on a particular
issue, a closed question was asked.
It was decided to base the bulk of the questions on the first part of both
interview schedules (Questions 1-17 on the non-academic interview schedule and
Questions 1-14 on the academic interview schedule) upon the SCONUL seven
headline skills (SCONUL, 1999) as outlined and discussed in Chapter Two in order
to provide a structure to the interview. These questions also complemented the five
skills required to be information literate as defined by Cardiff University. This was
to ensure that the information provided was relevant to Cardiff University although
these are not discussed in the results chapters. The SCONUL standards were
selected because these are designed to outline the information skills they believe are
required within the higher education sector. Thus, they were useful as a framework
for designing the interview schedule which could be used to find which of the
SCONUL skills first-year undergraduates require and to what degree. The results
were also then compared to the SCONUL seven headline skills (1999) and used to
present, in tabular form, a set of information literacy skills required of first year
undergraduates (see Chapter Five).
24
On the second part of the interview schedule, Question 15 on the non-
academic and Questions 18 and 19 on the academic schedules were intended to
gather contextual data regarding what contribution is already being made by non-
academic staff to the information literacy abilities of first-year undergraduates. This
was mainly to ensure that any recommendations made were not already current
practice. These questions were also intended to gather additional information on the
information literacy skills needs of first-year undergraduates that might not have
been mentioned by the interviewee already. Because this was the intention of asking
these questions and they are not part of the aims and objectives of the study these
results are only briefly discussed in Chapter Six.
Questions 16 and 17 on the non-academic and Questions 20 and 21 on the
academic interview schedules were asked in order to gain ideas regarding when and
how it would be appropriate to diagnose the information literacy skills of incoming
undergraduates as was outlined in the aims and objectives. The responses from these
questions were intended to gather information which would be used to suggest a
method of carrying out such an assessment. The final question on both interview
schedules was to gain any relevant additional information that may not have been
brought out by the questions in the interviews and therefore has not been analysed in
this study.
Due to the distance between Sheffield and Cardiff and the time-frame in
which this investigation was carried out it was not feasible to conduct a full set of
pilot interviews before conducting the interviews proper which was unfortunate as
the interview schedules were not rigorously tested. Instead the questions were read
by Sheila Webber who offered comments and alterations were made to ensure that
they were reliable and valid. After the first interview, with a non-academic member
of staff, a question referring to the way students’ work is marked was removed from
the non-academic staff interview schedule because they were not in a position to
provide an answer. The first interview with a member of academic staff was
successful and nothing was changed.
25
The sample
The sample selected for interview was purposive rather than random in that
interviewees were chosen from a range of pertinent stakeholders (Gorman and
Clayton, 1997), although the selection of the sample was also dependent upon the
willingness and availability of respondents during the survey period. This selection
approach helped to gain a good cross-section of opinion from across the University
and served to ensure they were well placed to offer relevant comment on the
questions.
Altogether, 17 interviews were conducted with various stakeholders. It was
felt that this was sufficient to provide enough data from which to draw conclusions
and recommendations for this qualitative study although additional interviews could
have been conducted with respondents from other departments and libraries had there
been more time. Later it was realised that a large amount of data was gained from
these interviews and so it can be said that enough respondents were interviewed.
Interviews were conducted with staff from ten of the 22 academic departments
within the University, all of whom have a role in teaching first-year undergraduates
and so a broad range of opinion was gathered. Table 1 indicates the departments the
academic respondents belonged to as well as the acronym by which they will be
referred during the remainder of this study. It was important to gain the opinion of
academic staff as they are well-placed to comment upon the information literacy
skills that students need although they might not associate those skills with the term
information literacy. They are also experienced in carrying out assessments thus it
was vital to gain their opinion on when and how it would be most suitable to conduct
a diagnostic assessment.
26
Table 1
School/Department Acronym School of Biosciences BIOSI Cardiff Business School CARBS Cardiff Law School CLAWS Computer Science COMSC Department of City and Regional Planning CPLAN English, Communication and Philosophy ENCAP European Studies EUROS Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies JOMEC Maths MATHS Department of Optometry and Visual Science OPTOM
In the cases of BIOSI and MATHS two respondents were present during each
interview and three respondents from COMSC were also interviewed
simultaneously. This was extremely valuable to the research because it meant that a
more representative opinion could be gained from these departments as the answers
were derived from respondents who teach different topics, although it is accepted
that these respondents may not have answered as freely as they might have done if
interviewed individually.
Five of the seven non-academic respondents are staff from five different
library sites which cater for a range of subject areas. All of the library staff
interviewed had a role in the subject areas corresponding to many of the academic
staff interviewed which meant that their responses could be compared with those of
the academic staff. It was also felt that interviewing library staff would provide a
more comprehensive opinion on the subject under study as they each oversee a
number of subject areas and thus are in the position to offer a broader perspective
than academic staff. Finally, for similar reasons two members of both non-academic
and non-library staff were also interviewed. One was from the Academic Registry
which provides support to both students and departments, the other was from the
Dyslexia Resource Centre which provides support to dyslexic students in all
academic departments within the University. It was hoped that by interviewing these
two members of staff a more comprehensive outlook could be gained. Table 2
indicates the departments the non-academic respondents belonged to as well as the
acronym or abbreviation by which they will be referred during the remainder of this
27
study. It also shows the academic departments included in the sample that the
libraries serve.
Table 2
Department/Division Acronym/ Abbreviation
Academic Departments Served
INFOS: Aberconway Library Arts and Social Studies Resources CentreBiomedical Sciences Library Bute Library Law Library
Aberconway Assl Biomed Bute Law
CARBS ENCAP, EUROS BIOSI CPLAN, JOMEC, OPTOM CLAWS
Academic Registry AREG ALL The Dyslexia Resource Centre DYSX ALL
Interviewing stakeholders with different roles within the University gave a
broad range of perspectives. This type of triangulation also served to compensate for
the lack of triangulation used in the research methods thus making the results more
reliable (Gorman and Clayton, 1997). However, interviewing end of first-year or
second-year undergraduates would also have been useful in order to gain their
perspective on the skills they felt they needed during their first year as well as their
opinion on how best to assess their information literacy training needs. This was not
possible because the investigation was conducted during the summer vacation. It
must be pointed out that the survey data did not suffer because of this as a wide range
of responses were still gained from those in a relevant position. One limitation to the
sample that can be mentioned is that, in many cases, only one member of academic
staff from each department was interviewed. Each department consists of various
subject areas upon which the academic respondents could only comment from the
perspective of their own subject area. Therefore the data cannot be said to be
representative of their department only their subject area. If the study was continued
and more time allowed it would be useful to carry out an embedded case study with
three or four departments in which multiple respondents from each subject area
within the departments are interviewed in order to gain a more representative
opinion. This was not possible for this study as there was a lack of willing
volunteers from within the same departments, therefore, it was decided to interview
28
staff from as varied a number of departments as possible in order to gain a range of
opinion.
Conducting the survey
Contacting respondents
Discussions were conducted by telephone with members of staff from
Information Services and the Academic Registry in order to gain their opinion on
how the interviews should be arranged and with whom. It was suggested that an
email be sent to staff in the libraries to ask for names of staff from within the
academic departments who teach first-years and might be willing to take part.
Suggestions were provided and the potential respondents were contacted by email
explaining what the study was investigating, suitable dates when the interviews could
be conducted and an estimation of how long the interviews would last. Those who
responded to the email were then contacted again to arrange a time and a place. Not
enough respondents were gained using this method and some were contacted directly
by telephone from Cardiff University during the survey period.
Conducting the interviews
The majority of the interviews took place over five days during a two week
period in late June, early July. Each interview lasted between approximately 20-40
minutes depending on the length of the responses. The interviews were conducted
face-to-face as it was felt that respondents may be unwilling to respond fully over the
telephone. Interviewing face-to-face allowed for gaining an overall impression of
the interviewees’ responses especially regarding whether they had understood the
question.
The interviews were tape-recorded after seeking permission from
respondents. It was felt that this would allow the interview to flow and for the
interviewer to concentrate fully upon what was being. Taking notes would have
been a distraction. Recording the interviews also helped to ensure that the quotations
used in the presentation of the dissertation were correct. It was also felt that by note-
taking a decision had to be made during the interview regarding what information the
respondent was giving was significant and what was not. This might have meant that
29
an important point was not noted because, at first, it seemed insignificant. However,
due to a technical problem, some of the recordings were faulty and three respondents
were contacted again by email to provide answers to those particularly important
questions that could not be understood from the tape. Any quotes taken from the
email responses will be underlined in the text.
During the interviews, the interviewer tried to keep interruptions of the
respondents to a minimum so as to allow the respondents to answer in their own
words and to prevent bias (Keats, 2000). When a respondent seemed unsure of the
question or began to talk away from the point, the pre-identified probes on the
interview schedules were used to return the discussion to the point. The probes were
also used when a respondent had finished their reply to a question to encourage
further response in order that all the necessary information was gained.
Analysis of the results
Once all the interviews were completed the tapes were transcribed and then
checked through for errors. The transcripts were then used as raw data. The analysis
of the results took place throughout late July and August. The responses to each of
the questions were analysed individually to identify common and uncommon
responses. The results from the two groups of stakeholders were treated separately
in order to provide clarity and so that comparisons could be made between them.
The results were then presented, compared and discussed with reference to the
relevant literature. In the case of the questions concerning the information literacy
skills required of first-year undergraduates the data were also placed into tables
indicating the individual stakeholder responses versus each of the SCONUL seven
headline skills (1999). These were then discussed and compared in relation to the
SCONUL literature. This served to indicate the information literacy skills required
of first-year undergraduates by different stakeholders.
This chapter has presented and justified the qualitative methodology and
methods of investigation undertaken during this study including a description of the
interview schedule, the sample and the process of conducting the investigation. The
results regarding the interview questions on the first part of the interview schedules
30
concerning the information literacy skills needs of first-year undergraduates are
presented in the next chapter. These are then compared and discussed in relation to
the literature, especially the SCONUL seven headlines skills (1999), in Chapter Five.
The results of the remaining questions concerning the current information literacy
training situation at Cardiff University and suitable diagnostic assessment methods
are presented and discussed in Chapter Six.
31
Chapter Four
The Information Literacy Needs of First-year Undergraduates:
Presentation of the results
This chapter presents the results of the questions on the first part of the
academic and non-academic staff interview schedules (see Appendices 1 and 2)
concerning the information literacy skills first-year undergraduates require. The non-
academic question numbers are preceded by the letter ‘N’ and the academic question
numbers are preceded by the letter ‘A’. To view the prompts used during the
interviews for each question it is necessary to refer to Appendices 1 and 2. The
respondents are referred to by the department or library in which they are staff
members using the abbreviations or acronyms indicated in Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter
Three. The responses to these questions are then discussed and compared to the
SCONUL seven headline skills (1999) and other related literature in the following
chapter.
AQ1. What kinds of assignment are first-year undergraduates set which
require them to locate information resources?
All the respondents except MATHS and OPTOM give their first-year
students at least some essay assignments. MATHS students were mainly set maths
homework assignments and OPTOM students were given assignments involving
writing-up laboratory experiments. Other types of assignment mentioned which
first-years may be required to do include projects (COMSC, BIOSI), presentations
(COMSC, EUROS), tutorials and an assessed case note (CLAWS) and online
language tasks using a web-based language learning system (EUROS).
Eight out of ten of the respondents suggested that students would need to
locate information in order to complete their assignments. However, some
respondents expected their first-year students to access a wider range of information
than others. The respondent from CLAWS commented:
32
“As far as the essay is concerned…they are expected to research widely using
electronic and paper sources…As far as the case note’s concerned…I want them to
use the paper source because that’s the more authoritative source and I want them to
do background into the general subject area using textbooks, journal articles, and I
want them to do specific research into that case by using the electronic databases to
find the very recent stuff that’s been written in journals.”
Students are expected to be able to conduct this level of information retrieval from
the first semester of their first year. The remaining respondents did not require their
students to access such a range of information although they were expected to
retrieve some.
“…the kinds of information they’re encouraged to get will basically…involve
straight forward library research in other words going to the library, finding out
what’s in there.” (JOMEC)
“They also do…literature and culture options where there’ll be a reading list
provided and they’re required to find that kind of information, articles in journals,
chapters in books and books themselves.” (EUROS)
However, JOMEC students also undertake a Research and Writing module in which
they are taught “the process of getting and retrieving information” which may
suggest first-year students might be expected to access a wider range information
than indicated by this respondent. The JOMEC respondent was not in the position to
comment further on the content of this module as it was taught by another lecturer.
In contrast to the other academic respondents, the interviewees from ENCAP
and MATHS said that seeking out information for assignments was less important.
MATHS felt there was no need for students to seek out additional information for
their assignments because all they require is provided in the lecture notes or
textbooks. For the first-year ENCAP students the capacity to write a good essay is
more important than the ability to seek out information:
33
“The first priority with our first-year students is to get them writing a coherent essay.
All the emphasis is on literacy, coherence and making a good argument and it would
only be to a very minor extent that we’re stressing footnotes…. And if anything, with
first-years we’ll say don’t play around with silly things which are diverting you from
the intellectual challenge”. (ENCAP)
From this response it appears that first-year ENCAP students are discouraged from
searching for a broad range of information.
Thus, the main type of assignment set was essays but there were also some
respondents differed. As a result of this majority response it might be assumed that
the most first-years would require similar information literacy skills in order to
complete their assignments as essays demand a particular set of skills. However,
some respondents mentioned the type of information resources their first-year
students would need to access and this varied extensively from those such as
CLAWS, who wanted to ensure the students access as many information resources as
they can, to the respondent from ENCAP who expected students to mainly produce
essays from the literary texts they were studying. However, it must be pointed out
that the respondent from CLAWS teaches on the Legal Foundations module which,
amongst other things, is designed to provide students with information retrieval skills
thus the response from a lecturer teaching a substantive law topic might have been
different. These results indicate that even common assignments do not require a
typical set of skills. The variety in the types of assignments students are set other
than essays also indicates first-year undergraduates will require different information
literacy skills depending on their assignments.
AQ2, NQ1. Are first-year undergraduates expected to realise their own need for
information or are they told when they need to locate information?
Academic respondents
All the respondents provide guidance to first-year students in retrieving
information for their course:
34
“They’re told where to start searching for a bit of information…” (ENCAP)
“…if they’re writing an assignment…they’re usually provided with a list of places to
go to complete that information…either have as part of the overall course pack or as
a week by week thing, directions for further reading.” (EUROS)
“I mean they’re quite guided a lot and we tell them very specifically these are the
books and a lot of them actually…they don’t have that much initiative in terms of if
it’s not on the list, they don’t think well let’s go and find another book that covers the
same topic so you have to sort of push them a bit.” (JOMEC)
According to the CLAWS and OPTOM respondents, however, their first-year
students are given this guidance at first but then they are expected to be able to
realise their own information needs and locate materials without assistance:
“…they’re given a reading list for every tutorial which will identify the information
that they actually have to access for that tutorial so in that sense they’re being told
what they have to get. That’s for the first few tutorials but once we’ve progressed
past about the third week I think, we move to research based tutorials where they’re
given a topic and they’re not told what they have to access, what information there is
out there and they have to find it.” (CLAWS)
“I would say mostly it’s up to them to realise that although at first we tend to give
them key references they might want to go and check as a starting point…. It’s
probably not something we really think about but I think we tend to do that less and
less as the year progresses.” (OPTOM)
The respondents from CARBS and EUROS, however, suggested that
students’ ability to recognise their own need for information is not so much an
expectation but a way in which very good students can be distinguished from the
rest.
35
“It’s the ones who do look for those external sources of information who will be, if
the person who’s marking it is an expert, hopefully we are, then they will, they’ll
mark those students up…” (CARBS)
“…some students realise that it’s a good idea to look at other things as well and
some students think that because there are five books there one will do…” (EUROS).
In answer to AQ3 this respondent added: “…in terms of the way it’s assessed the
brownie points come with the things they’ve found out that we haven’t told them…”
Four departments (MATHS, ENCAP, BIOSI, CPLAN), however, do not
expect their students to research further beyond the resources they are told to read,
although they do not provide them with the classmarks for the items, they are
expected to find the resources themselves.
“For each assignment they are told what is expected of them in terms of the
literature they need to source” (BIOSI)
“We…set a number of key texts…I think the main driver of finding alternative
materials to those we recommend is availability rather than a desire to expand
beyond what we recommend.” (CPLAN)
There was, thus, variation in the responses to this question. All the academic
respondents provide guidance to their first-year students in locating useful material
for their course. From these responses it can be said that students are only expected
to realise their own need for information to the extent that they have to locate the
most suitable information from their reading lists to answer their information need.
In this sense, it cannot be said that first-year students are expected to realise their
own need for information. However, some of the respondents also added that they
would expect their students to look for further information other than that given to
them but they get a lot of assistance and so they can be said to require this skill to a
certain degree. Some respondents did not expect first-year undergraduates to need
this skill. Only the CLAWS and OPTOM respondents, who said that their first-year
students are given less or no support as their courses progress, can be said to require
their first-years to realise their own need for information.
36
Non-academic respondents
Five of the seven non-academic respondents replied that first-year students
are told when they need to locate information but then they might also be expected to
realise they need to access additional information. Although the Aberconway
respondent said the first-year students were mainly told.
“I would say that first years are mainly told where to locate, or what they need to
locate anyway not necessarily where to locate it.” (Aberconway)
“…I think they’re expected to use information resources but the reading lists count
for an awful lot I think in the first year, therefore, there’s a perception that there’s
information that they need to get but…they don’t have to go and find it in the sense of
starting from scratch.” (Assl)
“…in some cases they are told when they need to look further. Other cases I
suspect…they are expected to use their common sense.” (Biomed)
The Bute and DYSX respondents also felt this was the case but said it was more
likely that first-year students would need the ability to realise their own information
need.
“…because it’s a big step from A’ level studies to undergraduate level…they don’t
realise the need for information…. [Do you think that changes throughout the first
year then, do they become more aware of their own need to find information?]. Yes
they do because they get more individual project work, they have to work on their
own, they’re less directed than they were maybe at school. So they do realise the
need for finding out more and more information for their projects and their essays.”
(Bute)
“They are expected to know that they need to access information. They aren’t
expected straight away to know exactly where and when they’re supposed to get it so
I suppose in the first year they’re given a lot more assistance.” (DYSX)
37
The Law respondent definitely expected that first-year CLAWS students would need
to be able to realise their own information need.
“…I don’t think when they are given their other exercises in other substantive law
topics they are actually told ever this is the kind of information you need…” (Law)
The AREG respondent felt the disciplines varied too much to be able to give a
general response.
The responses from the non-academic staff to this question were thus mixed.
The main point that was made is that students are given a lot of help in locating
information for their courses but they are expected to realise their need to access it.
Bute, Law and DYSX, however, definitely felt that first-year students would need to
realise their own information need. Only the Aberconway respondent felt that the
students were told and would not have to realise their own need for information.
AQ3. In what ways are they expected to use the information they find in
assignments?
