a needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in university...

Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please

cite the published version when available.

Downloaded 2012-09-20T18:36:57Z

Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.

Title A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research: a case study in University College Dublin

Author(s) Patterson, Avril

PublicationDate 2009-03-31

This item'srecord/moreinformation

http://hdl.handle.net/10197/2779

http://researchrepository.ucd.ie

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/

NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR INFORMATION

LITERACY PROVISION FOR RESEARCH:

A CASE STUDY IN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE DUBLIN

LILAC 2009

Avril Patterson, University College Dublin

[email protected]

LILAC 2009

Outline

• Introduction

• Case Study

• Methodology

• Findings

Avril Patterson LILAC 2009

• Findings

• Analysis

• Recommendations

Background

• National Development Plan 2007-2013

• Government aim – double PhD output by 2013


• Restructuring of Graduate / PhD training

• Fourth Level Ireland

University College Dublin – James Joyce

Library

University College Dublin

• Largest of Ireland’s 7 universities

• Academic restructuring 2004/05

- 5 Colleges ; 35 Schools

• 2,000 Research students


• 2,000 Research students

• Structured PhD programme 2006

• Research and Professional Development Plans

(RPDPs) introduced 2007

• IL implicit rather than explicit in Irish

Universities Association’s skills statement

• Students’ IL level or needs unknown to IL

providers

Challenges to Information Literacy (IL)

Provision


• Risk of over-rated evaluation through self

assessment

• Focus of IL in HE is on undergraduate needs

Research Objectives

• Clearly identify target audience & its needs

• Provide a base line from which resource

requirements can be determined


requirements can be determined

• Inform design of relevant programmes

Research Questions

• What are the IL competencies of incoming research students?

• Are there different requirements for different disciplines?

• Are they predicated by student profile?


• Are they predicated by student profile?

• Do current programmes meet requirements?

• How can this study inform future development?

Case Study

• Literature Review

• Research-Practice gap


• Multi-faceted research tool facilitated by

Evidence Based Librarianship & Information

Practice (EBLIP)

EBLIP

• “promotes the integration of user-reported,

practitioner-observed and research-derived

evidence as an explicit basis for decision

making” (Booth, 2006)


making” (Booth, 2006)

Case Study’s Limitations

EBLIP process truncated –

Implementation tasks outside scope

- Application

- Performance evaluation


- Performance evaluation

Methodology

• Survey Questionnaire

• Information Behaviour Observation


• Focus Group

Survey Questionnaire

• Built on published research in the field

• Four components:

– Personal profile

– Self assessment


– Self assessment

– Diagnostic tool

– Free text

• Online administration

• Purposive sampling

IL Assessment

Adaptation of two published assessment tools:

• Checklist used at Loughborough University

(Stubbings & Franklin, 2005) – self assessment


(Stubbings & Franklin, 2005) – self assessment

based on confidence levels

• London Metropolitan University’s Applied

Information Research (AIR) programme

(Andretta, 2005) – diagnostic test

Information Behaviour Observation

• Theoretical framework - Kuhlthau’s Information

Search Process (ISP)

• Identification of “zone of intervention”


• Identification of “zone of intervention”

• Non participative observation in IL workshops

IL Workshop

Focus Group

Purpose: to elicit response to current IL

programmes

Themes :

• Format


• Format

• Content

• Delivery

• Logistics (location, dates, times)

• Other

Research Findings

• Survey Questionnaire

– Personal Profiles

– Previous Library Induction

– Self Assessment

– Diagnostic Questionnaire


– Diagnostic Questionnaire

• Information Behaviour Observation

• Focus Group Findings

Programme

Programme

14%

8%


78%

PhD

Research Masters

Others

Postgraduate Status

88% 93%77%

12% 7%23%

20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Part time

Full time


0%10%20%

All r

espo

ndan

ts

PhD

Res

earc

h M

aste

rs

Gender

Gender


55%

45% Female

Male

Age

Age

5580

100

120

Total


31

2016 15

2

24

24

14

3

21

44

30

18

4

0

20

40

60

<25 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

Total

Male

Female

Postgraduate Profile

• Irish graduates 72%

• Previous postgraduate qualification 56%

– Of this 65% achieved in Ireland


– Of this 65% achieved in Ireland

• English not first language 22%

Previous Library Instruction

• Experienced by 62%

• Library tours and presentations most common

• 16% had engaged in interactive workshops

• Online tutorials used by 10%


• Online tutorials used by 10%

• Integrated and timetabled for 17%

• Credit bearing for 7%

Self Assessment

Questions ranged from basic to complex

Included :

• Resource selection

• Information retrieval


• Information retrieval

• Information management

• Ethical use

Findings – Self Assessment

• Marked difference in confidence levels of PhD

and Research Masters students

• Previous postgraduate experience did not

equate with higher confidence levels


• Gender a significant variable

• Age also significant

• In general, discipline not significant, but further

investigation is required.

