Bridging the Gap: Mediating Student-Professor Research Expectations

Meg RavenCoordinator of Public ServicesMount Saint Vincent University Library

Workshop for Instruction in Library Use38th Annual ConferenceMontreal, 25 May 2009

The Experience:

Academic librarians hear it all the time from faculty: “my students won’t look beyond Google for sources;” “they copy indiscriminately without citing;” “they complain about reading anything longer than a screen.”

The lament is different from students: “I don’t understand why I can’t use Google or Wikipedia;” “what’s the big deal about copying - everyone does it;” “I just don’t understand this long journal article - it’s written for an expert in the field, not me.”

Outline:

Background Data results Differing research expectations What role can we play Questions and comments

The broad questions:

Students:What do they expect of the university

research process? Faculty:

What do they expect of 1st year students in terms of research?

Librarians:If we can better understand these

expectations are there things we can do to help students and faculty better understand each others’ research expectations, and enhance IL learning?

Method:

Surveyed approximately 350 students in eight 1st year classes on the first day of class in Sept. 2008

Classes surveyed: Business English History Psychology Sociology/Anthropology

Surveyed 200 faculty online; 75 responses Ability to compare:

students & faculty 1st year students with those in other years

Demographics:

Mount Saint Vincent University Located in Halifax, NS Approximately 4800 students, primarily

undergrad Local students: 75% from NS 80% female student body

Demographics . . . con’t

Students surveyed: 80% female 95% full-time 71% first-year; 14% second-year 76% age 20 or less; 15% age 21-

25 All disciplines represented 58% are working

38% 11-20 hrs/wk 50% 21+ hrs/wk

Faculty surveyed: All disciplines represented Teaching experience:

10% 0-5 yrs 45% 6-15 yrs 45% 16+ yrs

Students’ online experiences and habits

Students’ access to information and communication technologies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Desktop Laptop HS Int Modem WirelessInt

Cell Text PDA IPOD Game

Per

cen

tag

e

Time students’ spent online during the last year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-3 hrs 4-7 hrs 8-11 hrs 12-15 hrs 16+ hrs

Hours per week spent online e.g., general web browsing, Facebook, e-mail, gaming, etc.

Per

cen

tag

e

Student and faculty rating of students’ general internet searching skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Execellent Good Average Poor Terrible

Students

Faculty

Per

cen

tag

e

Who students believe has the best internet searching skills

0

10

20

30

40

50

IT professionals Librarians Students Profs

Per

cen

tag

e

Students’ use of Google and databases for research in high school

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Always Most Some Rare Never Not sure

Google

DatabasesPer

cen

tag

e

Research and Reading Expectations

1st year students’ preparedness to do university level research

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Veryprepared

Somewhatprepared

Not sure Not veryprepared

Not at allprepared

Students

Faculty

Per

cen

tag

e

Ratings of 1st year students’ academic research skills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Excellent Good Average Not very good Terrible

Students

FacultyPer

cen

tag

e

Who is most responsible for 1st year students’ learning how to do research

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Student Professors Librarians Other

Students

FacultyPer

cen

tag

e

1st year students’ reading experiences during the last year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-3 hrs 4-7 hrs 8-11 hrs 12-15 hrs 16+ hrs

Hours per week spent reading during the last year.

Per

cen

tag

e

1st year students’ reading expectations

0

10

20

30

40

50

0-3 hrs 4-7 hrs 8-11 hrs 12-15 hrs 16+ hrs

■ Students’ Actual Reading: low levels of reading experiences in past year.

■ Students’ Expected Reading: expect to read more in forthcoming year.

■ Faculty Expectations for Students Reading: significantly greater than what students plan on.

Per

cen

tag

e

Time to research a 10 page paper/assignment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1-3hrs 3-5hrs 5-7hrs 7-9hrs 10+hrs

Students

Faculty

Per

cen

tag

e

Getting help: who will students go to, and to whom do faculty want them to go, for research assistance?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Profs Librarian StudentServices

Classmate Friends Family

Students

Faculty

Per

cen

tag

e

Research sources

Using Google to locate research material: student and faculty expectations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

■ Amount of research material 1st year students expect to find using Google

(i.e., 30% of students expect to use Google to find 61-80% of their research material)

■ Amount of research material faculty want students to find using Google

(i.e., 63% of faculty want students to use Google to find 0-20% of their research material)

■ Amount of research material faculty believe students will find using Google

(i.e., 60% of faculty believe that students expect to use Google to find 81-100% of their research material)

Per

cen

tag

e

How students rank the importance ofsources for a research assignment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Textbook Web Book Article

Per

cen

tag

e

Most common academic research sources

Students’ top 10 resources:1. Books: MSVU Library

2. Google

3. Newspapers

4. Encyclopedias

5. Library web site

6. Books: public library

7. Online newspapers

8. Magazines

9. OPAC (Novanet)

10. Scholarly web sites

Professors’ top 10 resources:1. Journals

2. Library web site

3. Books: MSVU Library

4. OPAC (Novanet)

5. Databases

6. E-journals

7. Books: other universities

8. Scholarly web sites

9. Google

10. Experts

How did other sources rate?