Nine of the ten academic respondents expected first-year students to read
material and use it within their assignments although the CARBS respondent felt
staff would not be looking for specific information due to the volume of students in
the first-year.
38
“If it’s a sort of a project, an extended project well, you know, they’ve got to do sort
of an element of reviewing of the literature and then a critical appraisal of what’s
going on”. (BIOSI)
“…we actually mark with particular criteria in mind and…one of those includes the
research…we actually sort of mentally allocate marks for the research, for the use of
the research, you know, how sophisticated is the use of the research etc. etc.”
(CLAWS)
“…What we would look for in the assignments is evidence of having read the
material…that they’ve understood that material…” (CPLAN)
“They’re expected to read around the topic and absorb that reading and then draw
from it. And we ask them also to refer to it in very specific sorts of ways in other
words use a proper referencing system and reference in ways that are…standard
practice.” (JOMEC)
“…it’s mainly sort of to compare and contrast their results with previous work so it’s
standard basic sort of citing from the field.” (OPTOM)
Eight respondents expected first-year undergraduates to produce evidence of
what they have read in a bibliography or references:
“A thorough bibliography, good use of footnotes to show how the information has
been used…” (CLAWS)
This was not an absolute requirement within EUROS or MATHS. The MATHS
respondents do not expect their students to read other material and for that reason a
bibliography is not required.
“…we do ask them to provide bibliographies most of the time but if they come up
with something incredibly original and good without producing a bibliography then
that counts just as much as something mediocre that has a good bibliography.”
(EUROS)
39
Thus, the majority of respondents are first-years to show they have read some
material although the ways in which it is used, as the quotations indicate, may vary.
All of the respondents except EUROS and MATHS required their first-year students
to show evidence of what they had read in the references or a bibliography.
AQ4, NQ2. How are first-year undergraduates expected to locate appropriate
information for their course?
Academic respondents
All of the academic departments interviewed provided their first-year
undergraduates with reading lists, book lists or references which were expected to be
their main starting point for locating information for their courses.
“…on all their module descriptions they have a list of recommended texts so they’ve
got a starting point.” (COMSC)
“The reading list is the main source…” (CPLAN)
“…usually they will be expected for most assignments to cover reading that’s listed
in the module but also to maybe go a little bit beyond as well…” (JOMEC)
Other methods of information retrieval expected of students included searching the
OPAC (BIOSI, CPLAN), Internet search engines (COMSC), references from
references suggested by lecturers (CARBS), electronic bibliographic databases
(CLAWS, BIOSI) and library research (JOMEC).
In answer to this question the respondents from MATHS and ENCAP did not
expect their students to use alternative methods of information retrieval other than
the reading list.
“…it can be very off putting to read a different book because there might be different
notations…and notation can throw you so they do tend to like nice lecture notes and
stick to that although they’re sent out to the catalogue with a recommended book
list.” (MATHS)
40
The ENCAP respondent expected first-year students to focus on the way they write
rather on information retrieval:
“The first-year of university’s so much in English about creating an individual sort
of way of doing something and establishing the idea they can actually do this. That’s
where the push is and we would in a sense be misdirecting them if we were pushing
them too much into the area of information retrieval.”
Six of the respondents did, however, expect their students to use other methods of
information retrieval but they did not mention they expected their students to use
bibliographic citation indexes.
“So different stages of effort I think we’re trying to look at for the students. They get
the papers everybody gets them so there’s a base. Then the next level is perhaps the
library where there are…the file or the folder…that lecturers have behind the
counter that they can pick information from which are like six photocopies of a
certain paper. So students may only make that effort to go that far or they may go
further, you know, use the references in the references.” (CARBS)
“They can use the search engines for the web material and they do.” (COMSC)
“I would hope that they would then become acquainted with using Voyager to locate
material that we haven’t set.” (CPLAN)
This last quote from the CPLAN respondent contradicts their response to
AQ2. This will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Only two respondents (BIOSI and CLAWS) said they required their students
to use electronic bibliographic databases to locate information in answer to this
question. Although, as indicated by their response to AQ2, BIOSI students are told
when they need to use these.
41
Thus, according to all the academic respondents, all first-year students are
expected to start their information retrieval strategies with references provided for
them but the degree to which they are required to use additional, more advanced,
methods of information retrieval varies. MATHS and ENCAP did not think
information retrieval was an important skill for their first-years to possess. At the
next level, further simple information retrieval methods are expected such as the
Voyager OPAC or Internet search engines and finally the CLAWS and BIOSI
respondents expected students to use more advanced methods such as bibliographic
databases.
Non-academic respondents
In response to this question all of the non-academic staff interviewed said that
first-year undergraduates are given reading lists which are expected to be their main
information retrieval method. However, the Bute, Law and Assl respondents also
added that first-years may use other methods of accessing information. Assl and
Law suggested their students could be expected to locate information using the
Voyager OPAC and textbooks respectively. The Bute respondent expected first-year
undergraduates to gain information from a wide range of sources apart from reading
lists:
“…they are shown the subject related resource pages on the web, they get handouts,
they get information sheets on appropriate resources and they often talk to each
other as well…They will also come and talk on a one-to-one basis with staff here
when they have their particular projects and we can direct them to other resources
that might be appropriate.” (Bute)
In addition to these resources this respondent also thought first-years might use broad
bibliographic databases such as Web of Science and Science Direct.
Again the AREG respondent said the answer to this question varied
depending on the subject although most first-years are given reading lists.
Thus the response to this question from the non-academic staff revealed that
students are, in the main, expected to use their reading lists to locate information.
42
The respondents from Bute, Assl and Law felt that first-year students may use other
resources but only the Bute respondent expected students to construct more
complicated search strategies. This could either be because students receive a large
amount of training from the Bute Library, thus equipping them with these skills or it
could be that the Bute respondent had higher expectations than the other non-
academic staff interviewed.
AQ5, NQ3. What types of print resources do you expect first-year
undergraduates to use during their course?
Academic respondents
All ten academic respondents required their students to use books during their
course, either textbooks or monographs. OPTOM and MATHS expected their
students to only read these.
“…we generally expect them to look at books, if they use journals then great but on
the whole our students tend not to use journals that much in the first year. It’s only
the better students that get that far…” (OPTOM)
Eight of the ten respondents mentioned that their students may need to access
journal articles at some point during their course although this tended to be to a much
lesser extent than books. OPTOM also indicated, as shown in the quote above, the
better students may use journal articles but it was not an expectation. However, in
many cases students were not expected to locate suitable journal articles themselves.
They are told which ones they need to read and most are located in photocopy
collections in the libraries: “we have resources of journal articles…so a set of file
trays full of photocopied journal articles which they can then draw upon.” (JOMEC)
The respondent from CPLAN only expected first-years to read the journal articles
they are given copies of in tutorials, they are not expected to locate articles
themselves. In COMSC, the students were sometimes asked to look at computing
magazines which also contain current information even though it may not be
produced for academic purposes:
43
“Sometimes we may have done things where they would be asked to look at
something in say Byte Magazine. It’s not a journal but on the other hand it is a
computing related magazine and some of these magazines can have quite up-to-date
articles…. So I think that would be the equivalent at first year of heavier journals
further down the line.”
Newspapers may be used, according to respondents from six of the departments
interviewed, but only to a very limited extent. Other types of information accessed
were more subject specific such as law reports, statutes, statute citators (CLAWS)
and government publications (CPLAN).
Thus, there are no typical resources all first-year students are expected to use
except books although most required them to use journal articles but to a lesser
degree. The answer to this question was very dependent upon the material available
and suitable for first-year students and their subject disciplines.
Non-academic respondents
All of the non-academic respondents mentioned that students will mainly use
books.
“…first years it tends to be very much more text-book based really only with journals
does it come in with the higher levels…” (AREG)
“For most departments it’s probably going to be books and photocopies of articles.
Possibly they’ll be directed to journals other than photocopied articles. But I think
that’s the exception rather than the rule.” (Assl)
The five library respondents in this group also said that journal articles might
be used but it was generally felt these would be photocopies of journal articles held
in photocopy collections and they would not have to locate articles in the bound
volumes.
44
“They might not know what journals are as such but they might be referred to
journal articles that are in our photocopy collection so…I don’t think they do a lot of
looking in journals.” (Aberconway)
Aberconway, Law and Bute added that newspapers would be used by at least some
students. Law also mentioned that students would be required to use Law Reports.
The DYSX respondent said the answer to this question varies depending on the
department the students are from.
Thus, the majority said books would be the main print resources accessed and
that photocopies of journal articles might also be used. Beyond this, the resources
first-year students are expected to access varies according to the subject area.
AQ6, NQ4. What types of electronic resources do you expect first-year
undergraduates to use during their course?
Academic respondents
In response to this question all of the respondents expected their students to
be able to use Internet resources. All ten respondents mentioned this included web-
sites or search engines although MATHS only expect their first-year students to be
able to use the Voyager OPAC. The main expectation was that students use search
engines or URLs to access web-sites rather than subject-based gateways and portals.
The respondents from BIOSI and JOMEC were unable to answer in that level of
detail and it is not clear from the responses from CLAWS and ENCAP whether this
is the case.
“I think that they probably search I wouldn’t think [that they use] subject based
portals. There are some very good subject-based portals developing for our subject
area…so whether we might make more use of that but then the volume of information
that we tend to get from them tends to be beyond what’s practical in a module…”
(CPLAN)
Three respondents mentioned they expected their students to use the Voyager
OPAC. The remaining interviewees were not asked about this although it can be
45
speculated that most would need to use it in order to locate materials in the library.
The respondent from ENCAP mentioned that he prefers students use Amazon.co.uk
rather than the OPAC because it is more informative:
“…what I suggest to students is that rather than looking at the library catalogue that
again their best place is to start with Amazon on these things because the library
catalogue just sort of names the book whereas Amazon is likely to provide a
description of what’s going on in the book.”
The respondents from BIOSI, CARBS, CLAWS, CPLAN, ENCAP and
EUROS also said they expect their students to use electronic bibliographic databases.
“Certainly being able to handle the Internet and a number of databases. They have
access to…not just…your Internet but… things like Fame…” (CARBS)
“We expect them to able to use electronic databases, legal electronic databases and
we only expect them to use one in the first year.” (CLAWS)
“I would say towards the end of the first year there are resources that we expect
them to start using CD-ROMs and databases…” (CPLAN)
Of the remaining four respondents who said they did not expect first-year
undergraduates to use electronic bibliographic databases, one respondent suggested
this was because it is “a bit advanced for them…” (JOMEC)
The majority of the departments interviewed did not voice the expectation
that their first-year students should be able to use electronic journals which can
probably be attributed to the fact that, as shown in AQ5, most respondents did not
expect students to locate journal material themselves, only that held in the photocopy
collection.
“No…not in the first year I don’t think they would use e-journals….We’re not using
journals so we wouldn’t necessarily use e-journals.” (CPLAN)
46
One respondent felt they might use an e-journal without realising it but this cannot be
described as an expectation.
“Only in so far as a search engine might turn up something in any electronic
resource and the students will not necessarily be that aware of it but it would be an
indirect effect.” (COMSC)
Respondents from CLAWS, BIOSI and CARBS expected their first year students to
be able to use electronic journals.
“Rather than photocopy a paper 300 times at 6 pages, you’re talking about a few
reams of paper, just give the pathname to the Internet site that allows them to access
it…that’s where they get some of their information from, you know, put a few words
in and away they go.” (CARBS)
“…journal articles a lot of them are available online so we expect them to be able to
use those online.” (CLAWS)
The lecturer from JOMEC also said their first-year students were told about
electronic journals and the EUROS respondent felt they might use them but to a
lesser degree because: “I think of all the… paper based resources they use, they
probably use journal articles the least because, just because it’s that much more
complex…”. From these responses it is not clear that they expect first-year students
to use them but they might.
Overall it can be said that all first-year students are required to have at least
some knowledge of appropriate electronic resources but there was a range in the ones
they were expected to use. All of the respondents said first-years would need to use
the Internet but only six said they should also use bibliographic databases. Two also
said they would use electronic journals.
Non-academic respondents
All of the non-academic respondents said many students were using the
Internet to access web-sites or the Voyager OPAC.
47
“I think they do use web-sites…for current awareness” (Aberconway)
“They’re very likely to use web browsers I would have thought, search engines, to
supplement reading” (Assl)
The respondents from Bute and Biomed commented that some of their first-
year students may use web-based gateways and portals. Four of the seven
respondents (Assl, Biomed, Bute and Law) said they would expect first-year
undergraduates to use bibliographic databases if they had been trained although Assl
and Biomed respondents were only asked to give this training to some departments.
The respondents from Aberconway, Biomed and Law also all said first-year
students might use electronic journals. Although the Aberconway and Biomed
respondents thought if they did use them it would be without realising:
“E-journals they might I suppose come across them by accident you know because…
some of our photocopies are also available as e-journals recommended articles and
they’re on Voyager so they might come across one of those…” (Aberconway)
“…anything they come across as a result of Voyager training which would be
electronic journals, electronic resources on the reading lists, I would expect that they
would use or they would think ok I can use this.” (Biomed)
The respondent from Law thought they might use the electronic journals they found
using Westlaw, a legal electronic database which includes, amongst other features,
full-text journals. The Law respondent also added that first-year students were likely
to use a wider range of electronic information during the compulsory Legal
Foundations module than in any other.
The AREG respondent answered that the electronic resources students will be
required to use depend on their subject but students are increasingly using the
Internet.
48
Thus, the responses from the non-academic staff indicate that the electronic
resources first-year students are expected to use will vary across departments. For
example, the Biomed and Assl libraries mentioned they are not asked to provide
database training to students from all the departments they serve. None of the
respondents expected them to be able to use a large range which indicates that first-
years are required to use less electronic than print resources in the first-year. There
appears to be no degree of similarity between departments in answer to this question
apart from the fact that all of them felt many students would use the Internet but this
does not necessarily mean it is an expectation that all first-year students should use it.
AQ7, NQ5. Are they expected to use particular searching techniques when using
electronic resources? If yes what are they?
Academic respondents
Six out of the ten respondents did not expect their first year undergraduates to
be able to use searching techniques when using electronic resources.
“I don’t think we tell them how to narrow down their search much quicker. I think it
will be basically trial and error for them, it’s their own learning curve.” (CARBS)
“…I don’t think…they do special things, they just use ordinary, amateur or
layperson’s type ways in keywords and so on…” (COMSC)
“Not in the first year. Not in my experience we wouldn’t use them because of our
limited use of that kind of material…” (CPLAN)
“…there might be somebody in the department who knows about such things but we
as staff don’t know sufficient about that stuff.” (ENCAP)
Although they did not say they expected them to use particular searching techniques,
the OPTOM and EUROS respondents felt that first-years were capable:
49
“As far as I know nobody actually trains them in that though I am sure that they’re
probably far more proficient than most staff are…because I think a lot of that’s
actually done in school and they’re quite capable of using search engines and stuff
already…” (EUROS)
“They’re certainly not expected to but we tend to find that all our students…seem to
familiarise themselves with [those skills] quite quickly…” (OPTOM)
The respondents from BIOSI, JOMEC and CLAWS were unsure, although the
BIOSI respondents mentioned that first-year students would be able to do keyword,
author name and title searches when responding to AQ8. Only the respondent from
MATHS suggested it was briefly covered during a computing skills module that they
teach but they are not expected to need to use them.
The reasons for this lack of expectation for students to use searching
techniques are explained in the answers given to this question. The first is that
suggested by EUROS and ENCAP in that the staff do not know enough about it
themselves to expect the students to be able to do it.
“…there might be somebody in the department who knows about such things but we
as staff don’t know sufficient about that stuff.” (ENCAP)
It also tends to be the domain of library staff to conduct training in searching
techniques which is shown by the answers given by the BIOSI, CLAWS and JOMEC
respondents who suggested gaining a response from library staff. There is also the
attitude shown by the EUROS respondent that finding information is more important
to academic staff than the way it is found. Although this attitude does not consider
the information students may fail to find because of an inability to search efficiently.
“…we tend to view the information itself as more important than the actual process
of retrieving the information. We don’t really mind how they get it…” (EUROS)
Thus, overall there was a distinct lack of expectation that students should be
able to use particular searching techniques when using electronic resources. Some of
50
the respondents were unsure which may suggest that these are skills in which
academic staff tend not to train students. The indication by ENCAP and EUROS that
academic staff are also unaware of effective searching techniques suggests that staff
training might be lacking.
Non-academic respondents
The respondents from Aberconway, ASSL, Biomed and Bute expected to
train those first-year undergraduates who attended training sessions on using
electronic information resources in effective searching techniques. The DYSX
respondent expected them to be able to select appropriate keywords. The Law and
AREG interviewees felt they would not expect first year undergraduates to use
searching techniques. The Law respondent said this was because the particular
database she taught to first-year undergraduates does not require these skills.
Of the respondents who answered positively to this question, the main
strategy taught to students was selecting keywords.
[In Voyager instruction] “We emphasise the importance of keyword searching, how
broad and also how precise it can be and then also the use of pluses….” (Assl)
But if giving students electronic databases training the respondent from ASSL would
also:
“make it clear that they need to construct a strategy and that they need to take
advantage of the special features of the database, if it allows Boolean searching or
truncation or any of the other features that most databases have then we would make
these explicit.” (Assl)
This is also true of Biomed and Bute who teach students Boolean as well as about
selecting keywords and synonyms although the Biomed respondent does not refer to
it as Boolean with first-years.
Thus, most of the non-academic respondents expected those students to
whom they provided training to be able to employ effective searching techniques
51
although there were some who felt this was unnecessary. If training is provided it
mainly tends to include selecting keywords and synonyms although some Boolean is
also taught.
AQ8, NQ6. Are they expected to have knowledge of the principles of
constructing and generating databases in order to better improve their
searching ability?
Academic Respondents
None of the academic respondents expected their students to have knowledge
of the principles of constructing and generating databases for the sake of improving
their searching ability.
“I don’t think so probably for year one. That I would sort of take as being probably a
higher order skill.” (BIOSI)
Two of the respondents may have offered a reason for this negative response. The
BIOSI respondents felt it was too advanced a skill for first-years and the EUROS
respondent suggested that the staff in the department did not have knowledge of this
skill.
Non-academic respondents
All the non-academic respondents answered no to this question. Although
the respondent from ASSL added that during some training sessions he has taught
students about database fields:
“because I think that it does help to make it clear why you need to search a
particular database in a particular way.” (Assl)
There was no indication from the non-academic respondents as to why a negative
response was given.
52
AQ9, NQ7. Are there any non-print and non-electronic information resources
first-year undergraduates are expected to use? If yes what are they?
Academic respondents
In response to this question, the BIOSI respondent mentioned that their
students are members of the British Medical Association. It is not an expectation
that first-year students join but they are provided with information about it. EUROS
invite staff from France to teach their students and COMSC ask visitors from the
computing industry to give lectures.