Findings – Information Selection &

Retrieval

• Use of catalogue to find books

• Finding reference material

• Locating journal articles

• Selection of appropriate databases

Confident


• Selection of appropriate databases

• Identifying existing research

• Search strategies

• Use of citation indexes

Not confident

Locating Theses

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Co

nfi

den

ce

No Familiarity

Not Confident

Fairly Confident


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

PhD Research Masters Other

Programme

Confident

Findings – Information Environment

• Lack of awareness of “invisible colleges”

• High confidence levels in use of internet and

search engines

• Lower confidence rates in use of subject


• Lower confidence rates in use of subject

gateways

• Lack of familiarity in setting up alerts to keep

current

Findings – Information Handling & Use

• High confidence levels in ethical use and

avoidance of plagiarism

• Confidence in saving/exporting/e-mailing

references


• Confidence in creating a bibliography

• Low confidence levels in use of bibliographic

management tools

Diagnostic Questionnaire

Multiple choice questions

• Searching skills


• Evaluation skills

• Referencing skills

Findings - Diagnostic Questionnaire

• Some lack of knowledge in how internet worked

• Lack of knowledge of Boolean operators (31%)

• Lack of knowledge of interlibrary loan services

(36%)


(36%)

• Lack of knowledge of subject portals (40%)

• High expectations of access to e-journals (47%)

• Some difficulty in referencing skills

Preferred method of IL provision

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%C

on

fid

ence

Other

Information skills integrated in course work

Interactive workshops covering specific resources / skills

Presentations throughout the year


0%

10%

20%

30%

Full-time Part-time Other

Progamme

Library tours on demand

More printed guides to the library

More web based information

Findings – Information Behaviour

Observation

Concept of building a search strategy

underdeveloped. Areas of difficulty:

• Identification and conceptualisation of search


• Identification and conceptualisation of search

terms

• Use of synonyms

• Boolean operators

Findings – Information Behaviour

Observation (Continued)

• Generic search skills did not transfer

• Unfamiliarity with library terms


• Need for assistance in establishing criteria for

database selection observed

Model of the Information Search Process

Carol Collier Kuhlthau Information Search Process Rutgers University

Tasks Initiation Selection Exploration Formulation Collection Presentation————————————————————————————————————————————→Feelings uncertainly optimism confusion/ clarity sense of satisfaction or(affective) frustration/ direction/ disappointment

doubt confidence

Thoughts vague———————————————→focused(cognitive) ————————————————→

increased interest

Actions seeking relevant information——————————-→seeking pertinent information(physical) exploring documenting

Findings – Focus Group

• Postgraduate research cohort not homogeneous

with a standard IL

• Varying levels an issue in workshops

• Suggested problem based approach centred on


• Suggested problem based approach centred on

student’s own research useful

• Workshop descriptors and learning outcomes

should be clearly articulated

Findings - Focus Group (Continued)

• Less coverage could result in greater confidence

• Discipline specific approach favoured

• Link with Schools’ Research modules desirable

• Underestimation of complexity of e-resources


• Underestimation of complexity of e-resources

• Assumption of abilities

Comparative Analysis

Research Student Needs Analysis Survey (RSNA),

University of Leeds, 2005-2006 (Newton, 2007)

• Lack of confidence in tracing research


• Lack of confidence in tracing research

• Low confidence in finding theses

• Use of Boolean operators

• Use of bibliographic management tools

Summary of Analysis

• Identified gap between IL levels sufficient for

taught courses and for research

• Need for attention in formulation of search

strategies


• Variation in level of IL acumen

• Consistent difference in findings between

Research Masters & PhD students

• ICT/IL relationship

Recommendations for practice

• Ensure “top down” approach to IL provision

• Ensure disciplinary variation is understood

• Adopt theory of adult learning

• Use literature review process


• Use literature review process

• If possible allow students to use their own

research for interactive work

• Include concepts of ISP model

Recommendations for practice

(Continued)

• Develop longitudinal evaluation processes

• Keep current


• Offer what is feasible and sustainable

• Seek possible funding for research and support

Objectives Achieved

• Established research students’ perceptions of

their IL

• Identified areas where guidance and

intervention could benefit


• Highlighted importance of collaboration

• Alignment from taught programmes to research

recognised

Next Steps

Complete EBLIP framework, i.e.

• Apply the results


• Evaluate performance

• Explore further possible domain differences

References

• Andretta, S. (2005) Information Literacy: a

practitioner’s guide. Oxford : Chandos.

• Booth, A. (2006) “Counting what counts:

performance measurement and evidence-based

practice” Performance Measurement and


practice” Performance Measurement and

Metrics, 7 (2) : 63-74

• Kuhlthau, C. C. “Model of the Information Search

Process”

(http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/recent_

presentations/isic/isic_presentation.ppt)

References

• Newton, A. (2007) “Reaching out to research

students: information literacy in context”. In

Connor, Elizabeth (ed.) Evidence-based

Librarianship: Case studies and active

learning exercises. Oxford : Chandos, pp. 119-


learning exercises. Oxford : Chandos, pp. 119-

140.

• Stubbings, R., Franklin, G. (2005) “More to life

than google – a journey for PhD students”.

Journal of eLiteracy, 2 : 93-103

To conclude :

“Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject

ourselves, or we know where we can find

information upon it”


Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

a needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in university...

Education