Source Students Faculty

Wikipedia 64% 28%

Films 58% 20%

General, popular web sites 40% 11%

Art 31% 14%

Music 30% 10%

Blogs 13% 9%

Podcasts 13% 9%

YouTube 12% 7%

RSS feeds 9% 7%

Summary of variation in research expectations

Research expectations: the differences

Students

Research expectation Faculty

Yes Students prepared to do university-level research

No

Less Student most responsibility for student learning

Yes

Yes Good academic research skills No

Yes Good internet skills No

Yes Google, Wikipedia Less

Less Reading More

Less Research time More

Yes Research help: friends & family OK No

Yes Newspapers, encyclopedias, magazines, public library

No

No Databases, e-journals, other universities’ resources

Yes

No Journals Yes

Research expectations: similarities

Students

Research expectation Faculty

Yes Expect to use traditional print sources: books Yes

No Use Google “all the time” No

No Use new e-sources: RSS, Blogs, etc No

Yes Research help: Professors and librarians Yes

Yes Plagiarism penalties Yes

A research profile of students:

Students are: working at jobs for many hours/week; well-connected technologically and spend a lot of time online; believe they have better online skills than their professors and

as a result, they likely believe their professors have little to teach them in this area;

confident and believe they have the necessary research skills, but at the same time are looking for guidance and structure in their research experience;

wanting to use electronic sources, but may be identifying traditional print sources as alternatives because they think that’s what we want them to use;

not experienced with, nor do they have a desire to use, journals;

expecting results without expending a lot of time (on reading or researching);

expecting to stay in their comfort zone by relying on friends and family for help;

not changing their research expectations as they advance through their programs.

So what does all this mean and where does it leave us?

This is not just about IL:

There are cultural and generational differences: Students arrive at university today believing they are prepared to

do research – faculty believe otherwise. This, combined with students’ over-confidence in their technical and research ability creates teaching and learning challenges.

Faculty often approach student research in one of the following ways:

students know nothing and need to be taught research from scratch; or

students arrive at university needing to be “re-programmed”; or

students will just “pick-up” research on their own Faculty will use their own research experiences and habits as the

standard for their expectations’ of students. Faculty who teach about research are often frustrated with

student research outcomes because outdated faculty methods (e.g., linear research templates) are not effective with contemporary students.

Bridging the gap: the librarians’ role mediating student-faculty research expectations

Things librarians should undertake with students (and model for faculty):

Remind students that we do not expect them to know how to do scholarly research when they arrive at university.

Validate students’ past research experiences in positive ways; it’s their foundation.

Encourage dialogue about students’ own experiences and expectations. Give positive feedback when appropriate sources are used.

Reinforce academic expectations around research time; we should discuss our own experiences and expectations.

Discuss reading and its importance in the academy. Ask more questions: encourage students to clearly describe

what is required of a research assignment: not what they want to do, but what they’ve been asked to do.

Bridging the gap . . . con’t

Remind faculty that:

Students may be over confident about their research skills and not ask for help.

Students will likely be looking to them for explicit research instructions. If they don’t provide it, students will turn to less reliable sources: friends and family.

More senior students do not necessarily know more about academic research. Research instruction should be ongoing.

Students often think it takes less time to do research than may be necessary.

Students will be reading less than is likely necessary to grasp a subject in depth. Seek out alternate media.

E-sources must be part of the research equation.

Bridging the gap . . . con’t

The hard things we should be discussing with faculty:

Faculty should not use their own research experiences as a template for student research.

1st year students don’t need to be researching or writing term papers.

Scholarly journals are appropriate sources for senior and grad students.

Students are drowning in information: give them more direction on appropriate sources.

Embrace Google and newer technological tools like RSS feeds, Pod Casts, You Tube as part of the research equation.

Librarians can not inoculate students against poor research: some components of IL need to be integrated into every course.

Bridging the gap . . . con’t

Yes to ACRL IL Standards, curriculum integration, credit courses, enhanced teaching about the complexity of the internet and organization of information, etc.

But librarians must also recognize that: Disparate research expectations must be identified and

discussed with faculty and students. We can’t play on both sides of the fence. It can be difficult work because:

we need to challenge ourselves to go beyond teaching IL and embrace the whole teaching experience;

we often feel caught in the middle with no perceived power to intervene;

we will often have to challenge both student and faculty misconceptions about the others’ research experience and expectations;

but, it can be some of the most rewarding work we do.

Selective references

Carranza, C. (1999). Listen to what students say. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 16(1), 81.

Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5 (3), 405-420. doi:10.1353/pla.2005.0034

Gibbons, Susan. (2007). The academic library and the net gen student: making the connections. Chicago: American Library Association.

Gullikson, S. (2006). Faculty perceptions of ACRL's information literacy competency standards for higher education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 583. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.001

Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students' expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3 (5). Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info

McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think- exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 573-582. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.002

Michel, S. (2001). What do they really think? assessing student and faculty perspectives of a web-based tutorial to library research. College & Research Libraries, 62(4), 317-332.

Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Jamali, H. R. (2007). Diversity in the information seeking behaviour of the virtual scholar: institutional comparisons. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33 (6), 629-638. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.001

Reyes, V. (2006). The future role of the academic librarians in higher education. Portal : Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 301-309. doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0043

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P. Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T. and Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60 (4), 290-310. doi:10.1108/00012530810887953

To read or not to read: a question of national consequence. 2007. Office of Research & Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.arts.gov

Whitmere, E. (2001). A Longitudinal study of undergraduates’ academic library experiences. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (5), 379–385. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00223-3

Williamson, K., Bernath, V., Wright, S., & Sullivan, J. (2007). Research students in the electronic age: Impacts of changing information behavior on information literacy needs. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2), 47-63. Retrieved from http://www.comminfolit.org