“They have exposure to people from outside in that our Contemporary Topics
lecturers are to the most part people from industry. So somebody from IBM comes
in, somebody from BT, smaller local companies. Some of the brighter students may
well chat with them afterwards…” (COMSC)
“…they have a lot of input from foreign language assistants…who are students in
France who come here for a year to teach them French and who run things like
cinema clubs and discussion groups and so forth…” (EUROS)
Other resources mentioned in answer to this question were video (JOMEC and
COMSC), field visits, council meetings and “maps and other illustrative material”
(CPLAN) all of which were organised by the departments. MATHS also mentioned
their students get help from within the department from tutors and help classes.
Thus approaching experts or organisations was not really an expectation,
although the CLAWS respondent suggested it was a way students could get extra
credit. One reason for this was suggested by the CARBS respondent:
“We have sort of connections with lots of like banks, accountancy firms, and lots of
things like that but at the first year level, the number of students taking specific
courses is too large. That is available where we have people who do case studies
etc.”
53
Thus, none of the respondents expected students to approach experts or
organisations external to the department themselves but some were expected to use
other forms of non-print and non-electronic material such as videos. There was a
variety of response to this question indicating the non-print and non-electronic
resources that first-year students are expected to use depends on the suitability of the
source to the subject area.
Non-academic respondents
None of the non-academic respondents expected first-year undergraduates to
access organisations or experts outside of the University as information resources.
Other non-print and non-electronic resources mentioned include talking to tutors,
library staff and each other (Aberconway) and video (Bute).
AQ10, NQ8. What computer applications should they be able to use?
Academic respondents
Eight of the respondents felt their students should be able to navigate the web
but for EUROS and OPTOM students it was not a requirement.
“…they need to be able to navigate round the web but I imagine that they could
perfectly well manage without navigating around the web because there are other
sources of information as well.” (EUROS)
The majority of the respondents also expected students to be able to use a
word-processing package and email. The response from MATHS as to whether
students need to be able to use these was not clear. CPLAN and EUROS do not
require assignments to be typed and so the ability to word-process is not essential.
Similarly they do not expect students to be able to use email. However, CPLAN
email their overhead slides from lectures to students so there is an expectation that if
students want to access these they will need to use email and the EUROS respondent
thought it was something they tended to learn:
54
“Usually by Christmas they’re not saying any more I don’t know how to use my
email account but it’s not something that we show them how to do particularly. I
imagine that…many of them have already got Hotmail and things like that.”
(EUROS)
Other applications mentioned in the responses varied depending upon the
discipline: SPSS (BIOSI and OPTOM), Excel (CARBS, MATHS and OPTOM),
Sage (CARBS), Microsoft Project and PowerPoint (COMSC), graphics package
(CPLAN), language learning package (EUROS) and an algebraic manipulation
package (MATHS). Only one department (ENCAP) mentioned their students use
Endnote although it did not seem to be an expectation:
“Yes they can do that [In the first year?]. Yes…they do do that stuff. And again have
tremendous problems with it…” (ENCAP)
All the respondents thus expected their students to be literate in information
technology to some degree although the applications respondents said their students
should use and the degree of competency expected were not the same. The COMSC
respondent, for example, understandably expected their students to be very IT literate
but EUROS and CPLAN were much less demanding in this area.
Non-academic respondents
All of the non-academic respondents expected first-year undergraduates to be
able to use Word, email and an Internet browser although the Biomed respondent
was unsure.
“…on the whole they want to be able to use a web browser, want to be able to use a
word-processor, they want to be able to use email….That’s the other thing, they’d
need to know how to log into the network” (Assl)
The Biomed and Bute respondents added that medical, pharmacy and optometry
students require knowledge of SPSS and Excel. Biomed and DYSX also thought
some students would need PowerPoint.
55
The AREG and DYSX interviewees felt that the IT abilities required of
students varied depending on the discipline. The AREG respondent expressed
concern about this implying this is not a satisfactory situation:
“Again it’s discipline specific to a large extent which I think is to some extent
unfortunate.” (AREG)
Regarding the use of Endnote, only the respondent from DYSX encourages
her students to use it but she did not think departments expected it. The respondent
from Bute said she taught it last year because that was when it had first become
available on the Cardiff University network but it was not very successful.
“I don’t think that many students actually got to grips with Endnote they did it
manually if they cited their references. They listed their citations manually, I think
they found Endnote a bit difficult to grasp. [So they could probably could get away
without using it in the first year?] They probably could yes.” (Bute)
Thus, the non-academic respondents all expected that first-years should be
able to use at least Word, email and an Internet browser. However, some
respondents mentioned that first-years may be required to use other applications
depending on their subject.
AQ11, NQ9. What consideration do you expect first-year undergraduates to
take when comparing and evaluating sources?
Academic respondents
Five of the respondents, including BIOSI, felt that first-year students need to
consider the authority of the sources they use.
56
“…we expect them to able to rank them in terms of authority so that they know what
is the most authoritative source that they can cite in support of whatever point it is or
whatever proposition it is that they’re putting forward.” (CLAWS)
“I suppose whether it’s authored anonymously or not if they’re looking at something
on the web in order to make sure it’s not a student essay…is it related to an editorial
team… What kind of publication is this from is it from a tabloid newspaper or is it
from a broadsheet newspaper…is it from an academic journal or is it from
a…student rag….So I guess it’s a kind of scale of sources really, a kind of hierarchy
of who’s written it, where’s it produced from, is the information verifiable as well as
what’s contained in a web-site is that also replicated in written sources.” (EUROS)
“…things I want to try and teach students a little bit about is how to discriminate
between, you know, a more authoritative source and a less authoritative source.”
(JOMEC)
“Certainly authority, if they’re getting information off of the web seems to be a
critical issue.” (OPTOM)
These respondents also wanted first-year students to consider the bias of the
author of the sources they use.
57
“they don’t seem to sort of take [into consideration?] the organisation that’s
generated the page.” (BIOSI)
“…that’s part of the purpose of that exercise that I explained to you where we ask
them to take different perspectives and produce the information so that they can start
recognising that, however objective something that’s written might seem to be, you
always need to stand back and look at what the person writing it was trying to
achieve.” (CLAWS)
“…in terms of the information…not only who is it coming from but who is it aimed
at. Is it aimed to persuade or is it aimed to inform.” (EUROS)
“…always to consider what the function of any particular web-site is, in other words,
is the function of this web-site to sell a corporate image, to sell advertising space.”
(JOMEC)
“We would expect the students to be able to judge the information differently
depending on how and where they obtained the information.” (OPTOM)
These issues appeared to be particularly of concern with regard to information first-
year students find on the world wide web as is shown by the responses from the
JOMEC and BIOSI respondents above.
The response from the ENCAP respondent on these issues was ambiguous but it
could be argued that he also expected first-years to possess the ability to evaluate the
authority and bias of a source:
“They’re being taught to be critical readers in English and so again they’re exactly
the same skills that they should be employing the moment they turn to any material
they encounter on the web.”
Of the remaining four respondents, COMSC, CPLAN and MATHS felt issues
of authority and bias were skills students would require in later years of the course:
58
“I suppose I’m pleased that they’ve actually gone beyond because they’re exhibiting
a bit of initiative so all credit in exhibiting that initiative to look to other
things…What’s not useful is them throwing in things for the sake of illustrating that
they’ve looked elsewhere.” (CPLAN)
A response was not gained regarding these points from the CARBS respondent.
Selecting relevant information from sources was also mentioned as important
by the six departments prompted about this. A response was not gained from
JOMEC, BIOSI, CARBS and MATHS to this question.
“…if…they aren’t able to demonstrate the relevance of the information that they’re
using to the topic that they are addressing then they’re going to lose a lot of marks.”
(CLAWS)
“…in the department anything that’s essential reading we asterisk twice, anything
that’s recommended once and then there are other resources that they can use. So we
would expect students to use that as their benchmark of what is relevant…”
(CPLAN)
“I think it’s simply their own judgements really about what is useful and what isn’t
useful…” (ENCAP)
“The best students will always…focus on the question, find appropriate information
and always use the information to answer the question rather than the other way
round. And the less able students tend to focus on the information rather than the
question thinking that they’re in the general area so they’ll put as much down as
possible.” (EUROS)
“They need to show they’ve understood what they’ve read…in the context of
particularly their own results so using that sort of technique. So basic scientific skills
in comprehension and deduction.” (JOMEC)
59
Issues concerning the currency of the source were also mentioned by two
departments (BIOSI and CLAWS). In response to AQ1 the CLAWS respondent, for
example, said:
“…we want them to appreciate that you know particularly studying law which can
change overnight they’ve got to be able to access the most current information.”
(CLAWS)
There is again variation in the expectation of the skills students require when
evaluating sources. Of the nine respondents who felt they could answer this question,
six, if the response from the ENCAP interviewee is included, felt first-year students
should consider the authority and the bias of the source. The fact that four of the
nine respondents who answered this question did not think students require these
abilities may relate to the fact that students, in all of the departments from which
representatives were interviewed, receive a list of references, as discussed in AQ4,
which are obviously considered to be suitable. The students are expected to derive
most of their information from these and therefore, in most cases, perform little
information retrieval beyond that. All six respondents who were prompted regarding
students’ need to possess the skill of selecting appropriate content from the material
they were accessing replied this was a required skill. Thus, proportionately this
appears to be more of a fundamental skill than that of considering the
appropriateness of sources.
Non-academic respondents
The Assl and AREG respondents did not expect first-year students to possess
the ability to evaluate sources:
“…my feeling is that those are the skills that are perhaps most lacking in terms of the
critical analysis and the you know, the evaluation of the validity of the particular
sources…I think that’s maybe the one element in the kind of information literacy
area that isn’t very well catered for in sort of taught provision and sort of informal
provision.” (AREG)
60
The remaining five non-academic interviewees expected their students to
evaluate sources according to some criteria although, with the exception of the
respondent from DYSX these expectations tended to be low:
“…I mean certainly we would encourage them, in their writing, to critically evaluate
people’s thinking and not just to think if it’s written it must be true.”
The Bute respondent felt first-years would not take much notice of the quality of the
sources they use even if they were taught in her training sessions although she did
say that lecturers would think it was important:
“I don’t think, even if you did demonstrate it, I don’t think that they would worry too
much about the authority of a piece of work. I think the lecturers would…” (Bute)
Thus, the Bute respondent did not expect first-years to know about authority and bias
but knew it was important to lecturers. The Law respondent also did not think that
first-year CLAWS students would have to consider the quality of the sources they
use because they are required to access very specific sources which are known to be
authoritative.
“…its not the kind of thing where they’re going off searching the web, finding
different journal articles, finding different arguments its black letter law…I mean
you don’t think of the law reports and say…this is biased…” (Law)
The quality of the material students gain from the Internet does appear to be a
concern for some respondents:
“…one of the politics lecturers wanted me to see his students because he was
dissatisfied with the level of information they were getting off the Internet to
supplement their essay assignments the fact that they weren’t really getting good
information…” (Assl)
Four out of five of the non-academic respondents prompted expected first-
year students to select appropriate content from the sources they use in order to
61
satisfy their information need. DYSX and AREG were not asked about this and the
response from the Assl respondent was not clear.
“…they’d need to able to assess that the content is appropriate for their information
need because otherwise they’re going to be writing an essay on totally off the point
aren’t they. I suppose that the source is appropriate. If it produces the content that
they need then the source will be appropriate”. (Aberconway)
“They need to evaluate whether the data and the information they’re getting from the
resource is actually going to help them in answering the query that they’ve got in the
right way.” (Bute)
Thus, the expectation that students would consider issues of bias and
authority when evaluating information was generally low among the non-academic
respondents. The ability to draw appropriate content for their information need from
sources was more of an expectation.
Q12, Q10. What are they expected to know about the moral and legal issues
surrounding information?
Academic respondents
Plagiarism was considered to be an important issue by all of the academic
respondents.
“Plagiarism is quite a big issue….That’s not only plagiarism of sources but also
plagiarism of other student’s work.” (EUROS)
For the majority this meant both forms of plagiarism – of published and other
students’ work although the main concern of the MATHS respondents was regarding
the latter form which relates to their response to AQ4 that students mainly use lecture
notes and are not expected to locate other resources, thus removing the need to
consider issues of plagiarising sources. COMSC, did stress, however, that plagiarism
was not taken so seriously with first-year students but that they tried to instil good
62
practice as early as possible which indicates this is considered to be formative
learning process until the second year.
“…when some of them do it in the first year we have them in and give them a severe
talking to because we would rather they learned the lesson then and…certainly knew
what it was and didn’t do it in their two honours years.” (COMSC)
Some departments described the type of guidance and procedures that they
provide to reduce plagiarism which shows that informing students about plagiarism
is deemed to be a responsibility of academic departments.
“They have a section in their course handbook on plagiarism which is over and
above what’s in the university handbook…” (BIOSI)
“They’ve got pieces of paper about it, we tell them about it, we remind them about
it… we also have a coursework submission sheet which says…on the front. I hereby
declare this is my own work…which they sign” (COMSC)
“In my course now we have set aside in one of the tutorials a specific requirement
that tutors go through guidelines on plagiarism with examples so that all students
are then deemed to know what plagiarism is. And on every piece of work that they
have to hand in is a warning, please sign that you have read and understood.”
(CLAWS)
“So we bombard them with…warnings about plagiarism, what the penalties are
involved in plagiarism…. Every newsletter we issue, we will re-issue warnings about
plagiarism…We do it in formal format in module guides…” (ENCAP)
Issues of copyright appeared to be, however, less of a concern. No response
was derived from the MATHS and CLAWS respondents regarding this issue.
63
“I’m not sure that we talk too much about copyright because the copyright
restrictions aren’t usually quite so critical for students they’re more important for
the staff to know about…” (BIOSI)
“I don’t think we tutor them really in those issues until later in the course because
again they do crop up when preparing dissertations where such issues become more
relevant.” (CPLAN)
“…we just let the students get on with it we let the library handle all these issues.”
(OPTOM)
CARBS, EUROS and JOMEC said first-year students should know about copyright
although CARBS and EUROS do not, however, tell the students about it they expect
them to find out from other sources.
“Don’t think academic staff make a big issue of telling them we’d hope they’d get it
from other ways.” (CARBS)
“…They are supposed to be aware of that [photocopying legally] but we don’t
mention it specifically.” (EUROS)
Only JOMEC told students about copyright but that was included in a general lecture
on intellectual property law as part of a module and was not related to their own use
of copyright material.
Thus, there was a sharp contrast in the answers to this question from the
academic staff in that plagiarism is a high priority among all the academics
interviewed but copyright is much less of an issue. Even those who expected their
students to know about copyright did not expect to teach it to them whereas all
departments advise their students on plagiarism and how to avoid it. There is also
greater concern about students plagiarising than infringing copyright law.
64
Non-academic respondents
All of the non-academic respondents except AREG expected first-year
students to have knowledge of both copyright and plagiarism. It is not clear from the
AREG respondent whether knowledge of copyright is an expectation.
“Certainly they need to know about copyright….. When they’re copying information
for example on the photocopier they need to know what they can photocopy and what
they can’t. They need to know about plagiarism. They need to know that they have to
acknowledge by a citation anybody else’s work that they use and quote and they are
marked down very hard if they don’t do that…” (Bute)
Two of the respondents admitted they do not talk about these issues in-depth.
“It’s not something we cover with them apart from the need to reference to avoid
plagiarism…Copyright I suppose we do cover in that we have the notices by the
photocopiers…But this is a time issue, we’re trying to get them to find the key
information they need to complete their academic work.” (Biomed)
“I’ve tended to take a very pragmatic view…saying the important thing is that they
should know about the information resources and use them satisfactorily…” (Assl)
The AREG respondent felt that students are “not given much advice on [copyright]”.
Thus the non-academic respondents seemed to place equal importance on
first-year students knowing about both plagiarism and copyright although from most
of the responses it seems they do not provide them with information regarding these
issues. The extent of their support is displaying copyright notices by the
photocopiers in the libraries. As indicated by the Biomed respondent, this maybe
due to the short amount of time library staff are allowed in order to provide training.
65
AQ13, NQ11. Are they expected to have knowledge of the peer-review process?
Academic respondents
Only two of the respondents, BIOSI and CARBS, answered yes to this
question. Despite answering positively, the respondents from BIOSI were unsure
whether students did actually know about the peer-review process and the respondent
from CARBS only felt the students would know because they were given academic
papers to read by lecturers. Neither of these responses indicate they explicitly tell
students about peer-review and so this expectation may not be reality.
Non-academic respondents
All of the non-academic respondents except Biomed, who did not know the
answer, replied no this question.
AQ14. Is presentation taken into consideration when students’ work is marked?
If yes are they required to present work according to a standard set by the
department?
In eight out of the ten academic departments from which representatives were
interviewed, presentation is taken into consideration in the marking of at least some
of the work first-year students do. It can vary within departments depending on the
type of assignment they are doing.
“…what’s constantly stressed in relation to every aspect of their written work is that
they should conceive of every piece of written work as something they’d be sending
along for a job interview.” (ENCAP)
“Yes it can be depending upon the assignment. For this module…in a traditional
essay we wouldn’t mark that down….There are other modules throughout the course
where presentation…it is actually stated that that’s part of what the learning
outcomes should be for the module…” (CPLAN)
Only EUROS and MATHS do not deduct marks for poor presentation when marking
any assignments as long as the work is legible.
66
Despite eight departments taking presentation into account when marking
only BIOSI, ENCAP, JOMEC and COMSC issue standard guidelines for first-years.
Although CLAWS has no formal guidelines, the department is trying to build
presentation and writing skills tutorials into the Legal Foundations course because
the standard of first years’ written work is a concern.
Presentation does thus appear to be important to the academic respondents
even if only to the extent that the work is legible although there is variation in the
degree to which the skill is considered by the respondents during the marking
process. There was also variation between departments regarding how much
assistance first-years receive regarding presentation skills. Four departments take
responsibility for issuing guidelines and CLAWS include it in their Legal
Foundations module. However, in the other departments it is seen as a formative
process that is learned as each assignment is completed.
AQ15, NQ12. Do you expect first-year undergraduates to be able to cite
bibliographic references in assignments according to a recognised standard? If
yes which standard?
Academic respondents
Apart from the MATHS, EUROS and OPTOM respondents there was an
expectation that first-years students be able to cite references according to a
particular standard. The respondent from OPTOM did say students were expected to
cite them well, if not necessarily to a standard. The EUROS respondent also said it
was important but not vital:
“In terms of bibliographical references we’re probably more keen that they should
get those correct than we are that the whole essay looks attractive but if they don’t
get that right then they don’t get it right…I don’t think that correct referencing is an
important life skill I suppose for most graduates who are going on to do work that
isn’t academic work”.
67
There was variation between the respondents and also within departments as
to which referencing standards was preferred.
It can be suggested that the reason why the respondents from MATHS did not
expect students to be able to cite references was that their students were mainly
expected to rely on lecture notes. Their coursework also tends to consist of
mathematical problems which do not necessarily require them to use alternative
sources, as was shown in their answer to AQ4. Their concerns regarding plagiarism,
as indicated in their response to AQ12, were related to plagiarism of other students’
work rather than of published work. The fact that the remaining departments asked
students to cite references, whether to a standard or not relates to the importance of
plagiarism to the academics, as was indicated in their responses to AQ12.
Non-academic respondents
All of the respondents apart from Aberconway answered yes to this question.
“They should do because departments…are very keen on this…certainly we try and
incorporate this aspect at least by emphasising the significance of referencing…I
suspect that we could perhaps spend more time on it because students are certainly
uncertain when they see a reading list whether something’s a book or a journal or a
chapter in a book.” (Assl)
The Biomed respondent thought they would be expected to cite references
once they had been shown but she was unsure. The Aberconway respondent said
they might be required to cite to a specific standard if they have completed a studies
skills module which, amongst other things, teaches students how to cite references
correctly. It is not clear from these responses if they still expected first-years to cite
references in some way, whether to a required standard or not.
According to the responses, the actual standard preferred by departments
varies and it can differ within departments.
68
“…the likelihood of finding 50, say 25 lecturers…who all agree that they want their
references…in the same way is quite remote especially when…over two campuses.”
(Biomed)
Thus there was general agreement that this is a skill first-year students
require. There were two exceptions in the answers from Aberconway and Biomed
from whom it was not possible to ascertain a positive or negative response.
AQ16, NQ13. Are they expected to maintain a current awareness of their
subject? If yes, in what ways are they expected to do this?
Academic respondents
The respondents from MATHS, OPTOM, CARBS, COMSC, EUROS and
JOMEC all answered no to the fact that first year students should maintain a current
awareness of their subject although COMSC and EUROS added that they hoped they
might.
“Well we would hope that they do…lots of people who do computer science because
they enjoy it will do that automatically.” (COMSC)
“…it would be very nice if they were aware of the…finer points of what’s going on at
the moment in particular areas of the subject but…they’re still accruing a basic
knowledge” (EUROS)
The ENCAP respondent felt their students would need to be culturally aware
of their subject although his response regarding this question is ambiguous:
“…there’s a kind of element of cultural studies all the time in an English degree
these days and so they are being introduced to the idea that they can discuss Big
Brother just as much as they can discuss literary texts…”
The respondents from CLAWS, CPLAN and BIOSI answered yes to this question
although BIOSI did not think it was likely that first-years do maintain current
awareness in their first-year and that it was not as critical they do as for a
69
postgraduates. CLAWS students were expected to read newspapers in order to keep
up-to-date. It was not mentioned that they were expected to use any specialised
current awareness methods such as email alerts or journals. CPLAN did, however,
expect students to read professional journals.
There is too much variation in the response to this question to generalise
although more respondents did not expect first-year students to maintain current
awareness than did. Of those that did, the methods that they expected them to use
also differed although, with the exception of CPLAN, they were general rather than
specialist.
Non-academic respondents
The respondents from Aberconway, Biomed, Bute, Law and DYSX thought
first-years would be expected to maintain current awareness of their subject:
“I would imagine that their lecturers…tell them to read the newspapers…Maybe web
browsing or surfing might keep them up-to-date…” (Aberconway)
“…I believe that when they are given a module they tend sort of be told to make sure
you are looking at The Times or whatever it is you know to keep abreast of these
things.” (Law)
The methods that students were expected to use were mainly newspapers or the
Internet. Biomed and Bute thought some students may read some current journals
although the Bute respondent was unsure how much they did that.
“I think in pharmacy they’re expected to keep up with new work in the field of
pharmacy and drugs by looking at, now I don’t know that they would do this very
much, but looking at current journals…” (Bute)
Only the ASSL respondent thought students would not be required to maintain a
current awareness.
70
“Obviously, if they’re keen they’ll read widely about it but current awareness in the
sense of having regular notifications or checking regularly the same sources, I
wouldn’t have thought so.” (Assl)
The AREG respondent did not know the answer to this question.
The response from the non-academic departments was thus very mixed but it
must to be pointed out that most of the responses seemed speculative during the
interviews which was probably due to the fact that it is difficult to monitor students’
behaviour in this area. However, most thought this might be something students
would be required to do. The methods they were expected to use were, in the main,
non-specialist. Although Bute and Biomed mentioned academic journals, they were
unsure about how much students would actually use them.
AQ17, NQ14. Are first year undergraduates expected to synthesise and build
upon existing information in order to create new knowledge?
Academic respondents
Two respondents (CLAWS and ENCAP) yes to this question:
“…we don’t require them just to go find and report knowledge. They have to go and
find the information, they have to apply it to the task that they’ve been set… and the
sorts of tasks that we set will require new knowledge for them certainly and probably
new knowledge in the sense that I don’t set something where they can just go and
find an answer…” (CLAWS)
“…they’re taught that actually they will be spotting things which have never been
spotted before, new ways…of doing things. So…they’re shown a method but… the
method is the way of making the most of their own insights…” (ENCAP)
Although they don’t expect students to create new knowledge, two of the
respondents (CARBS and JOMEC) did add that they expect them to be able to
synthesise the information they read in assignments.
71
“They’re certainly there to synthesise you know how the knowledge is brought to
them and how they can sort of adapt it to give their own knowledge.” (CARBS)
“…certainly synthesise yes but come up with new knowledge I think for an
undergraduate to do that is to ask a lot really.” (JOMEC)
It can be said that the respondents from COMSC also agreed with this although they
actually said they do not expect students to synthesise information. However, they
then, in their next sentence went on to describe synthesis as one of the skills that
first-year students would need:
“I would guess it would be more gathering and analysis than synthesis at the first
year stage…so actually putting new ideas together is not what you would
expect….It’s more to be able to locate things and put them together and make some
sense of them and draw some conclusions from them.”
Thus, there was mixed opinion regarding this question although all of the
respondents, except for CLAWS and ENCAP felt this was not a skill first-years
would require. Some respondents said students would need to be able to synthesise
material but not in order to create new knowledge.
Non-academic respondents
The majority answered no to this question although the Aberconway, Bute
and Assl respondents felt they would need to be able to synthesise information if not
to create new knowledge.
72
“I think the idea for first years it is to get used to the information seeking procedure
and make sure that they can find information which will help them complete their
assignments to the best of their ability.”(Bute)
“…use different sources and…amalgamate them to produce an argument.”
(Aberconway)
“Well I don’t know about new knowledge not in the way that a researcher would
do…they’re obviously expected to synthesis the information that they’ve got in
producing an assignment so it’s their own work…” (Assl).
The Biomed respondent felt the students would need to possess this ability by their
third year but was unsure at what level of their undergraduate degree it would start to
be required and thus could not provide a definite answer to this question.
Thus all the respondents who could answer this question felt this is not a skill
first-year undergraduates require although they might need to be able to synthesise
information. A possible reason for this response may have been provided by the
AREG respondent who felt it was a higher level skill.
73
Chapter Five
The Information Literacy Needs of First-year Undergraduates:
Discussion and comparison of the results
The previous chapter presented the results pertaining to the answers to the
questions on the first part of the interview schedules. In this chapter the information
from the responses to the questions is presented in tables which serve to indicate
which of the SCONUL seven headline skills (1999) the respondents felt first-year
students require. Next to each of the skills in these tables the number of the
interview question corresponding to the point is indicated in brackets. The
information in these tables is explained and the responses from the different
stakeholders compared with each other and the SCONUL seven headlines skills
(1999). This information is then summarised and further discussed with
consideration of the other literature on the subject. It must be pointed out that the
responses to the questions did not give an opinion on all the sub-points of the seven
headline skills (SCONUL, 1999) and there is some data missing for points 2.3 and
3.1. This was mainly due to the fact that questions corresponding to these particular
SCONUL headline skills sub-points were not incorporated into the interview
schedules. If information is required as to whether first-years need these skills then it
will be necessary to conduct further investigation.
Comparison and explanation of the results
1 The ability to recognise a need for information
Academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 1 The ability to recognise a need for information (AQ2)
No. Told the literature they need to search.
Yes and no. Those who realise the need to look further will do well.
Yes. Given help at first but then are expected to realise.
Yes and no. They are given help but then have to realise.
Yes and no. Given references to key texts. Expected to use OPAC to look for additional info.
No. They are told what they need but can look elsewhere if they wish
Yes and no. Given reading lists. Some realise need to research further.
Yes and no. Given guidance. Students lack initiative to search for extra references
No. Yes. Given references but have to realise need to find more. Given less help as year progresses
74
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab’conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 1 The ability to recognise a need for information (NQ1)
No. Mainly told when they need to locate information
Yes and no. They are mostly told.
Yes and no. Sometimes they are told when there is a need to look further sometimes they are not.
Yes. They expect to be told at first and then start to realise the need to look further.
Yes. They need to be able to find their own information.
Varies Yes. They are expected to know they need to access information but they are given a lot of help.
There was disagreement amongst all the stakeholders as to whether this was a
required skill although, as mentioned in the question corresponding to this point in
Chapter Four, generally the academic respondents and their non-academic
counterparts agreed with each other. Some respondents, shown as giving a ‘yes and
no’ response in the tables above indicated that first-year students tend to be given a
large amount of support in the form of references or reading lists but then if they
want to access further resources they need the ability to realise it would be useful for
them to do this. This can be interpreted to mean they require this skill to a limited
extent but also receive a lot of assistance. The CPLAN response is shown as ‘yes
and no’ as it was ambiguous. In his response to AQ2, the question corresponding to
this skill point, this respondent said he did not expect students to use material other
than that on the reading list implying, in the interpretation taken in this study, that
students to not need this particular SCONUL headline skill (SCONUL, 1999). But in
answer to AQ4 he contradicted this response saying he would expect first-year
students to use the OPAC to look for material not on the reading list which suggests
first-year CPLAN students do need to realise their own need for information. Those
respondents shown in the tables as saying ‘yes’ give their first-years progressively
less or even no assistance and therefore increasingly expect them to realise their own
need for information without being told. Some did not expect their students to
possess this skill at all as they were only required to use the information supplied on
their reading lists which, in this study, has not been interpreted as the ability to
recognise a need for information. Most of the respondents would then expect first-
years to possess this skill even if only at a very low level but there are still those who
do not and so this is not a skill all first-years require.
75
2 The ability to distinguish ways in which the information ‘gap’ may be
addressed
Academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 2 The ability to distinguish ways in which the information 'gap' may be addressed
Books Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Journals Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No News-papers
No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No
Biblio-graphic Indexes
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No
Internet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No E-Journals
Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No
2.1
know
ledg
e of
app
ropr
iate
kin
ds o
f res
ourc
es,
both
pri
nt a
nd n
on-p
rint
(AQ
5,6,
9)
Other BMA Member-ship.
Law Reports, Statute Citators, statutes.
Comp-uting Magazines Videos, Visiting lecturers.
Gov’ment Publi-cations, CD ROM's, field visits, council meetings.
CD ROMs, French Assistants
Videos. Tutors, help classes.
2.2 selection of resources with 'best fit' for task at hand
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.3 the ability to understand the issues affecting accessibility of sources
76
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 2 The ability to distinguish ways in which the information 'gap' may be addressed
Books Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Varies Journals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Varies News-papers
Yes No No Yes (mainly JOMEC and Social Sciences)
Yes
Biblio-graphic Indexes
No Yes and no. Some students. Only if trained
Yes and no. Only medical and dentistry students
Yes Yes (Westlaw)
No No
Internet Yes Yes Yes (gateways and portals)
Yes (gateways and portals)
Yes Maybe Yes
E-Journals
Maybe will access these via the OPAC without realising what they are
No Maybe will access these via the OPAC without realising what they are
No Yes. Those on Westlaw.
No
2.1
know
ledg
e of
app
ropr
iate
kin
ds o
f res
ourc
es, b
oth
prin
t and
non
-pri
nt (N
Q3,
4,7)
Other Tutors, library staff, each other
Videos Law Reports
2.2 selection of resources with 'best fit' for task at hand
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.3 the ability to understand the issues affecting accessibility of sources
2.1 Knowledge of appropriate kinds of resources, both print and non-print
There were some contradictory responses from the OPTOM and EUROS
respondents regarding this skill. In response to one of the questions corresponding to
this point, AQ6, they said they expect first-years to use the Internet but when asked if
they required students to be able to use an Internet browser in AQ10 they responded
it was not a requirement. Thus, this response has been taken into consideration in
table above. There was general agreement on the resources first-years would need to
use between academic and non-academic respondents but more non-academic
interviewees mentioned that they expected first-year undergraduates to use gateways,
portals and electronic journals. For example, the Bute respondent said they would
need to use them but the OPTOM, CPLAN and JOMEC respondents disagreed. This
may be due to the fact that this respondent was generalising about all departments
served by the library, some of whom may use these resources. This problem, for the
Bute respondent, of generalising in response to questions is indicated by the fact that
JOMEC and OPTOM felt bibliographic databases would not be used but the CPLAN
77
respondent thought they would. All these departments are served by the Bute library.
It may also be that academic respondents were not entirely aware of the training their
students receive from library staff, as was indicated by the fact that the respondents
from BIOSI and JOMEC were unsure in some of their responses to AQ6 (see
Chapter Four). However, it could also be, given this response from the academic
staff that some library staff are teaching first-years skills they do not require. These
differences of opinion need to be resolved.
Despite these differences, having “knowledge of appropriate kinds resources”
can be considered to be a required skill of all the first-years represented by the
respondents as they all mentioned they expected students to use at least some print
resources and all except OPTOM required them to use electronic resources of some
kind. Overall the impression gained from the responses to this question was that
electronic resources were less used than print at this stage with many respondents
preferring their students to get used to accessing relevant print material with CLAWS
and BIOSI being the exception to this. The range of appropriate resources the
respondents expected first-years to use did, however, vary and books were the only
resource all the respondents expected first-years to use.
2.2 Selection of resources with best-fit for task at hand
Although a question corresponding to this point was not asked, it can be
deduced that this a required skill because all the respondents required first-year
students to have knowledge of appropriate resources and all of them gave them at
least some guidance in the resources they are required to use. Therefore, it can be
suggested that they are expected to select appropriate resources from their reading
lists.
78
3 The ability to construct strategies for locating information
Academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 3 The ability to construct strategies for locating information
3.1 to articulate information need to match against resources
Reading List
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Also pack of useful web-based sources.
Yes Yes Yes. Expect them to move on from that.
OPAC Yes Yes Biblio-graphic Indexes
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No
Internet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
3.2
to d
evel
op a
syst
emat
ic m
etho
d ap
prop
riat
e fo
r th
e ne
ed (A
Q4)
Other Refs from published material.
Research checklist from Law Library.
Refs on handouts.
Library research.
Lecture notes.
3.3 to understand the principles of construction and generation of databases (AQ8)
No No No No No No No No No No
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 3 The ability to construct strategies for locating information
3.1 to articulate information need to match against resources
Reading List
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
OPAC Yes Yes Yes Biblio-graphic Indexes
No Yes (some students)
Yes (some students)
Yes Yes No No
Internet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.2
to d
evel
op a
syst
emat
ic m
etho
d ap
prop
riat
e fo
r th
e ne
ed (N
Q2)
Other Gateways and portals
Gateways, portals, handouts, Information sheets, Library staff, training sessions, each other.
Textbooks
3.3 to understand the principles of construction and generation of databases (NQ6)
No No. Has mentioned database fields to some groups during training sessions.
No No No No No
79
3.2 To develop a systematic method appropriate for the need
There were contradictions regarding this point from some of the interviewees.
Their responses to AQ6 and NQ4 indicated that they would expect first-years to use
a wider range of information retrieval methods, such as the Internet and bibliographic
databases, than was said in their response to AQ4 and NQ2, the question
corresponding to this point. The response from the ENCAP respondent is a notable
example of this as when answering AQ4, he said that they would not need to use any
methods of information retrieval other than the reading list but in AQ6 he said that he
would expect them use bibliographic databases. From his responses to these
questions it can be suggested that information retrieval is secondary to learning core
skills but they do start to use additional resources, although this is expected much
more at second year level. The Law and Biomed respondents did not mention that
first-years should use bibliographic databases in order to locate information for their
course but in response to NQ4, they said that they expected first-years to use them.
A similar contradiction occurred with the CPLAN respondent. There are some
possible explanations for this. It may be that the lack of prompts used in AQ4, NQ2
meant that the respondents did not think to mention this method. It may be that the
question was misunderstood by the respondents or it could be that they were unsure
of their outlook regarding this point, thus leading them to give contradictory
responses. Whatever the reason, the information in the tables takes the responses to
AQ6, NQ4 into account as well as those responses to the question corresponding to
this point. The contradictory responses do indicate that the search strategies students
are expected to adopt are more complex than was originally suggested in many
respondents’ answers to AQ4 and NQ2.
There was also contrast between the some academic respondents and their
non-academic counterparts. The respondent from Bute expected students to use a
much wider range of information retrieval methods than indicated by the OPTOM,
JOMEC and CPLAN respondents. As was suggested above it could be that different
interpretations were made of this question by different interviewees or it could
simply be that the Bute respondent had higher expectations. Despite these contrasts
and contradictions all of the respondents did, however, expect first-year students to at
least develop a simple strategy for retrieving information even if this just meant
80
locating resources from a reading list. It depends upon the interpretation made of
this point as to whether this can be said to be a “systematic method appropriate for
the need”. However, this cannot be described as an advanced method of information
retrieval. If this point is interpreted to refer to the students being required to use a
range of retrieval methods to which students refer each time they need information
then it can be said that this is not a skill required of all the respondents although
many of the respondents were expected to use more advanced information retrieval
methods such as bibliographic databases. Thus, there were a variety of responses
regarding this SCONUL headline skill (1999).
3.3 To understand the principles of construction and generation of databases
This was not indicated by any of the respondents as a skill first-year
undergraduates are required to possess although the Assl respondent sometimes
teaches first-years about fields during database training. This negative response was
given despite the fact that six academic and four non-academic respondents thought
that at least some first-year undergraduates would need to use bibliographic
databases. A comment from the BIOSI respondent in the question corresponding to
this point may indicate that this is considered too advanced a skill to expect of first-
years. This suggests that students’ knowledge of bibliographic databases is only
expected to be at a novice level.
81
4 The ability to locate and access information
Academic respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 4 The ability to locate and access information
4.1 to develop appropriate searching techniques (e.g. use of Boolean) (AQ7)
Don't know. Know keyword, title author search.
No Don't know
No No No No Don't know
No. Taught a little bit but they are not expected to need it.
No. The students are capable.
Email Yes Yes Yes Yes Useful not essential
Yes Useful not essential
Yes Yes
Internet Browser
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Useful not essential
Yes Yes Not essential
Word Yes Yes Yes Yes Useful not essential
Yes Useful not essential
Yes Yes
Excel No Yes (some subjects)
No Yes No No No No Yes Yes
SPSS Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Power-Point
Yes No No Yes No No No No No No
4.2
to u
se c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d in
form
atio
n te
chno
logi
es, i
nclu
ding
term
s int
erna
tiona
l ac
adem
ic n
etw
orks
(AQ
10)
Other Microsoft Project
Graphics package
EndNote Language learning packages
Algebraic package
4.3 to use appropriate indexing and abstracting services, citation indexes and databases (AQ6)
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No
4.4 to use current awareness methods to keep up to date (AQ16)
Yes. Ideally but unlikely
No Yes. Read news-papers. Given current research topics.
No. Hope they read computing magazines.
Yes. Read professional journals.
Yes. Maintain cultural awareness
No No No No
82
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 4 The ability to locate and access information
4.1 to develop appropriate searching techniques (e.g. use of Boolean) (NQ5)
Yes. Teach students keyword searching on Voyager OPAC
Yes and no. Only yes if they have received training. All students given instruction in keyword searching on Voyager OPAC.
Yes and no. Only medical students get training in choosing keywords, synonyms and Boolean.
Yes and no. Those who receive database training are taught Boolean operators and keyword selection.
No. No. Limited. Selecting keywords.
Email Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Internet Browser
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Word Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Excel No No Yes Yes (OPTOM
and pharmacy)No Yes (some
subjects) Yes (some subjects)
SPSS No No Yes Yes (OPTOM and Pharmacy)
No No No
Power-Point
No No Yes No No No Yes
4.2
to u
se c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d in
form
atio
n te
chno
logi
es, i
nclu
ding
te
rms i
nter
natio
nal a
cade
mic
Other Logging in Access (some subjects)
Encourages use of Endnote.
4.3 to use appropriate indexing and abstracting services, citation indexes and databases (NQ4)
No Yes. In some departments.
Yes and no. Only medical students.
Yes Yes. Westlaw.
No No
4.4 to use current awareness methods to keep up to date (NQ13)
Yes. Might use Internet and newspapers.
No. Not unless they're keen.
Yes. Might read New Scientist or the Trends journals
Yes. Might read newspapers, maybe current journals, lecturers.
Yes. Read newspapers.
Don't know. Yes. Internet browsing, varies.
4.1 To develop appropriate searching techniques
As indicated in the tables above, a very different opinion as to whether first-
year students required this ability was gained from the academic and non-academic
respondents. If the responses of the academic respondents are considered alone it
can be said that this is not a requirement. However, most of the non-academic
respondents said this was a skill they would expect of first-years if they had received
training indicating the non-academic stakeholders interviewed had higher
expectations than the academic. Also, in contrast to the OPTOM and EUROS
responses to the question corresponding to this point (see Chapter Four), none of the
non-academic staff assumed first-year students would possess these skills as they
only expect the students they train to have knowledge of searching techniques.
83
An explanation for these contrasts could be that, from the non-academic
responses, it appears that not all the departments ask for training to be provided to
their students in electronic resources and it may be that the academic departments
interviewed who said it was not a necessary skill were among those who do not
request this training. This cannot be fully ascertained from the results. However, the
Aberconway and CARBS respondents did differ in their opinion and so this
reasoning cannot be used with all the respondents. It could also be that it is the
domain of library staff to teach these skills to students and academic staff are
unaware of the training students receive. Alternatively it might be that the actual
question was misunderstood. The fact that six of the academic respondents expect
first-years to use bibliographic databases, as discussed in AQ6 would indicate that
these types of skills may be required and that training is needed. However, no
conclusive response can be given as to whether first-year students require this skill
and more information needs to be sought to gain a better indication of this. Only a
clear indication regarding whether this skills is required can be ascertained for the
CLAWS, MATHS and COMSC respondents who thought it was not.
4.2 To use communication and information technologies
There was agreement between the academic and non-academic respondents
that first-year students are expected to use at least some IT applications. The non-
academic respondents all thought first-years should at least be able to use Word,
email and the Internet but this was not an expectation of all the academic
respondents. The EUROS and Assl as well as the Bute and CPLAN respondents
disagreed with each other in that the two non-academic respondents expected first-
years to be able to use the Internet and email but this was not a requirement
according to the EUROS and OPTOM. Thus, there was some contrast between the
expectations of the two stakeholder groups which indicates there is not a unified
outlook regarding the IT skills first-years require. In response to the question
corresponding to this point, EUROS and OPTOM contradicted their earlier
comments in answer to AQ6 where they said they would expect first-year students to
use the Internet. The possible reasons for this contradiction and their implications
have been discussed in 2.1.
84
It can, thus, be said that all the respondents expected first-years to possess the
ability to use information technologies but the fact that the OPTOM and EUROS
respondents felt that using the Internet and email was not a requirement means that
the ability to use communication technologies is not a general expectation. Thus,
there is a variation of opinion as to whether this skill is required in its entirety
although, in the main, it was.
4.3 To use appropriate indexing an abstracting services, citation indexes and
databases
The question asked of respondents that corresponds to this point consisted of
a prompt referring only to online bibliographic indexes and it is the response to this
prompt which is indicated in the tables above. Thus, it must be said that the
responses do not cover all the facilities mentioned in this competency but they do
give an indication of whether first-year undergraduates in the departments covered
by the sample are expected to use these types of service. There was again a
difference of opinion across the non-academic and academic respondents as to
whether first-years would require this skill. There was also some disagreement
between the academic respondents and their library counterparts. For example, the
Aberconway and CARBS respondents as well as the Bute, JOMEC and OPTOM
respondents gave conflicting responses. In both these cases a conclusive response
has not been possible. Overall, in response to this question there was no identifiable
trend in the responses regarding whether this skill is required of first-year
undergraduates.
4.4 To use current awareness methods to keep up to date
More non-academic respondents than academic believed first-year
undergraduates would require this skill but, as was mentioned in the presentation of
the responses to the question regarding this point in Chapter Four, the non-academic
respondents appeared to be quite speculative. This indicates that the more likely
responses have probably been received from the academic respondents who are
better placed to know if this is encouraged in their first-years. The fact that the
CPLAN respondent expected first-years to read current journals was not envisaged
considering that this respondent, in answer to AQ5, said that he only expected first-
years to read the journal articles they are given in tutorials. This might imply
85
students are expected to use a wider range of sources than was originally indicated in
his answer to AQ5. Alternatively it may be that this respondent was referring to the
fact that they are given current journal articles in their reading tutorials. Overall the
responses were extremely varied and so this cannot be described as a skill that would
generally be expected of all first-years.
5 The ability to compare and evaluate information obtained from different
sources
Academic respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 5 The ability to compare and evaluate information obtained from different sources
5.1 awareness of bias and authority (AQ11)
Yes. Also currency.
Don't know
Yes. Also currency.
No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
5.2 awareness of the peer review process of scholarly publishing (AQ13)
Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
5.3 appropriate extraction of information matching the information need (AQ11)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 5 The ability to compare and evaluate information obtained from different sources
5.1 awareness of bias and authority (NQ9)
No No Yes and no. The medical students get taught evaluation of web-resources.
Yes. But only up to a point. Also currency.
Yes. Also currency.
No Yes
5.2 awareness of the peer review process of scholarly publishing (NQ11)
No No Don't Know No No No No
5.3 appropriate extraction of information matching the information need (NQ9)
Yes No Yes. Medical and dentistry students only
Yes Yes
86
5.1 Awareness of bias and authority
There were some disagreements between the academic departments and their
corresponding non-academic counterparts. The main difference was between Assl,
who did not think that students required this skill, and ENCAP and EUROS who
thought it was important. The Bute respondent also disagreed with CPLAN but did
agree with JOMEC and OPTOM and so it was obviously difficult for the Bute
respondent to generalise about whether first-year students require this skill.
However, the disagreement between the Assl, ENCAP and EUROS respondents may
highlight some differences of opinion on this matter that would need to be resolved
in order to decide whether this is actually a requirement of ENCAP and EUROS
first-years.
Overall, as indicated in the tables above, there appears to be a higher
expectation of first-years regarding their need to possess this skill among the
academic respondents than the non-academic which indicates there is a difference in
outlook between these two stakeholders with reference to this skill. However, the
responses from both types of stakeholder indicate this cannot be said to be a skill
required of all first-years in all the departments represented by the respondents.
Another point worth noting is that, in answer to the question corresponding to this
point, two of the academic respondents also felt it was important that students should
be aware that the currency of a source needs to be considered. This particular issue
is not outlined in the SCONUL headline skills (1999) which may be a notable
omission.
5.2 Awareness of the peer-review process of scholarly publishing
There was generally a negative response from both academic and non-
academic respondents although two academic respondents disagreed. The
Aberconway and CARBS respondents were of a different opinion on this point
which would need to be resolved. However, as pointed out in the presentation of the
responses to the question relating to this point, the CARBS respondent as well as the
BIOSI one thought first-years would derive this knowledge because they expect their
students to read journal articles. This would indicate that they do not teach them
about it which means that it can be questioned how they can expect students to know
if they are not taught. However, the fact that they did disagree with the other
87
respondents means that this cannot be dismissed as skill that first-years generally
would not require.
5.3 Appropriate extraction of information matching the information need
This was a required skill of all those asked about this point except the Assl
respondent which would seem to indicate that this is the more important of the sub-
points of skill five of the SCONUL seven headline skills (1999) for first-year
students. An opinion would need to be gained from the respondents that were not
asked about this and the disagreement between the Assl and the other respondents
resolved in order to establish that this is typically a required skill among all the
respondents but it can be said that this was generally considered to be important.
6 The ability to organise, apply and communicate information to others in ways
appropriate to the situation
Academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 6 The ability to organise, apply and communicate information to others in ways appropriate to the situation
6.1 to cite bibliographic references in project reports and theses (AQ15)
Yes. Vanc’ver or Harvard
Yes. Harvard.
Yes. Standard for law
Yes. Harvard or Vanc’ver
Yes. Prefer Harvard.
Yes. MHRA
Yes and no. Citing not essential but preferred. Preferred standard varies depending lecturer.
Yes. Harvard.
No Yes. But don't expect them to cite to a standard.
6.2 to construct a personal bibliographic system (AQ10)
No No No No No No. Some use Endnote.
No No No No
6.3 to apply information to the problem at hand
See 5.3 appropriate extraction of information matching the information need.
6.4 to communicate effectively using appropriate medium (AQ14)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
Plagia-rism
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Copy-right
No Yes No No No Yes Yes No
6.5
to u
nder
stan
d is
sues
of c
opyr
ight
and
pl
agia
rism
(AQ
12)
Other Software licensing
88
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 6 The ability to organise, apply and communicate information to others in ways appropriate to the situation
6.1 to cite bibliographic references in project reports and theses
Yes and no. Only use standard if trained.
Yes. Generally Harvard, sometimes humanities subjects use MHRA.
Yes and no. Respondent unsure.
Yes. Usually Harvard
Yes. Claws' own.
Yes. Yes. Standard used varies
6.2 to construct a personal bibliographic system (NQ8)
No No No No. Has tried teaching Endnote but students didn't get to grips with it.
No No No. Encourages students to use it but doubts it is a requirement.
6.3 to apply information to the problem at hand
See 5.3 appropriate extraction of information matching the information need.
6.4 to communicate effectively using appropriate medium
Plagia-rism
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6.5
to u
nder
stan
d is
sues
of c
opyr
ight
an
d pl
agia
rism
Copy-right
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6.1 To cite bibliographic references in project reports and theses
In most cases this is a required skill although not all respondents expected the
students to be able to cite correctly according to a particular standard such as
Harvard or Vancouver as long as they cited references in some way. This was true of
all the respondents except the EUROS respondent who said this skill was not
essential although it was preferred and MATHS, to whom this skill was not really
applicable, because of the nature of the assignments they are required to complete.
The responses from the Aberconway and Biomed respondents were ambiguous
which could be explained by the fact that, as was indicated in AQ12, NQ10, teaching
students about the avoidance of plagiarism is the domain of the academics and
therefore they may not be expected to know their departments’ referencing
requirements. The BIOSI and CARBS departments did, however, consider it to be
an important skill and so it can be said that this is expected of first-years in these
departments. There was a large degree of variety in the type of citation standard that
departments expected their students to use. Thus, it would be unfair to ask students
whether they are capable of doing this skill in a diagnostic assessment as their
89
requirements would vary. Despite a response indicating that the majority would be
expected to practise this skill, this cannot be said to be a competence all first-years
will need to grasp and those that do will not use the same standard.
6.2 To construct a personal bibliographic system
The requirement of respondents regarding this point was judged by their
response to a prompt that was used during AQ10, NQ8 asking if the students are
required to use EndNote, the bibliographic software that is available on the Cardiff
University network. All of the respondents did not expect first-year students to use
Endnote which has been understood to mean that they are not expected to “construct
a personal bibliographic system” although some of them are encouraged to use it.
6.4 To communicate effectively using appropriate medium
Only the academic staff were asked a question corresponding to this point
because it was not deemed an appropriate question for non-academic staff after the
pilot interview was conducted. The academic respondents were asked if presentation
was taken into consideration when students’ work is marked. The responses to this
question were then used to decide if the sample of respondents expected first-years to
possess the ability “to communicate effectively using appropriate medium”. Thus,
using this interpretation it can be said that first-year students, in the departments
from which staff were interviewed, are, in the majority, expected to communicate
using appropriate medium at some point during their course but again there were two
departments who felt this was not important.
6.5 To understand issues of copyright and plagiarism
The ability to understand plagiarism was deemed important by all of the
respondents whether it be plagiarism of published work or of other student’s work. It
is not, however, clear whether understanding copyright is considered to be an ability
all first-year students should possess. All the non-academic staff except AREG
expect that first-year students, in the departments they serve, should at least be aware
of copyright but only three of the academic respondents agreed. As was indicated in
the responses to the question corresponding to this point, academic staff do not
expect to teach copyright to students but they do provide guidance on the avoidance
of plagiarism. The academic response contrasts with SCONUL (1999) who make no
90
distinction between the importance of these two skills. It can be said that the contrast
in the responses may indicate that non-academic staff are perhaps more aware of
these issues and their importance than academic staff. Thus deciding on whether
knowledge of copyright is a skill first-year students should possess is, in some cases,
an issue requiring a mutual decision between academic and non-academic staff.
However, it would seem that plagiarism is an extremely important issue that all the
respondents expected first-years to understand.
7 The ability to synthesise and build upon existing information, contributing to
the creation of new knowledge
Academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department
BIOSI CARBS CLAWS COMSC CPLAN ENCAP EUROS JOMEC MATHS OPTOM 7 The ability to synthesise and build upon existing information, contributing to the creation of new knowledge (AQ17)
No No. Synthesise but not to create new know-ledge.
Yes No No Yes No No. Synthesise but not to create new know-ledge.
No
Non-academic Respondents SCONUL Headline Skill Department/Library
Ab'conway Assl Biomed Bute Law AREG DYSX 7 The ability to synthesise and build upon existing information, contributing to the creation of new knowledge (NQ14)
No. Synthesise but not to create new knowledge.
No. Synthesise but not to create new knowledge.
Don't know. At some stage of undergraduate course but not sure when, certainly by the third year.
No No No. Synthesise but not to create new knowledge.
No
There was contrast between some of the academic respondents and their non-
academic counterparts. The CLAWS and the Law as well as the ENCAP and Assl
respondents disagreed. The CLAWS respondent felt this was definitely a required
skill and described what the students are expected to do, indicating the question was
fully understood by this respondent. An explanation of this difference of opinion
may be that this is a skill only required of the students on the Legal Foundations
course and perhaps not other modules which is what the Law respondent might have
91
been taking into consideration. It can also be argued the Assl response was
necessarily very generalised as this respondent serves a wide range of departments
including EUROS, the respondent from which did not give the same response as the
ENCAP interviewee. Whatever the reasons, there is a contrast in the responses
which indicates a difference of opinion. In the main it can be said that most of the
respondents do not expect first-years to have this ability. However, the fact that
CLAWS and ENCAP require this skill of their first-year students means it cannot be
said to be a skill first-years generally do not require. This requirement of the
CLAWS and ENCAP respondents is impressive because this is deemed a higher
order skill by SCONUL (1999) who only expect graduate and research students to
practise it. The fact that both these academic respondents disagreed with their non-
academic counterparts means that further research is needed in order to ascertain
whether or not this actually a required skill of ENCAP and CLAWS first-years.
Summary and further discussion of the findings
The findings have highlighted some areas of contrast between academic
respondents and their non-academic counterparts as well as points upon which the
two stakeholder groups generally disagreed. For example, the non-academic staff
indicated that first-years should be able to search electronic information sources
effectively if they have been trained but the academic staff did not feel this skill was
important for first-years to possess. This suggests that, because this is an area in
which library staff tend to provide training, this would be more important to them.
These disagreements indicate that different status groups within Cardiff University
may value different skills. In addition, they highlight the need for a mutual decision
to be made between academic and non-academic staff in those areas where there is
contrast. There were also questions to which the academic respondents contradicted
their earlier responses. For example the OPTOM and EUROS respondents said first-
years would need to use Internet resources in response to AQ6 but then said that it
was not essential they know how to use an Internet browser in response to AQ10.
There are some possible reason for these sorts of contradictions. It could be that the
respondents were unsure of their requirements of students in certain areas thus
making their responses indecisive. They may have found it difficult to generalise
about the modules in their subject area as a whole. It could also be that the questions
92
were misunderstood or that more prompts were required in order to ensure that the
respondents considered all the options.
As was pointed out in Chapter Two, SCONUL (1999) have suggested that
first-year undergraduates will perhaps only practise the first four of the seven
headline skills. These findings, however, disagree with this position in that the
respondents expected first-year students to be able to do some of the sub-points of
the first four skills but not all. It was also found that point 3.3 was not required by
any of the departments. In addition, there were instances where sub-points from
skills five and six were also expected, points 5.3 and 6.5 being examples of this.
There were even two respondents who expected their first-year students to be able to
practise skill seven which SCONUL has deemed to be a skill that is only likely to be
practised by postgraduate and research students (SCONUL, 1999). This indicates
that it is not possible to assume that students at particular levels will require certain
skills.
There was a range of responses to most of the questions suggesting that first-
year undergraduates have a variety of skills needs that are heavily dependent upon
the department to which they belong and the assignments they are required to
complete. This is indicated by the notable contrast between the information literacy
needs of MATHS first-years compared to those in the other departments in the
sample, especially CLAWS. There were few skills which all the respondents felt
first-year undergraduates definitely do or do not require. For example, all the
students are expected to have the following SCONUL (1999) skills although there
were still some minor exceptions:
2.1 knowledge of appropriate kinds of resources, both print and non-print (OPTOM
does not expect use of electronic resources)
2.2 selection of resources with ‘best-fit’ for the task at hand
4.2 to use communication and information technologies (although some departments
do not expect first-years to use email).
5.3 appropriate extraction of information matching the information need
6.5 to understand the issues of copyright and plagiarism (only plagiarism applies)
93
There was also agreement that first-year undergraduates would not need to possess
the ability:
3.3 to understand the principles of construction and generation of databases
6.2 to construct a personal bibliographic system
Generally, where there was agreement on the skills that students require, there was
variety in the degree to which they would be expected to able to do them. For
example, “knowledge of appropriate kinds of resources” was a skill that all the first-
years students represented by the sample were deemed to require but some
departments expected knowledge of a wider range of sources than others. A similar
example is that of 4.2 whereby all the respondents required first-years to be able to
use “information technologies” but not all of them were expected to use the same
applications. The fact that there was total agreement, among respondents, on so few
skills again argues against the assumption of SCONUL (1999) that first-years will
probably practise the first four of the seven headlines skills as it has been found that
it is not possible to generalise in this way.
The variety in these findings is supported by the fact that other institutions
have found it necessary to define their own interpretation of information literacy in
order to conduct assessments and training courses (Caravello et al, 2001; Peacock,
2002, Indiana University Bloomington Libraries, 1996). Thus, SCONUL’s
acknowledgement that individuals will need to place their own interpretation on the
seven headline skills (Town, 2000) has been vindicated by the findings of this study.
It appears then, from these findings, that it is not even possible to generalise about
the skills a particular level of university student will require and that it is necessary to
tailor a set of required skills to individual departments. This indicates that it will not
be possible to design a generic set of criteria for all first-years at Cardiff University
which can be interpreted into learning outcomes to be used in assessments and
training courses suitable for the whole first-year student body. This finding is
supported by the approach that is taken at Queensland University of Technology
(Peacock, 2002) where the information literacy skills requirements of university
students have been separated into levels and then into subjects.
94
The findings of this part of the study have thus served to provide a detailed
outline of the information literacy skills needs of first-year students in the
departments interviewed and have indicated that it is not feasible to establish a
generic set of information literacy skills that first-year undergraduates need. Thus,
information literacy skills training programmes and assessments will need to be
based on the requirements of first-year students within individual departments. As a
result of this, it can be said that the discipline specific training that currently occurs
at Cardiff University is ideal to cater for the varied information literacy skills needs
of students from different departments.
95
Chapter Six
Information Literacy Education and Assessment: Results and
discussion
This chapter presents and discusses the results to the questions on the second
part of the interview schedules (see appendices 1 and 2) concerning the current
position of information literacy education at Cardiff University and the way in which
a diagnostic assessment would best be conducted. Each section of the results is
presented and discussed separately. As mentioned in Chapter Three, the questions
on the interview schedules concerning information literacy education at Cardiff
University were only intended to provide a context and to further inform any
conclusions or recommendations that might be made. They were not directly related
to the aims and objectives of this study, therefore, the results from these questions
will be only briefly presented.
Information Literacy Education at Cardiff University
AQ18 Regarding the issues we have discussed above, what does you department
contribute to ensuring that first-year undergraduates have the abilities and
knowledge they require?
NQ15 What does this resource centre/AREG/DYSX contribute to the
information literacy abilities of first-year undergraduates?
Academic respondents
In answer to AQ4 the CLAWS respondent mentioned that information
literacy skills are deliberately incorporated into their Legal Foundations module
which is compulsory for first-year law students. In response to AQ3 (see Chapter
Four) she described the content of this module:
“My course is divided into sort of three blocks. The first block is basic skills, how
you read law reports, basic information about the legal system. The second block we
move into is how you find the information that you need. The third block then is how
you use and present the information that you need.”
96
Four other respondents (CARBS, CPLAN, COMSC and JOMEC) mentioned that
their departments include some skills to support students’ academic study in their
compulsory modules although they did not indicate that this was with the deliberate
intention of incorporating a comprehensive information literacy programme into the
course, unlike CLAWS. For example, COMSC ensure that all the students receive
the help that is on offer within the University.
“We bring in the Student’s Union to do courses on presentations, working with
others…they do group working, they do listening and awareness skills…somebody
from the Student’s Union comes in on four separate occasions as part of one of their
modules…we just bring them in to make sure that they all get the basics and we get
the careers service in to talk about the use of that. And the library introduction that
comes to them rather than them having to go to it…” (COMSC)
In the remaining departments interviewed training is added on to students’
courses and mainly consists of computing skills or sending them for library
inductions or library skills courses.
“They get…guided tours of the library and things like that….and in relation to
computing, the amount of advice we give is very small because the levels at which
they’re meant or need to be doing these things in English are so limited.” (ENCAP)
“I’m not sure how much of it is departmental based…. We do a first year tour at the
beginning of the year about general systems of finding information and types of
information that might be useful…” (EUROS)
“I guess the key things we do will be the computer courses….As far as the library,
information searching side goes the department does very little”. (OPTOM)
“…as well as having tutorials, regular tutorials with their personal tutor and all
these things there’s the help class which is run every week, there’s surgery classes
which are put on. So there’s always somebody available if they have any problems
regarding anything really.” (MATHS)
97
BIOSI provide training in IT and allow time for students to attend training sessions
in the library which shows them the skills they will require in their assignments but
their actual information literacy or information retrieval skills are not assessed. It
must be said that the quote from the MATHS respondents above is not referring to
skills associated with information literacy. The help classes are an aid to improving
students’ maths rather than information literacy skills as these competencies are not
really required of first-year MATHS students has been found in Chapters Four and
Five.
Another piece of guidance offered regarding information literacy skills was
indicated by all the respondents in answer to AQ12 (see Chapter Four) in that all the
departments provide their students with information on plagiarism and how to avoid
it.
Thus, from the sample it can be said that there is a spectrum of provision of
information literacy training ranging from a course in CLAWS, which deliberately
incorporates information literacy into its learning outcomes, which are then assessed,
to those which either do not provide training or offer training that mainly includes
basic IT skills, guidance on plagiarism and general assistance with completing
coursework. These cannot be described as conscious information literacy
programmes. From the responses it appears that CLAWS are currently the only
department in the sample to incorporate an information literacy programme into their
curriculum.
Non-academic respondents
No comprehensive information literacy training course is currently provided
by any of the non-academic respondents or the departments they represent. This fact
was noted by the Assl respondent:
“I don’t think that we provide a satisfactory source of focus for information literacy
at the moment.” (Assl)
98
Aberconway, Assl and Biomed all provide training for students but this tends to be a
series of one-off or a single skills session consisting mainly of Voyager OPAC
training and a library induction.
“A library induction yeah. You know, what kind of information is available, where
to find it, you know, which building, a bit about copyright and a bit about the
facilities and then Voyager, using Voyager. So I suppose information literacy that
would be things like how to search the catalogue efficiently and effectively, copyright
awareness…as well. Because we have all the guides for using databases
and…citation…I mean all that’s available to them and they can see them around and
about so and if we also inform them of the different types of materials in our talk then
they know these databases exist anyway and they can follow up on that. How to
interpret a reading list so things like, you know, looking at finding the latest edition
and whether it’s a book or whether it’s a journal by looking at it, whether it’s a
photocopy.” (Aberconway)
In contrast the respondents from the Law and Bute Libraries said they
contribute to modules which incorporate information literacy skills. For example the
Law Library staff teach some of the sessions on the Legal Foundations module.
From the interview it was clear that the Law Library had had a lot of input into this
course. The Bute library staff contribute to modules in the Social Sciences,
Pharmacy and JOMEC departments although this respondent did not describe these
modules as incorporating information literacy explicitly, it was mainly information
skills.
“Journalism particularly, they have a module…in which they’re taught to write in
the correct way and I do half the module on information skills so about 3 seminars
and workshops on information resources, how to use them, how to search properly,
how to create search strategies. And I also do a session on Endnote.” (Bute)
An advantage of incorporating information skills or information literacy training into
compulsory modules was indicated by the Bute respondent who added that it was her
intention to encourage more departments to do this:
99
“It does make a difference as well because students will not do more than they
absolutely have to because the pressures are so much these days so if something is
voluntary, you can’t always be sure to get very many of the group there.” (Bute)
The provision of skills associated with information literacy from libraries
included in the sample is not uniform. The Assl respondent said only some
departments receive training in electronic databases. The Bute respondent indicated
that some departments invite her to teach on their modules but others ask for separate
training courses. CPLAN and OPTOM are and example of this:
“It’s partly a problem of getting departments on our side in actually…encouraging
students to…come to sessions. I’ve managed, with the departments that I deal with,
either to have inherited the set up like with Psychology where there’s been a
longstanding arrangement that we see all their first years at a particular time of the
semester or I’ve been able to work on the particular sections of say ENCAP or
EUROS and say it would be useful if your students come along to this or the
departments have approached me like with RELIG.” (Assl)
The information literacy support provided by DYSX was obviously limited to
Dyslexic students but this department does get involved in ensuring these students
are equipped with some of the skills associated with information literacy although
this mainly consisted of IT support and training. The role of AREG in information
literacy at the University is mainly at the policy level. They provide support in the
form of policy frameworks on issues such as plagiarism and information literacy.
The departments are then left to act on it but are supported by AREG.
Thus, there is a range of provision across the libraries and even in the service
provided to different departments by individual libraries. The reasons for this can be
said to be the decentralised nature of library provision at Cardiff and the fact that
some departments do not wish to take-up this type of training. The incorporation of
information literacy into modules with involvement from library staff was only
mentioned by two of the libraries. Only the Law respondent explicitly said this was
information literacy training. It would have been interesting to have had more
information from the Bute respondent regarding what was involved in the modules
100
she teaches on to see whether they have fully incorporated an information literacy
skills programme into them or if it consists more of a library skills approach.
AQ19 Are they expected to learn these skills from any other departments?
All of the academic respondents expected Information Services to provide
additional assistance for students in acquiring skills associated with information
literacy or at least in provision of services the students need such as the computer
network and printing facilities (MATHS). Other sources of skills at Cardiff
University mentioned were the Student’s Union (COMSC and CPLAN) and the
Careers Service (COMSC).
Thus, it appears there are a few routes from where students can derive the
skills they need although from the results it seems that currently none of them
provide a comprehensive information literacy skills programme on a departmental or
division- wide basis. Information Services are starting to become involved in
information literacy provision through collaboration with CLAWS and the success of
this is being used to encourage a similar format in other departments.
Discussion
The responses from both the non-academic and academic respondents
indicate that there is a range of information literacy education provision at Cardiff
University. The Law library and CLAWS collaborate with each other to incorporate
a comprehensive information literacy programme but there is not evidence of this
elsewhere. In some instances there is evidence of library staff being asked to do
some teaching to students on accredited modules which mainly consists of library
skills and electronic database training. Finally, there are cases where library staff are
asked to do some training in addition to accredited courses. There appears to be
scope for information literacy to be more deeply incorporated into modules in some
departments as is recommended in the literature (Dow and Geer, 1995; Hepworth,
2000) with further collaboration between academic and non-academic staff.
101
Information Literacy assessment
AQ20, NQ16. When is it most suitable to assess the information literacy abilities
of incoming undergraduates before they receive any training?
Academic respondents
Eight out of the ten academic departments interviewed felt that the
assessment should be conducted very early in the first semester such as during the
induction period.
“…it would have to be at enrolment I would say would be the first opportunity to ask
for any a priori effort on their behalf and really at the first lecture of the course they
turned up to…” (CARBS)
“…they’ve got a lot of free time at the beginning, you know, they’re killing time at
the beginning of the course and I think yeah sometime in the first week, when they
are just having lectures and not having tutorials there should be slack in the
timetable to assess their needs and I think it would be extremely valuable.”
(CLAWS)
“It would obviously have to be as early as possible in the semester some kind
of…test…perhaps keeping it open for a certain amount or giving them a certain
amount of time to do it online.” (MATHS)
“…I guess you’d have to do it very very early on even down to maybe the day they’re
inducted because as soon as they get that library induction course we have them on
the road to having to, to getting a lot of the skills they need…” (OPTOM)
Of the eight departments that did suggest a suitable moment to carry out a diagnostic
assessment, five were also asked whether the students could be sent the assessment
before they arrived at the University. They said there were problems with taking this
approach although the respondents from BIOSI, CLAWS and OPTOM also said it
was a possibility.
102
“It would be ideal in a way the snag is the logistics that we don’t usually get the
finalised list of the names and addresses of the students who are coming in until
earlyish in September. Now there are one or two mailings that then go out to the
students with various bits and pieces of information and we could certainly include
sort of information, a questionnaire there which has then got to be returned but you
won’t get complete coverage because a number of students are coming in from
overseas and don’t they don’t get the information.” (BIOSI)
“The time from when they get their acceptance to when they get their introduction
pack sort of gets tighter and tighter each year. So…they get their results in August
and a month later they’re coming here.” (CARBS)
“…the difficulty there is apparently that until they actually arrive and register, we’re
not a hundred per cent sure whose turning up and that’s apparently a particularly
acute problem with the overseas students.” (CLAWS)
“We did try doing that with their programming skills….We didn’t get everybody
because we always seem to have students at the last minute we didn’t have an
address for or we didn’t realise were turning up.” (COMSC)
Thus the problems with this method are that it is difficult to know which students
will be registering at Cardiff University until they arrive and the short time-frame in
which it would be possible to send out the assessment.
The CPLAN, ENCAP and EUROS respondents expressed reservations about
a diagnostic assessment. The respondent from CPLAN felt that an assessment
carried out before training would not be particularly useful and that it would be better
to do it mid-way through the year after they have had some training in order to see
where their students lack skills before they start their second year.
103
“…it might be useful to assess the effect of learning etc on the course. Information
literacy probably varies greatly on entry to the course, and one would hope to have
students up to speed and on a level playing field by the end of that first year. Perhaps
mid-way through the first year may be an appropriate time, enabling first years to
equip themselves and resolve any deficiencies prior to the second year…” (CPLAN)
“I’m not entirely sure what that kind of assessment would approve [sic] other than
what kind of school experience they’ve had…and what their socio-economic status is
when they come into the university.” (EUROS)
The ENCAP respondent said the department lacked the time or the money to carry
out a diagnostic assessment.
Thus, the majority of academic respondents felt the most suitable time to
carry out a diagnostic assessment was early after the students arrived at the
University. This was because there were problems associated with conducting the
assessment in the period before they arrived. Some respondents also expressed
reservations about the value of conducting a diagnostic assessment which should also
be considered.
Non-academic respondents
The respondents from Aberconway, Assl and Bute said the most suitable time
to carry out a diagnostic assessment would be before the students arrive at the
University.
“I mean the thing is with our training I mean they get it in the first couple of weeks
so you can’t be doing it when they’ve just arrived because you haven’t got time
enough to assess it before you implement it… if there was a welcome pack and we
were involved in that and I don’t know perhaps had an evaluation sheet, self-
evaluation sheet in there or that they were referred to some sort of online evaluation
that they could fill in and send back to us electronically or something.”
(Aberconway)
104
The respondent from Biomed also described an assessment carried out in one of the
departments which was sent out to students before they arrived. In answer to this
question the respondent from Bute expressed reservations about the need for a
diagnostic assessment as she felt that, based on her past experience, it is possible to
assume students’ information skills are not of a good standard.
“[So you don’t see the need for a test then?] I don’t because I don’t think that you
would get an honest and accurate answer. You’d have to pick your questions very
carefully but I think you might just as well save time and assume that their
information skills are not very good to start with because nobody’s actually taught
them.” (Bute)
In answer to Question 17 this respondent did, however, also suggest giving the
students an assessment before they arrived in order to better cater for their training
needs.
“I think a questionnaire would save…teaching time because if you do a test in class
you then have to go away and analyse what you’ve got and then start…your teaching
process again. Whereas if they did your test or questionnaire before they arrived
you’d be able to assess their capabilities and you work out your teaching programme
accordingly.” (Bute)
The respondent from Law felt that conducting an assessment before the
students arrived would not be a possibility judging from information she had
gathered from the departments. This respondent was unsure about when it could be
done because once the students arrived at the University they began their classes
straight away.
“…the problem is that the students are getting IT training in week one if not week
zero so… if they’re going to have an audit or a skills assessment it should be done
obviously, well I mean, its got to be done before the time tabling is done for the IT
classes.” (Law)
105
The two non-library respondents (AREG and DYSX) felt the assessment should be
conducted once the students had arrived at the University either in the first week or
sometime during the first semester.
“I’m almost inclined to say that by the first set of January exams it’s a bit too late,
you know. They only have three years here, that’s quite a large proportion of the
degree course gone already. Perhaps in the first week of the Freshers' Fair or
something like that.” (DYSX)
“I think many people…try and find out about them before they arrive and I’m not
sure that that’s always the most appropriate way to do it. So I think people aren’t
necessarily going to be able to take it in, they’re not going to take it very seriously,
they’re not going to appreciate the relevance of it. So it may be a kind of a first
semester task rather than something prior to people’s arrival.” (AREG)
The AREG respondent added that an assessment conducted early in the semester
would not be treated seriously because of all the information students received
during their induction week. The DYSX respondent also suggested that the most
ideal time to conduct this type of assessment would be during the students A’ Level
exams:
“It would be nice in an ideal world to perhaps run that with their A’ level exams and
you know it could be something that goes to every university.” (DYSX)
Thus, there was a mixed response to this question from the non-academic
staff interviewed. Most felt that the assessment should be conducted before the
students arrive but the Law respondent voiced the concerns of the academic
departments that it would not be possible. The non-library respondents in this
stakeholder group felt the best time would be during the first semester. The Bute
respondent also expressed concerns about the value of carrying out this type of
assessment.
106
Discussion
There was a difference of opinion, on the whole, between the academic and
non-academic staff. Most of the library staff interviewed felt that conducting the
assessment before the students arrive would be most advantageous although the Law
respondent recognised that the academic departments may not agree. Most of the
academics interviewed suggested that incoming students should be asked to complete
the assessment during the early part of the semester or the induction period. They
indicated the difficulties of conducting the assessment before the students arrive.
There was also the opinion, expressed by two non-academic respondents but not
mentioned by the academic interviewees, that the assessment could be conducted
during the first semester. Respondents from both the non-academic and academic
groups expressed doubts about the value of conducting a diagnostic assessment. The
overall majority response was that it would be most convenient to conduct the
assessment once the students had arrived but there was still mixed opinion.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the suggestions made by the
respondents regarding when it would be most suitable to assess the information
literacy abilities of incoming undergraduates. Conducting the assessment during the
first or second week of the semester poses problems in that academic and library
teaching starts straight away. This means that there is very little time in which to
distribute the assessments, await their return, analyse the results and translate them
into a suitable training programme before teaching begins. If the assessment was
conducted at this point there would be no time for the results to be of benefit to the
students. Their results would only be useful to inform the training programme for
the following year’s intake of students. This would reduce the incentive for the first-
year undergraduates to complete the assessment. If the assessment were forced to
take place once the students had arrived the results could be used to encourage
academic departments to request more information literacy training for their students
later in the year in the skills areas that the results of the assessment had shown the
students lacked. Conducting an assessment so soon after the students’ arrival means
they may not see the relevance of it to their academic study and it may also be a
daunting experience for new students. This may reduce their motivation to complete
the assessment properly (O’Brien et al, 1996).
107
Two main potential obstacles could hinder the approach of sending an
assessment to students, as were suggested by the academic staff. These are the short
period of time between students receiving their results and coming to university and
the fact that nobody knows exactly which students will enrol until they register. It
would seem that to adopt this approach would mean that not all students, especially
overseas students, would receive the assessment. If it was decided that a diagnostic
assessment should be used for streaming students so that they would attend the
appropriate training session, this would be unsuitable. However, if the purpose was
to see where the gaps lie generally between incoming students’ information literacy
skills and what they require in order that training can be better tailored to their needs,
this method would probably gain sufficient respondents in order to achieve this
provided enough students return them. This would allow time for analysis of the
results before the students arrived and started to receive their teaching. It can still be
suggested that there will be little motivation for them to complete the assessment
without knowledge of why it is necessary and how it will benefit them (O’Brien et al,
1996).
If the assessment were to take place during the first semester, as was
suggested by the AREG respondent, it would not be a diagnostic assessment in the
sense of discovering the training needs of incoming undergraduates, as by that point
they have already received some training. However, it would still be useful as a
diagnostic assessment as there is still potentially gaps between their current
information literacy skills and the skills that have been identified that they need in
order to complete their first year. There would also still be enough time to improve
and provide training to students before they reach their second year. The main
drawback to this is that students would not be immediately furnished with the skills
they need during their first year. However, the first year is a foundation for the
second and third year and equipping them with these skills during their first year will
benefit them in later years. Conducting the assessment at this time, as the AREG
respondent noted, will increase the likelihood that the students will see the relevance
of the assessment in relation to the skills they have found they require. As a result
they may better appreciate the value of completing the assessment.
108
The examples of diagnostic tests for information skills mentioned in the
literature review were all conducted once the students had arrived at the University
(De Montfort University, 2001; CSU, 1999; Kunkel et al, 1996) which suggests this
was considered the better option by these authors. However, there appears to be
scope for both options but, based on the majority response and the literature,
conducting the assessment once the students have arrived would seem to be the more
favourable option. It can be suggested that this is more likely to appear to be
relevant assessment for the students if it was conducted midway through their first
semester.
It must be added that there were some respondents from both academic and
non-academic departments who expressed reservations about the value of conducting
an assessment because it was felt that nothing useful would be gained. It is true that
students are likely to enter university with a variety of skills and that judgements
about students’ abilities can be made based on the past experience of staff but not
doing any kind of assessment of students’ actual skills is to make assumptions about
their abilities which may be inaccurate. The advantage of diagnostic assessment, as
pointed out in Chapter Two is that training programmes can be better designed to
meet students’ needs as training is no longer based on assumption but evidence
(Miller et al, 1998). However, the disadvantages associated with all the suggestions
as to when the assessment could be conducted and these reservations may indicate
that conducting a diagnostic assessment will prove to be an overly difficult exercise.
AQ21, NQ17. Please suggest some appropriate methods of carrying out this
assessment.
Academic respondents
A questionnaire type assessment was proposed by seven out of the ten
respondents. The main type of questionnaire suggested was one that would allow
students to self-assess their own abilities at performing tasks. The advantages of this
method were deemed to be that they are quick and easy to implement.
109
“I think it would be appropriate if you had some sort of or designed a questionnaire
listing the skills and then having various categories of, you know, expert or…So it
would literally take them two minutes to fill in the first week.” (MATHS)
“…I guess the easiest way to do it would be just to do a questionnaire and just
something…they could all fill out in ten minutes if they’re all sitting in one place…”
(JOMEC)
A further advantage offered by the CLAWS respondent was that it is the least
demoralising method of assessment:
“Failing that [self-assessment] the only method is to shove them in a library and say
find this and this without any training or to stick them in front of a computer terminal
without any training and say find these things and that could be so de-moralising for
them that I really don’t think that it would be worth doing…” (CLAWS)
However, some of the respondents who suggested this method also expressed
reservations about students’ abilities to adequately assess their own competence:
I can’t see any problem with self-assessment, well I can I s’pose if they’re claiming
skills that they don’t have…” (CLAWS)
“My experience of questionnaires is that…if you’re not careful you’ll get the odd
student who just fills in silly answers…” (OPTOM)
“…we found that some students were very good at self-assessment and others were
absolutely useless…” (COMSC)
The COMSC respondents were also concerned that a wholesale attempt to
assess student’s abilities would be demoralising for some as they may perceive it as a
test in which they must do well.
110
“…we spend an awful lot of the first semester in particular in building up their
confidence…trying to make them feel yes they’ve come to university and they are
coping with it and so anything that’s going to be seen as…assessing…is going to
be…a sensitive area…” (COMSC)
They felt that assessing a sample of students rather than whole year group would be
less likely to be perceived as a test.
“If you were able to do it with a sample of students and if you were able to ask those
who were interested and would like to earn a fiver or whatever…Then nobody sees it
as being oh they’re assessing us all…” (COMSC)
Assessing a sample was also suggested by the respondents from CARBS and
CPLAN. The CARBS respondent pointed out another advantage of this in that the
same sample group could be reassessed after training in order to gauge improvement.
The CPLAN respondent did, however, point out a possible disadvantage of sampling
in that it is not suitable if the intention of the assessment is to stream students
according to their skills:
“If it’s going to be useful to student’s individually I think that self-assessment would
be the best way. And, you know, you could even sort of self-assess as to identify
which particular courses you know which are run by INFOS or the Student’s Union
[would be useful].”
The respondents from CARBS and EUROS also proposed giving the students
an assignment which asked them to solve a problem although both differed in their
opinion of the task that should be set. The CARBS respondent suggested an
assignment which asked the students to locate specific items in the library as part of
their answer to AQ20.
“…find this paper in that journal and give me the full reference for it. So they need
to go in and they might have the author’s name and the title, or they know the
journal and they’ve got go and work out from the indexes or from the computer
which ever way they get it what the page numbers were, what this is…” (CARBS)
111
The EUROS respondent felt the assignment should not specify the sources students
should use, suggesting instead a problem-based approach.
“I would have thought some sort of task that involved answering the question rather
than looking for a specific form of information so rather than saying can you find a
web-site that gives you information about X, Y and Z a kind of question that says how
would you go about finding the cheapest price for a holiday…. Then they’ve got
to…rationalise what they are doing in terms of the process and it also means that the
kind of common sense approach where they actually might go and ask somebody how
to do it is equally as valid as being able to access the information straight away…”
(EUROS)
Disadvantages of this method were highlighted by both these respondents. The
EUROS respondent suggested it would be unfair to expect incoming students to do
this in an unfamiliar library.
“I think something library based would be quite unfair unless they’re actually
familiar with the physical…layout of the library and the referencing system which
may not even be the same their local library at home….And I think you would also
have to give them a kind of week or so to do it in in order to get over the fact some
people will be able to find information straight away or other people won’t be able to
find it straight away.” (EUROS)
The CARBS respondent felt it was unsuitable as an assessment that students could be
asked to complete before they arrived at Cardiff.
“It’s pretty difficult to…ask them to go off, because different libraries are
different…You are asking them to go out of their way, to try and go to another
library near them perhaps if you are talking about getting references.” (CARBS)
Conducting the assessment electronically was also mentioned by some
respondents. The respondent from BIOSI described a system at another institution
where first-year medical students at Cardiff University also have lectures. At this
112
institution some of the lecture theatres are equipped with electronic response
keypads. The students in the lecture each have one and they vote for responses to
questions using buttons on their keypads. The responses then appear on the screen at
the front in the form of a graph. Although this system is not available at Cardiff
University, it is an interesting idea and worth mentioning as a view to a way future
diagnostic assessments could be conducted. The advantages of this system, as were
pointed out by the BIOSI respondent, are that it is anonymous, the response rate is
high and that the statistics are generated immediately. Another suggestion was that
the assessment could be conducted online or via email.
“…some kind of…test…perhaps keeping it open for a certain amount or giving them
a certain amount of time to do it online… So I mean the best one for you is really an
automated one because…so that it will pop up… it’s a little bit like if you buy a new
piece of software it says you know do you want to license this and you just say
no…but so many days later it will ask you again until you actually register…that
would be a nice system.” (MATHS)
This method would ensure a high response rate provided that everybody logs-on to
the Cardiff network. In answer to AQ20 the respondent from OPTOM suggested
that if the assessment was sent to students before they arrive at the University they
could be given the option receive and return it via email.
Thus, it can be said that the most popular method of assessment was self-
assessment although there are some disadvantages. The main alternative method that
was mentioned was a problem-based assignment of some nature. It was also
suggested that the assessment could be distributed electronically to the students.
Non-academic respondents
All the non-academic respondents suggested questionnaires most of whom
indicated this should ask students to self-assess their abilities.
“I think a multiple choice questionnaire would be probably the easiest because it’s
got to be minimum effort otherwise they won’t do it.” (DYSX)
113
Some respondents pointed out that a disadvantage of this method is that it is very
subjective.
“It relies on the students having an accurate perception of their own abilities…The
problem with that is not the people who don’t think they can do it but the people that
think they can and subsequently don’t turn up to the sessions…” (Biomed)
Four of the respondents (Aberconway, Biomed, DYSX, AREG) also
suggested a test requiring students to respond to questions as a more objective
alternative to self-assessment.
“…some kind of short online test that might be designed to assess their skills in that
respect might be a more objective way of doing it…” (AREG)
The respondent from DYSX described an IT literacy course available for students at
another University where this type of assessment is conducted electronically.
“…they’ve got an IT literacy…course they run and they’ve got that type of
questionnaire at the end of each module and it’s a sort of self-testing go back and
actually I think you can do it before you read the particular module because it’s one
of these learning environments…it’s an online thing so do I need to this part of the
course and you answer the questions and if you get them all wrong then yes you do,
if you get some of them wrong then yeah it’s probably a good idea to have a look
through, if you get them all right then carry on with the next module.” (DYSX)
However, the respondents from Biomed and AREG pointed out some possible
disadvantages of this type of assessment. The respondent from AREG was
concerned there was not time in the curriculum to conduct it. The Biomed
respondent felt it may demoralise the students if they do not do well.
“I guess…some form of spot test but the trouble is all you’re going to do is
demoralise the ones who don’t do very well so I’m not entirely convinced that,
perhaps you have to go on with self-assessment.” (Biomed)
114
Thus self-assessment was the most popular suggestion with the main
alternative being tests. Both were deemed to have disadvantages.
Discussion
Self-assessment questionnaires were the most popular suggestion, from both
stakeholder groups, for a diagnostic test which was also the most common method
mentioned in the literature. The advantages of this method were deemed to be that it
is quick and easy for both respondents and distributors which was again matched in
the literature (Astin, 1993). The same disadvantages were also pointed out by the
respondents as in the literature in that it is a subjective method (Knight, 2001;
Webber and Johnston). This is a serious problem in that students will find it difficult
to assess their own abilities to perform skills when they are not yet aware of the
standard to which they are expected to perform them. They may also be tempted to
lie. This method has also been criticised in the literature as only being suitable for
assessing superficial knowledge (Astin, 1993). A way of achieving a more objective
self-assessment has been devised by De Montfort University (2001) where all the
students are asked to assess themselves against core key skills competencies. This
method does reduce the subjectivity of self-assessment as each competency is broken
down into tasks levels which students read and decide if they can do. This means
they can compare their skills with a particular level. However, it is likely that some
students will still lie about their abilities.
Another method suggested by some of the academic respondents was a
problem-based approach in which students are given an assignment whereby they are
required to locate information on a topic for which they need to be able to construct
their own strategies and processes of information retrieval. This is also a popular
approach in the literature (Smalley, 2000; Cribb and Woodall, 1997) and is a useful
method as it assesses students’ information literacy abilities as a whole rather than
aspects of it. Students could be asked to perform a series of tasks which would cover
the required learning outcomes. This would not, however, be appropriate on a mass
scale as the libraries and computer rooms would be inundated. It will also not be
suitable for assessing incoming students before they arrive as they will need access to
the resources at Cardiff or in the first few weeks of their arrival because they will
need time to familiarise themselves with the library and computer network.
115
However, if the assessment was conducted during the first semester once the students
had settled-in this could be a feasible option if conducted on a small scale.
A test which asks questions that require students to know or find the answers
to was also suggested by non-academic and academic respondents and is again a
more objective method than self-assessment. However, concern was expressed by
both non-academic and academic respondents that students may get demoralised if
they do not do well. This means that this type of diagnostic assessment may be
unsuitable as a method to conduct on the first-year student population.
The suggestion by some of the academic staff to test sample groups has many
advantages which were are indicated in the literature and the interview responses.
Firstly, given the findings of the first aim, that first-year students’ information
literacy needs differ depending on their subject, wholesale assessment of students
using the same criteria is not possible. Students would also be less likely to perceive
the assessment as a test in which they are required to do well and therefore would not
be demoralised if high scores were not achieved. If a self-assessment approach was
adopted, there would also be less incentive for a sample students to lie about their
abilities because there would be no reward for doing so. A wider choice of
assessment methods would be accessible because those methods that are difficult to
administer on a mass scale, such as problem-based assignments, would become
options. Sampling also removes concerns about achieving assessment of the entire
first-year population and therefore would be much easier to distribute. It is a more
realistic approach as the likelihood of achieving one hundred per cent coverage of the
first-year student population is low unless a university-wide scheme is implemented
and enforced. As long as the sample is representative the results would still be
generalisable and could be used to inform information literacy training. Sampling,
either across the student body or particular modules or courses, is an option that has
precedent in the literature (Caravello et al, 2001; Hepworth, 1999; Brown, 1999;
Greer et al, 1991; Maughn, 2001). In fact sampling was the more popular option of
the literature covered in Chapter Two. There is, however, evidence of universities
assessing entire year groups (De Montfort University, 2001) which indicates this
approach could be possible.
116
The only disadvantage to sampling that was mentioned, is that the results
would not benefit each student individually and indicate which courses they would
find it useful to take. As indicated earlier, at Cardiff University, at the moment there
is not a selection of courses for information literacy provided on a unilateral basis for
students to attend voluntarily and the skills they require are very different. Thus,
streaming would not be purposeful unless it was done on a localised basis. Given the
current situation it would seem likely that the results of the assessment would more
likely serve to inform information literacy training and to encourage departments to
offer their students more training rather than to stream. If this is the case then this
disadvantage of sampling is not such a concern. Thus assessing a sample of students
may be a more appealing approach because it is simpler to administer than a whole
year-group assessment. However, if it is the intention to conduct a diagnostic
assessment for streaming purposes this method would be completely unsuitable.
The option of administering the assessment online was also mentioned by
respondents. This has been identified in the literature as a method that is easy to
administer, mark and analyse (Caravello et al, 2001; Cribb and Woodall, 1997;
Samson, 2000; Badger and Roberts, 2001). This method would ensure a wide
coverage if sampling was considered unsuitable but would also work for a sample
because groups could be gathered in a room with computers to complete the
assessment. This would be suitable for self-assessment and a test because students
would just have to complete the answers and submit the assessment. However, it
would be unsuitable for a problem-based approach as students would be limited to
using electronic resources because, as was indicated in Chapter Four, it is expected
that first-years will use less electronic resources than print. It also requires students
to be computer literate which may not be the case with some incoming first-years
thus reducing the coverage and accessibility of the assessment. Disadvantages have
also been indicated in the literature that assessment online can only assess lower
order skills (Webber and Johnston).
To summarise, it has been found that there are a number of methods and time
periods in which the information literacy abilities of incoming students could be
assessed, all of which have their advantages and disadvantages. The findings, thus
indicate that it depends on the intention of Cardiff University regarding the results of
117
the assessment as to which methods would the most suitable. It has been suggested
that wholesale assessment of the entire first-year student body may be difficult given
that the findings of this study indicate that they need different skills. It has also been
pointed out that this will require university wide co-operation. As a result of this it
can be said that conducting the assessment with a sample of students from each
department would be the most simplistic method to implement. The results of an
assessment of a sample of students would still serve to inform information literacy
training. Sampling also means that a wider range of assessment methods are
available which is not the case for assessing on a mass scale. Regarding the timing
of the assessment, all the suggestions could be dismissed as unsuitable but the option
with the least amount of disadvantages is to accept that students will have received
some information literacy training and conduct the assessment during the first
semester, once they have settled-in. This will allow for the use of a problem-based
assessment approach, which has been suggested to be the most suited to assessing
information literacy, as the students will, by then, be more familiar with the libraries
and computer network. An assessment conducted at this time will also appear more
relevant to students’ work thus increasing their motivation to complete it. Finally, it
has also been suggested that, because reservations have been expressed by the
respondents and each assessment method has disadvantages, serious thought about
the value of conducting the exercise is required.
118
Chapter Seven
Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusion and recommendations
The first aim of this dissertation, to investigate the information literacy skills
needs of first-year undergraduates has been achieved. By conducting interviews with
17 respondents from pertinent stakeholder groups, it has been possible to identify
which of the SCONUL seven headline skills (SCONUL, 1999) they believe first-year
undergraduates require. A set of required skills has been established for first-year
students in each academic department in the sample. Due to the fact that, in some
cases, there were disagreements between the academic and non-academic
respondents answering on behalf of the same students, it has not been possible to
ascertain whether certain first-year students required some of the headline skills. It
has been noted that these differences in outlook between the respondents will need to
be resolved by mutual decision. This study has found that there are few uniform
expectations amongst the respondents regarding the SCONUL seven headline skills
(1999) required of first-years. Where there was agreement that a particular skill is
necessary, there was still variety in the competency or extent to which they are
expected to practise it. Thus, as a result of this investigation, it has been found that it
is not possible to recommend a generic set of information literacy skills for first-year
level students. Instead, the conclusion has been reached that the information literacy
skills first-year undergraduates require differ greatly depending upon the department
under which they study and the assignments they are required to complete.
This conclusion and the findings of the investigation will serve to inform
information literacy training at Cardiff University as well as any plans for conducting
assessments of first-year students information literacy skills. The findings may also
suggest to other higher education institutions, that offer a range of courses similar to
Cardiff University, that their first-year level students will too have different
information literacy requirements depending on their disciplines. From the findings
and the conclusions reached regarding this aim it is possible to make the following
recommendations:
119
• Information literacy skills outlines should be tailored to specific departments at
Cardiff University.
• Information literacy training programmes and assessments should be based on
the particular needs of first-year students in individual departments.
With respect to the second aim of this study, to investigate an appropriate
method for assessing the information literacy abilities of incoming undergraduates, a
range of suggestions was gathered regarding how and when it would be most suitable
to conduct the assessment. These all have their advantages and disadvantages. It has
been found that the academic respondents consider that sending an assessment out to
students before they start at the University is unsuitable because they are unsure of
who will enrol until they arrive to register. There is also too little time between the
students receiving their A’ Level results and beginning at the University. The non-
academic respondents generally pointed out that conducting the assessment early in
the first semester after the students have just arrived also has disadvantages. There is
not enough time in which to distribute the assessment and use the results to inform
the design of information literacy training programmes because teaching begins very
soon after the students arrive. To conduct the assessment at this time and on a mass
scale would require a university-wide arrangement and there is also the consideration
that students may not see the relevance of such a test so soon after their arrival. The
disadvantages of these methods may suggest that it is most appropriate to conduct the
assessment during the first semester, perhaps halfway through, when the incoming
students will have had time to settle-in. It is recognised that this may be unsuitable
for departments such as CLAWS who run core modules incorporating information
literacy skills during the first semester and that students will have already received
some training from library staff. However, conducting an assessment at this time
will be valuable as the results could be used to inform the design of training for the
remainder of the year. It is also more likely that the students will see the purpose and
relevance of doing the assessment than if it is conducted at an earlier point as they
will be better informed of the skills they will require during their first-year.
The results of this investigation have learned of two ways in which the
assessment could be conducted. The first is assessing the entire first-year student
120
body which would serve to inform each student of their abilities and for streaming.
In this case, the assessment criteria would need to reflect the differing information
literacy skills needs of first-years. However, reservations were expressed regarding
this option in that it may put pressure on the students who could perceive it as a test
in which they are required to score highly as part of their degree mark. For this
reason the second suggestion of assessing a sample of students is an attractive
alternative. It has also been found that conducting the assessment with a
generalisable sample of first-year students may be the most feasible method as this
allows for a wider range of assessment methods to be used and is simpler than
assessing the entire first-year student population. As a result of the conclusion that
students’ information literacy needs will differ, the sample should be drawn from
each department and assessed according to criteria that suit their different
requirements. The results would then serve to inform staff of the information
literacy training needs of the first-year students in their departments. Alternatively a
pilot study could be performed with a sample of students from one department in
order to see if the results of such an assessment would be of value to staff and the
students before conducting the assessment on a wider scale.
Self-assessment questionnaires, problem-based assignments and question and
answer tests were the main methods of assessment suggested, all of which have
advantages and disadvantages. Self-assessment questionnaires are subjective as they
rely on students providing an accurate and honest picture of their abilities but they
are easy to administer and, if the questions are carefully designed, they could be
effective in gaining an informative result. Question and answer tests and problem-
based assignments are less open to the bias that is problematic with self-assessment
but the former was considered, by respondents, to be too stressful and potentially
demoralising a method. The latter has been favoured in the literature as a method of
assessing information literacy because it can incorporate a wider range of the
abilities associated with information literacy and encourages learning about the
processes of retrieving information. It has been suggested that this method is more
appropriate for use with a sample as it is difficult to administer on a large scale.
The fact that there are advantages and disadvantages of all the suggestions
made by the respondents as to how an assessment could be carried out means that a
121
definitive method to be recommended has not been found. Thus, it can be concluded
that it will be necessary for Cardiff University to select the approach that most suits
their intentions for the results. However, based on the opinions of the respondents
and the literature, it is possible to recommend the least problematic approach that
could still achieve useful results, although it will not be suitable to stream students
using this method:
• The diagnostic assessment should be conducted during the first semester
• It should be conducted with a sample of students.
• It should consist of an assignment which requires students to solve problems
using the information literacy skills they have been found to need. A brief
example of this is that a series of problems could be posed requiring students to
seek the answers by locating and using appropriate information sources. The
students could then be asked to correctly cite and evaluate these sources.
This assessment could serve to inform both academic and non-academic staff
regarding students’ general information literacy abilities. These could then be
compared with the findings of this investigation regarding their information literacy
skills needs in order to identify areas in which the students particularly require
training.
Despite recommending a possible method that could be used and suggesting
the advantages of conducting the assessment it can be said, however, that these
findings have pointed out that there are disadvantages to all the suggestions as to
how the assessments could be conducted. Reservations have also been expressed by
some interviewees regarding the need for a diagnostic assessment which may
diminish the value of doing such an exercise. This information then may lead to the
alternative conclusion that efforts could be better spent improving and extending the
information literacy training that already occurs at Cardiff or implementing
information literacy policy.
122
Recommendations for future study
• Investigate the information literacy needs of first-years in other departments
at Cardiff University. This investigation could adopt the methods used in this
study or use the findings to design a questionnaire in order to establish a complete
set of information literacy requirements of first-years in all departments in the
University.
• Conduct an embedded case study of a small number of departments at
Cardiff University. This could build upon the findings of this investigation and
establish an in-depth picture of the information literacy skills needs of first-years
from the point of view of a wider range of respondents from similar subject areas.
• Investigate the information literacy skills needs of first-year students at
other universities. The same methodology could be used or a questionnaire
devised based on the findings of this investigation. The findings of an
investigation at another institution could be compared to the results of the
investigation conducted at Cardiff University.
• Investigate the information literacy skills needs of second and third year or
graduate students. This could either be continued at Cardiff University or
conducted at another institution. The investigation could use the methodology
and method adopted in this study or devise a questionnaire based on the findings
in order to discover the information literacy needs of other levels of university
student.
• Investigate the information literacy skills needs of members of other types of
institution. This could study the information literacy skills needs of stakeholders
in colleges, schools or different types of workplace.
Word Count: 35,999
123
Bibliography
American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy
(1989). Final Report. [Online]. http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/ilit1st.html [Accessed 9
May 2002].
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2000). Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Education. [online]. Chicago: Association of
College and Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html [Accessed 14 May
2002].
Astin, A.W. (1993). Assessment for Excellence: The philosophy and Practice of
Assessment and Evaluation in higher Education. Pheonix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
Badger, J. and Roberts, S. (2001). “Finite Questions and Infinite Answers: Online
Assessment of Information Literacy Skills”. In: Information Online 2001. [Online]
Proceedings of the 10th Information Online Exhibition and Conference. 16-18
January 2001, Sydney, Australia.
http://www.csu.edu.au/special/online2001/papers/information_literacy_strategiesc.html [Accessed
10 June 2002]
Banta, T.W., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E., Oblander, F.W. (1996). Assessment in
Practice: putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2001). “Training for information literacy: diverse
approaches”. In: Online Information 2001. Proceedings. 4-6 December 2001. pp.87-
90. Oxford: Learned Information.
Bell, J. (1999). Doing Your Research Project: a guide for first-time researchers in
education and social science. 3rd ed. Buckingham: Open University.
124
Bragan-Turner, D. (2000). “Evaluating effectiveness – Report on a workshop given
led by Hilary Johnson”. In: Corrall, S. & Hathaway, H. (eds) Seven Pillars of
Wisdom? Good Practice in Information Skills Development. Proceedings of a
conference held at the University of Warwick. 6-7 July 2000, Warwick, England. pp.
80-82. London: SCONUL.
Breivik, P.S. (1999). “Take II – Information literacy: revolution in education”. Reference Services Review, 27 (3), 271-275.
Brown, C..M. (1999). “Information literacy of physical science graduate students in
the information age”. College and Research Libraries, 60 (5), 426-38.
Bruce, C. (1995). “Information Literacy: How do university educators understand
this phenomenon?” In: Booker, D. (ed.) Learning for Life: Information Literacy and
the Autonomous Learner. Proceedings of the 2nd National Information Literacy
Conference. 30 Nov-1 Dec, 1995, Adelaide, Australia. pp. 78-87. University of
South Australia Library, Adelaide.
Bruce, C. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.
California State University Library, Pomona. (1999). Information Competence
Assessment: web-based assessment of university entry-level information competency
[online]. Pomona; California: California State University Library
http://www.csupomona.edu/~library/InfoComp/ [Accessed 2 may 2002].
Caravello, P.S., Herschman, J. and Mitchell, E. (2001). “Assessing the information
literacy of undergraduates: reports from the UCLA Library’s Information
Competencies Survey Project”. ACRL Tenth National Conference. March 15-18,
2001. pp. 193-202. Denver; Colorado.
Catts, R. (2000). “Some issues in assessing information literacy”. In: Bruce, C. and
Candy, P. (eds.). Information Literacy around the World: advances in programs and
research. pp. 271-283. Wagga Wagga: Charles Stuart University
125
Corrall, S. (2000). “Skills for the Future”. In: Corrall, S. & Hathaway, H. (eds) Seven
Pillars of Wisdom? Good Practice in Information Skills Development. Proceedings
of a conference held at the University of Warwick. 6-7 July 2000, Warwick,
England. pp. 80-82. SCONUL
Cribb, G. and Woodall, L. (1997). “Webbook for engineers: an interactive
information skills programme”. The New Review of Information Networking 3, 245-
253.
De Montfort University (2001). Improving your Learning: Introductory workbook to
key skills in Higher Education. Leicester: De Montfort University.
Dow, J and Geer, R. (1995). “Educating for information literacy”. In: Booker, D.
(ed.) Learning for Life: Information Literacy and the Autonomous Learner.
Proceedings of the 2nd National Information Literacy Conference. 30 Nov-1 Dec,
1995, Adelaide, Australia. pp. 120-127. University of South Australia Library,
Adelaide.
Doyle, C. (1994). Information Literacy in an Information Society: a concept for the
information age. Syracuse; New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and
Technology.
Gorman, G.E. and Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative Research for the Information
Professional: a practical handbook. London: Library Association.
Greer, A., Weston, L. and Alm, M. (1991) “Assessment of learning outcomes: a
measure of progress in library literacy”. College and Research Libraries, 52, (Nov),
549-557.
Hepworth, M. (1999). “A study of undergraduate information literacy skills: the
inclusion of information literacy and skills in the undergraduate curriculum”. In:
IFLA 1999 Bangkok [Online]. Proceedings of the 65th IFLA Council and General
Conference. 20-28 August 1999, Bangkok, Thailand. The Hague: International
126
Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/107-124e.htm [Accessed 1 March 2002].
Hepworth, M. (2000). “Approaches to providing information literacy training in
higher education: challenges for librarians”. New Review of Academic Librarianship,
6, 21-34.
Hill, C. (2000). “Improving Information Skills Programs Using Action Research”.
In: Booker, D (ed.) Concept, Challenge and Conundrum: from library skills to
information literacy. Proceedings of the 4th Information Literacy Conference. 3-5
December 1999, Adelaide: Australia. pp.139-146. University of South Australia
Library, Adelaide.
Indiana University Bloomington Libraries (1996). An Assessment Plan for
Information Literacy. Indiana Bloomington Libraries.
Johnson, H. (2001). “Information skills, information literacy”. Library Association
Record, 103 (12), 752-3.
Keats, D.M. (2000). Interviewing: a practical guide for students and professionals.
Buckingham: Open University.
Knight, P. (2001). A briefing on key concepts: Formative and Summative Criterion
and Norm Referenced Assessment. Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic
Centre. (LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series No. 7). LTSN Generic Centre,
York.
Kunkel, L.R., Weaver, S.M. and Cook, K.N. (1996). “What do they know?: An
assessment of undergraduate library skills”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22
(6), 430-4.
Lawson, M.D. (1999). “Assessment of a college freshman course in information
resources”. Library Review, 48 (2), 73-78.
127
Lupton, P. (1992). “Course design and delivery: librarians and teacher librarians
working with educators to maximise information literacy skills for students”. In:
Booker, D. (ed.) Information Literacy the Australian Agenda. Proceedings of a
conference conducted by the University of South Australia. 2-4 December, 1992,
Adelaide, Australia. pp.136-138. University of South Australia Library, Adelaide.
MacAdam, B. (1990). “Information literacy: models for the curriculum”. College
and Research Libraries News. 51 (10), 948-51.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
Maughn, P.D. (2001). “Assessing information literacy among undergraduates: a
discussion of the literature and the University of California Berkeley Assessment
experience”. College and Research Libraries, 62 (1), 71-85.
McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. Newbury Park; California: Sage.
Mellon, C.A. (1990). Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science. Wesport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Miller, A.H., Imrie, B.W. and Cox, K. (1998). Student Assessment in Higher
Education: a handbook for assessing performance. London: Kogan Page.
Murphy, R. (2001). A briefing on key skills in higher education. Learning and
Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. (LTSN Generic Centre Assessment
Series No. 5). LTSN Generic Centre, York.
O’Brien, J.P., Bressler, S.L., Ernis, J.F., Michael, M. (1996). “The sophomore Junior
Diagnostic Project”. In: Banta, T.W., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E., Oblander, F.W.
Assessment in Practice: putting principles to work on college campuses. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 89-99.
O’Hanlon, N. (2001). “Development, delivery and outcomes of a distance course for
new college students”. Library Trends, 50 (1), 8-27.
128
Pausch, L.M. and Popp, M.P. (1997). “Assessment of information literacy: lessons
from the higher education assessment movement”. In: ACRL 1997 National
Conference Papers. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries
[online]. http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/d30.html [Accessed 9 May 2002].
Peacock, J. (2002). “The QUT Information Literacy Framework & Syllabus:
Walking the talk”. In: Lifelong Learning Conference 2002: Building Learning
Communities Through Education [Online]. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference. 16-19 June, 2002, Yeppoon: Queensland, Australia. Central Queensland
University, Queensland. http://www.library.cqu.edu.au/conference/ [Accessed 25 July 2002]
Plotnick, E. (1999). Information Literacy. ERIC Digest. Syracuse; New York: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology [online].
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed427777.html [Accessed 2 May 2002].
Rader, H.B. (1995). “Information literacy and the undergraduate curriculum”.
Library Trends. 44 (2), 270-278.
Ren, W.H. (2000). “Library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic
information searching”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23 (5), 323-328.
Samson, S. (2000). “What and when do they know? Web-based assessment”.
Reference Services Review, 28 (4), 335-342.
SCONUL (1999). Information Skills in Higher Education: A SCONUL Position
Paper [online]. SCONUL. http://www.Sconul.ac.uk/publications/99104/Revl.doc [Accessed
14 may 2002].
Smalley, T.N. (2000). Do Students Actually Become Better Researchers through
Information Literacy Instruction Supported by Class Sessions in the Library?
Assessing Learner Outcomes in a Lower Division Anthropology Course [online].
Cabrillo College. http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~+smalley/assessing.pdf [Accessed 2 may
2002].
129
Snavely, L. and Cooper, N. (1997). “The information literacy debate”. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 23 (1), 9-14.
Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B. and Lowe, C.A. (1998). Information Literacy:
essential skills for the information age. Syracuse University, Syracuse; New York:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
Town, J.S. (2000). “Wisdom or Welfare? The Seven Pillars Model”. In: Corrall, S. &
Hathaway, H. (eds) Seven Pillars of Wisdom? Good Practice in Information Skills
Development. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Warwick. 6-7
July 2000, Warwick, England. pp. 80-82. SCONUL.
Webber, S. (2001). “Myths and opportunities”. Library Association Record, 103 (9),
548-9.
Webber, S. and Johnston, B. “Assessment for information literacy: a challenge for
lifelong learning”. Unpublished paper.
Weetman, J. (2002). “”It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it” – evaluating
information skills through formal assessment”. In: Impact, Relevance and Quality
Evaluating Information Skills Training. Presentation given at University, Colleges
and Research Group meeting. 16 January 2002. De Montfort University, Leicester.
Williams, J.L. (2000). “Creativity in assessment of library instruction”. Reference
Services Review, 28 (4), 323-334.
130
Appendices
131
Appendix One
ACADEMIC STAFF INTERVIEW SHEET
Part one 1) What kinds of assignment are first-year undergraduates set which require them to
locate information resources?
2) Are first-year undergraduates expected to realise their own need for information or
are they told when they need to locate information?
3) In what ways are they expected to use the information they find in assignments?
e.g. Bibliography
Evidence
4) How are first-year undergraduates expected to locate appropriate information for
their course?
e.g. From reading lists alone or other sources as well
5) What types of print resource do you expect first-year undergraduates to use during
their course?
e.g. Text books
monographs
journals
newspapers
6) What types of electronic resource do you expect first-year undergraduates to use
during their course?
e.g. Online bibliographic indexes
Gateways
Portals
Websites
E journals
E books
132
7) Are they expected to use particular searching techniques when using electronic
resources? If yes, what are they?
e.g. Boolean
relevance ranking
selecting keywords
8) Are they expected to have knowledge of the principles of constructing and
generating databases in order to better improve their searching ability?
9) Are there any non-print and non-electronic information resources first year
undergraduates are expected to use? If yes, what are they?
e.g. experts
organisations
10) What computer applications should they be able to use?
e.g. Electronic mailer
Internet browser
Microsoft Office software
Bibliographic software such as EndNote
11) What consideration do you expect first-year undergraduates to take when
comparing and evaluating sources?
e.g. Bias
Authority
That the content is appropriate to the information need
That the source is appropriate to the information need
12) What are they expected to know about the moral and legal issues surrounding
information?
e.g. copyright
plagiarism
13) Are they expected to have knowledge of the peer-review process?
133
14) Is presentation taken into consideration when students’ work is marked? If yes
are they required to present work according to a standard set by the department?
15) Do you expect first-year undergraduates to be able to cite bibliographic
references in assignments according to a recognised standard? If yes, which
standard?
16) Are they expected to maintain current awareness of their subject?
If yes, in what ways are they expected to do this?
17) Are first-year undergraduates expected to synthesize and build upon existing
information in order to create new knowledge?
Part Two 18) Regarding the issues we have discussed above, what does your department
contribute to ensuring that first-year undergraduates have the abilities and knowledge
that they require?
19) Are they expected to learn these skills from any other departments?
e.g. INFOS
20) When is it most suitable to assess the information literacy abilities of incoming
undergraduates before they receive any training?
21) Please suggest some appropriate methods of carrying out this assessment?
22) Is there anything you would like to add?
134
Appendix Two
NON-ACADEMIC STAFF INTERVIEW SHEET
Part One 1) Are first-year undergraduates expected to realise their own need for information or
are they told when they need to locate information?
2) How are first-year undergraduates expected to locate appropriate information for
their course?
e.g. From reading lists alone or other sources as well
3) What types of print resource do you expect first-year undergraduates to use during
their course?
e.g. Text books
monographs
journals
newspapers
4) What types of electronic resource do you expect first-year undergraduates to use
during their course?
e.g. Online bibliographic indexes
Gateways
Portals
Websites
E journals
E books
5) Are they expected to use particular searching techniques when using electronic
resources? If yes, what are they?
e.g. Boolean
relevance ranking
selecting keywords
135
6) Are they expected to have knowledge of the principles of constructing and
generating databases in order to better improve their searching ability?
7) Are there any non-print and non-electronic information resources first year
undergraduates are expected to use? If yes, what are they?
e.g. experts
organisations
8) What computer applications should they be able to use?
e.g. Electronic mailer
Internet browser
Microsoft Office software
Bibliographic software such as EndNote
9) What consideration do you expect first-year undergraduates to take when
comparing and evaluating sources?
e.g. Bias
Authority
That the content is appropriate to the information need
That the source is appropriate to the information need
10) What are they expected to know about the moral and legal issues surrounding
information?
e.g. copyright
plagiarism
11) Are they expected to have knowledge of the peer-review process?
12) Do you expect first-year undergraduates to be able to cite bibliographic
references in assignments according to a recognised standard? If yes, which
standard?
13) Are they expected to maintain current awareness of their subject?
If yes, in what ways are they expected to do this?
136
14) Are first-year undergraduates expected to synthesize and build upon existing
information in order to create new knowledge?
Part Two 15) What does this Library/AREG/DYSX contribute to the information literacy abilities of first-year undergraduates?
16) When do you think it is most suitable to assess the information literacy abilities
of incoming undergraduates before they receive any training?
17) Please suggest some appropriate methods of carrying out this assessment?
18) Is there anything you would like to add?
137
![AN INVESTIGATION INTO QUERIES SUBMITTED TO THE EUROPEANA …dagda.shef.ac.uk/dispub/dissertations/2011-12/External/SilveyE.pdf · (Europeana, [2012?]d), excluding the top-ranked Text](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5f63e4a8a0990e0224047a06/an-investigation-into-queries-submitted-to-the-europeana-dagdashefacukdispubdissertations2011-12external.jpg)
